For some reason I haven't been able to reply to this thread for a few days. Firstly, Topher: I do understand what Strafio is saying. When I used the word "irrational" before, I was using it in the way that he is using "a-rational". There seem to be two ways in which you might say that religion is not irrational (in the sense that rationality would lead you to reject it). "Religious people do not mean that there is an objective God that exists in an objective reality, when they talk about God"; "when religious people decide what to believe, they do not consider correspondence with reality to be important and instead base their decisions on other factors". Both of these are obviously false applied to your run-of-the-mill religious nut.
Okay. That's a bit confusing given that a-rational (or non-rational) is to denote something that is neither rational or irrational.
Well only if we are starting with your definition of irrational. You are using irrational to denote something that contradicts rationality. I was using it to denote something that simply is not rational.
There's no different in those two statements. To say something contradicts rationality is to say it is not rational. I'm defining irrationality as 'not rational'. A-rational is not to say something is not rational; it is to say something is not in the category of being assessed as rational or irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle If it isn't rational, then it must be not rational.
To be merged with 'rational, irrational and arational' Right, which is irrationality. Not rational=irrational. A-rational=/=not rational. A-rational is anything which cannot be defined as being rational or irrational.
What you're saying makes no sense. Can something that is a-rational be rational? No. By the law of excluded middle it must be not rational. By irrational I mean not rational. There is no way that you can misunderstand what I've said or come to the conclusion that I'm wrong if you think about it.
A-rational is NEITHER rational or irrational. You're erroneously conflating 'a-rational' with 'not rational'. To say something is not rational is NOT to say it is a-rational, rather it is to say it is irrational. Not rational and irrational mean exactly the same thing. You're right that by the law of excluded middle something is either rational or not rational (i.e. irrational), but this only applies to things which can be evaluated as either rational or irrational in the first place. A belief is either rational or irrational. Whereas a cup, for example, is a-rational. It makes to sense to say a cup is rational or irrational, thus is would be something that is a-rational. Rationality, irrationality, and a-rational are three distinct categories.
I don't know how you can misunderstand this, but I'll state it as clearly as possible. The law of the excluded middle is universal. It does not just apply to certain things. When you say 'irrational', you do NOT mean 'not rational'. Instead you mean 'contradicts rationality'. Note that something can be 'not rational' without contradicting rationality. When you say "irrational" (as in 'contradicts irrationality') = 'not rational', you are misusing the word 'not', which is precisely defined. When I say 'irrational', I actually do mean "not rational". By the law of excluded middle, something is either rational, or not rational. There is no way around that. Your use of "irrational" is different from "not rational", so by your use of "irrational" it is possible for something to be not rational and not irrational. This is not possible with my usage of the word "irrational".
No, it isn't. A misuse of the law of excluded middle is called the 'fallacy of the excluded middle', otherwise known as a false dichotomy. Your statement only applies to the category or class of things which rational or irrational apply to. But consider this question: Is a football rational or irrational? It's neither (i.e. a-rational). It is a category error to even ask the question! Not rational, contradicts rationality and irrational ALL mean the same thing! They are all terms to denote something not being in accordance with rationality. That something must of course be within the class of things that can be subjected to the evaluation being rational or irrational (such as a belief), otherwise, you make a category error by asking the question. Asking whether water is 'rational' makes no sense at all. Water in of itself is in a different category thus water would be a-rational. (You can of course evaluate the belief that "water is _______" as being rational or irrational). Give an example. This is the complete opposite of what I've been saying! I am defining 'irrational' and 'not rational' in EXACTLY the same way. Here is how I am defining the terms: Rational means not irrational. Irrational means not rational. A-rational means not rational AND not irrational.
You're completely wrong. If you can't see that after I've explained it to you, that is your fault. There is no point in continuing the argument, because I've already shown beyond any doubt that I'm right. If you still can't see that, just keep re-reading the posts until it makes sense.
Well I've just demonstrated to you that your argument is nothing more than a category error and a false dichotomy fallacy. Give me an example of something that "can be 'not rational' without contradicting rationality." A-rational is anything that is not in the category of being rational or irrational. Edit... I'll add that you haven't even understood what I am saying! You previous post was the complete opposite of how I was using the terms.
Ok. Let me demonstrate how what you're saying doesn't even begin to make sense. Irrational = not rational A-rational = not rational AND not irrational A-rational = not rational AND not (not rational) A-rational = not rational AND rational. That doesn't make sense. The fallacy of the excluded middle is not an example of a faulure of the law of excluded middle. It is when something appears to be an example of the law of the excluded middle, but in fact is of a different form. My argument is clearly a valid use of the law of the excluded middle. If we consider all the things that are rational. What is 'not rational', is, by definition, everything else. So football would be 'not rational' and, thus, irrational (depending on exactly what you're asking about football). The worst thing is, it's you that hasn't understood what you're saying. An example of something that could be 'not rational' without contradicting rationality would be the decision to wear a blue jumper today. There is no logical reason for it, but there is no logical reason not to do it either. It is simply an irrational decision (using irrational to mean "not rational"), OR you might say it was not a rational decision. According to you, it is an a-rational decision (perhaps), but that is because you actually mean "contradicting rationality" by "irrational", instead of "not rational"(=everything other than what is rational).
How on earth do you not understand this. What is the above gymnastics even meant to mean. How on earth did you get from "A-rational = not rational AND not irrational" to "A-rational = not rational AND rational"? Anyway... Things within the class of being rational or irrational (such as beliefs) are either rational or irrational. But there are things outside of this class and it is a category error to say they are rational or irrational. Which is what I said: if you misuse (fail to use correctly) the law of excluded middle then you are presenting something as being either/or when in fact there are more options. You absolutely right that something is either rational or irrational within the class of things that are either rational or irrational. But outside of that class the dichotomy of rational/irrational does not apply. The opposite of rational would be irrational. Both terms (rational/not rational; irrational/not irrational) or can only be applied to things within the class of things that are either rational or irrational. And this is a category error. Saying football is irrational is like saying yellow is heavy. Absurd. I'm not asking anything about football other than whether it is rational. That decision could be rational within context. If you're going to a party where you have to wear something blue, then it would be rational to wear something blue. No, I don't mean 'contradicting rationality' by irrational. By irrational/not rational I mean anything which is not in accordance with rationality. But it is an error to put things in this category which do not belong in it.
We seem to be making things complex. Here is the essence of what I am saying: Rational (or not irrational) and irrational (or not rational) apply to all the things within the class of reason. Arational, or nonrational, apply to all the things that are not within the class of reason.
It's quite ironic that the person who spends the most time asking for logical arguments cannot recognize, understand or accept one when he sees one. This is not 'gymnastics'; this is logic. Your definitions lead to a contradiction. They are not coherent. You claim Irrational =not rational. You claim A-rational = not rational AND not irrational. If it is true that irrational is the same as 'not rational', then your second point can be written as a-rational = not rational AND not (not rational), by substituting irrational for "not rational", which mean the same thing by your definition. not (not rational), is the same thing as rational. Therefore your second definition can also be written as a-rational = not rational AND rational. Your definitions are therefore incoherent as they lead to a contradiction. That is not how the law works. You can't just pick or choose when to use the law of the excluded middle. It ALWAYS applies. Forget this whole "class" nonsense. Big mistake. You've confused the contradiction for the opposite. No it isn't. It is equivalent to saying that yellow isn't heavy. Which is obviously true. A colour can't be heavy. Yes, but we have not precisely defined rational, so it is not easy to say whether or not something is rational. Using certain definitions of rationality, but that somewhat misses the point. Look at what question I was actually answering. Football isn't in accordance with rationality. Nothing to do with football accords to rationality. Yet you wouldn't say that football is irrational, because you've got your definitions all mixed up.
Substituting irrational for "not rational" doesn't give you "not not rational." You've just added on an extra 'not'. Anyway... I clarified what I am saying in my previous post: Rational (or not irrational) and irrational (or not rational) apply to all the things within the class of reason. Arational, or nonrational, apply to all the things that are not within the class of reason. Arational is NEITHER rational or irrational. Arational is in a different category to rational/irrational. That's still a category error. Colours and weights are different categories. So obviously if something has nothing to do with reason, you can't apply indicators of reason to it: rational or irrational. Think it through! You can only say it is arational or nonrational; not to do with reason.
Do you actually understand what a category error is? You seem to be very confused. A category error is when you attribute a property to something which, by its very nature, cannot possibly have that property. It makes no sense to say that denying that something has a particular property is a category error, unless it must have that property for some reason. To do this would would break the law of the excluded middle, which is another thing you seem to have misunderstood. No I haven't. Look again. It's basic logic. This whole business with "the class of reason" is nonsense. In fact, what I said you were saying at the beginning is what you're trying to say, you just still don't realise it. You think something being irrational means that it is other that what the rational alternative would be; that it contradicts reason. You might say that things that reason comments on are in the "class of reason", but that is unneccesary complication. What I've been saying from the beginning is enough. What I'm saying is that I was using the word irrational not only to refer to what contradicts reason, but to refer to everything other than what reason suggests. For instance, "Mozart is better than Beethoven" is an opinion that reason cannot support, but it also cannot contradict. That statement is not rational. It is irrational using my definition and a-rational but not irrational according to yours.
I wouldn't say contracts reason. I would say irrational is when someone makes no attempt to use reason. If someone contradicts reason, but has genuinely attempted to use reason, then they're not irrational, they've just made an error. Why is it unnecessary to recognise categories? They are fundamental. If something has nothing to do with reason, then you can't say it is irrational or rational, but virtue of the fact it has nothing to do with reason. Those two terms are indicators of whether something is rational or not. You can only say something is not rational/irrational if there isn't any attempt to employ reason. Well then you're misusing the word irrational (or at least using it is a warped way). You've rendered it so that anything that is not rational, either through not applying reason, or having nothing to do with reason, is irrational. Under your use of the term you can say "my keyboard is irrational", or "the weather is irrational" which is quite frankly nonsense.
That is because you are using a different definition of irrational, which I pointed out ages ago. I'm using a specific, clearly defined, definition of irrational. I do not think it is incorrect. Is that not how you defined it yourself? But yes, of course I have. I said that ages ago. I've said it hundreds of times. It isn't nonsense. It has a clearly defined meaning.
