Is it possible for a belief to be false that is arrived at through rational means?

Question

Likewise, is it possible for an irrational belief to be true?

What are some hypothetical examples?

Answer 1

It is possible for the first of these hypothetical questions to be true based on the physical evidence that is used in the arguments. If that evidence is later found to be faulty, then the rationally arrived at conclusion could be faulty.

The possibility of the second being correct is a bit more convoluted. The irrationality of the belief, based on available evidence, continues until better evidence is brought forward. At that point, the irrationality would disappear because a rational explanation would be available. Therefore, no irrational belief is ever true, but evidence may arise that allows for rational acceptance of the belief, not acceptance of the irrationality.

On either basis, the quality of the evidence holds the key to acceptability of the conclusion, not just the logical progression of argument.

Example of rational belief proved false: I have been told that John is wearing red underwear by his life-partner Dave. I know that they live together and get dressed together, and so believe that he knows the color of John's underwear. However, I was unaware that John had taken a shower after work and changed clothes, putting on blue underwear. The rational trust of a figure deemed authoritative was misplaced in this circumstance, and the conclusion was erroneous.

Example of irrational belief later proved true: I believe that no gay men wear underwear. My basis for this is that I saw one man that I thought was gay put his pants on without underwear at my gym. This is a gross overgeneralization based on scant evidence and a totally illogical conclusion. But when I found out that John is gay, I assumed he does not wear underwear. However, unbeknownst to me, John has forgotten his fresh underwear today, and when he finished his shower at the gym, he dressed without putting on his sweaty old underwear, so for a rational reason, my assumption about John turns out to be true.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

Rational is not the same as logical. Anything derived by the application of logic as being true must be demonstrably true providing that the data used is accurate. Also logically, anything irrational cannot be true.
The real problem is that to prove a belief we have to assume as true some data which is unverifiable and carries a probability of being false. The evolution / creation argument is a classic example. If we try to prove logically that evolution is the mechanism by which the earth was populated but have to factor into that logical framework that the Bible creation story is literally true we find that evolution has to be false. If we recognize a possibility that the creation story is not literally true we can come up with true as an answer. If we assign a probability to the literal truth of the Bible and to all the other factors we consider we will arrive at a probability for the truth of evolution.

Answer 3

Both are possible, if incorrect data is used. For example, Newtonian mechanics was arrived at through rational means based on the data available at the time, but it was not until 250 years later that experimental results showed that it was wrong. And it is always possible that an irrational belief (such as in the existence of God) could be correct, even though there is no evidence nor logical path leading to such a conclusion.

Answer 4

These are real life examples .. not hypothetical ones:

One of the best examples of an irrational true belief is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, where we have 3 divine persons in one God.

No one has ever been able to properly explain how this works, but because God has revealed it, and God doesn't lie, than it must be true.

A good example of an irrational false belief would be the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, or belief only in what can be found explicitly written in scripture.

This is irrational, because the rule cannot be found anywhere in scripture, so it goes against itself.

It is clearly false, because no one in authority, most especially Jesus or the apostles, ever made such a rule, and God is not an irrational being.

Answer 5

Certainly, if the rational belief is based on faulty data or observation. The "scientists" of the early Renaissance believed that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat because they observed the maggots growing out of it with no appaent cause. Only later did they learn to control the test conditions.

Similarly, the truth can be hit upon by irrational means, either due to sheer luck or by intuiting an obvious idea from common experience.

Answer 6

yes.
if you arrive at the rational belief that, based upon your family history, your health and your wholesome lifestyle, that you will live to the ripe old age of 85.....
and you die of a sudden heart attach at age 29,
your rational belief has been proven false.
if you establish the irrational belief that there is a God (to many, many people that is an irrational belief because there is no proof of God to most) and you die, the appearance of your soul before the Living God will prove your irrational belief true.
the second example is not hypothetical.

Answer 7

yes itis possable to do the right thing for the wrong reason,
the mind is a strange thing
remember it is of two parts ,the rational and the dreamer [immagination] the gullible and the thinker
logic accumilates fact and the other the hunce or thought emotive
we have the faith and the logic ,
what are egsamples
gwb thought to use logic [facts] to do the right [dream]
the dream was faulse thus the facts used to proove the dream proved faulse as well
it is either all true or its faulse
one single faulsity the whole concept is faulse.

Answer 8

If you take rational to mean logical, then no to both answers.

A logical belief follows the form that if A is true, and B is true, then C must be true. If A and B are true then C must also be true. If A or B are untrue, the belief (C) is not true.

Answer 9

Of course. In computer science, we call that "garbage in, garbage out". If your premises and data are flawed, your conclusion will be at least (usually more) flawed. In other words, logic doesn't correct bad data, it explodes it.

However, if your premises are correct, you can still arrive at false conclusions using inductive or abductive reasoning. Neither of those standards of reason guarantee that they'll always produce perfect results -- they've just the best you've got if you don't have enough deductive evidence.

Hypothetical: You see nothing but red cars. You assume all cars are *probably* red. As long as you insert the word probably, you've committed no fallacy, but you are still wrong.

Answer 10

Yes! When you look at the sun, through a safety glass, you know that you are seeing the sun.
Not true, you are seeing where the sun was 8 minutes ago.
Try this one: When your clock radio goes off in the morning, you look at the clock and it reads 8:15 a. m. At that very instant the announcer on the radio tells you it is 8:20 a.m.
Who or what are you going to believe, your eyes or your ears?