ellauri096.html on line 126: In 1961 Henry Kyburg pointed out that this policy conflicted with a principle of agglomeration: If you rationally believe p
ellauri096.html on line 127: and rationally believe q then you rationally believe both p and q. Little pictures of the same scene should sum to a bigger picture of the same scene. If rational belief can be based on an acceptance rule that only requires a high probability, there will be rational belief in a contradiction! You believe of each ticket it loses, and you believe that one of them wins.
ellauri096.html on line 138: Very elegant! But if joint inconsistency is rationally tolerable, why do these philosophers bother to offer solutions? Why is it not rational to believe each of (1)–(4), despite their joint inconsistency?
ellauri096.html on line 144: The resemblance between the preface paradox and the surprise test paradox becomes more visible through an intermediate case. The preface of Siddhartha Mukherjee’s The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer warns: “In cases where there was no prior public knowledge, or when interviewees requested privacy, I have used a false name, and deliberately confounded identities to make it difficult to track.” Those who refuse consent to be lied to are free to close Doctor Mukherjee’s chronicle. But nearly all readers think the physician’s trade-off between lies and new information is acceptable. They rationally anticipate being rationally misled. Nevertheless, these readers learn much about the history of cancer. Similarly, students who are warned that they will receive a surprise test rationally expect to be rationally misled about the day of the test. The prospect of being misled does not lead them to drop the course.
ellauri096.html on line 163: Epistemic paradoxes affect decision theory because rational choices are based on beliefs and desires. If the agent cannot form a rational belief, it is difficult to interpret his behavior as a choice. The purpose of attributing beliefs and desires is to set up practical syllogisms that make sense of actions as means to ends. Subtracting rationality from the agent makes framework useless. Given this commitment to charitable interpretation, there is no possibility of your rationally choosing an option that you believe to be inferior. So if you choose, you cannot really believe you were operating as an anti-expert, that is, someone whose opinions on a topic are reliably wrong (Egan and Elga 2005).
ellauri096.html on line 289: Some people wear T-shirts with Question Authority! written on them. Questioning authority is generally regarded as a matter of individual discretion. The surprise test paradox shows that it is sometimes mandatory. The student is rationally required to doubt the teacher’s announcement even though the teacher has not given any evidence of being unreliable. Indeed, the student can foresee that their change of mind opens a new opportunity for surprise.
ellauri106.html on line 543: ... Her parents (Clairen kai) were simple people in the grips of a pipe dream that they could not begin to articulate or rationally defend but for which they were zealously willing to sacrifice friends, relatives, business, the good will of neighbors, even their own sanity, even their children’s sanity....
ellauri162.html on line 826: Scienceblogs appears to have a problem keeping and attracting talented writers. According to PZ Myers, Scienceblogs has "been facing a steady erosion of talent". In 2010, the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker wrote a quite pointed and accurate criticism of PZ Myers Pharyngula blog indicating that PZ Myers' blog posts often lack substance. Pharyngula is widely acclaimed in the liberal media due to its embrace of evolutionary pseudoscience which liberals irrationally embrace (see: Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality). Myers' blog is also listed by the science journal Nature, which also embraces evolutionary pseudoscience, as the best blog by a scientist. Pharyngula is known for its sarcastic and often specious criticism of creation science and intelligent design theory, as well as regular postings of photos of cephalopods (often with vulgarly sexual connotations both subtle and blatant). As Singer said, sexual organs are the best indicators of the soul.
ellauri183.html on line 168: In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard follows Kant in emphasising that Abraham's decision is morally repugnant and rationally unintelligible. However, he also shows that one consequence of Kant's view is that, if nothing is higher than human reason, then belief in God becomes dispensable. Unlike both Kant and Luther, Kierkegaard does not promote a particular judgment about Abraham, but rather presenz his readers with a dilemma: either Abraham is no better than a murderer, and there are no grounds for admiring him; or moral duties do not constitute the highest claim on the human being. Fear and Trembling does not resolve this dilemma, and perhaps for a religious person there is no entirely satisfactory way of resolving it.
ellauri185.html on line 345: could rationally consent.
ellauri185.html on line 361: principles whose being universal laws everyone could rationally
ellauri185.html on line 371: Sis mitä? Sääntö 1 on ihan mitäänsanomaton, selittäkääpä tarkemmin -tyyppiä. Toi epäilyttävä "rationally" tarkoittaa ettei toisilta oikeasti kysytä. Säännön 2 "merely" on aika paha hedge: thaipuolisot ym. ihmiskauppa, palkkaorjuus, nollasopimus ja yxinyrittäminen pujahtaa siitä kivasti läpitte. Sääntö 3 on ihan vetämätön. Yhden onni on toisen onnettomuus eikä kaikilla ole kivaa ikinä. Sääntö 4 kuulostaa enempi Tolstoin Lexalta! Kukaan ole mistään vastuussa, syntipukkeja ei pidä eziä eikä niitä rangaista niin että niille tulee paha mieli siitä. Vai onxe joku epäsuora todistus metaversumi-jälkipelin tarpeesta? Sääntö 5 on se Kantin vanha paska maximi. Jos maximit on noin löperöitä, voi yhtä hyvin olla käyttämättä mitään maximia. Parhaiten niistä kuitenkin toimii se konekivääri. Kyllä Lexa ja Calvin Cohn sentään nää sepustuxet päihittävät.
xxx/ellauri168.html on line 276: And here is where dissociation comes in. We know empirically from DID that consciousness can give rise to many operationally distinct centers of concurrent experience, each with its own personality and sense of identity. Therefore, if something analogous to DID happens at a universal level, the one universal consciousness could, as a result, give rise to many alters with private inner lives like yours and ours. As such, we may all be alters—dissociated personalities—of universal consciousness! God is schizophrenic, and you and me are His split personalities! Well he does strike readers of the "good book" as somewhat paranoid.
13