Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houca!trc
From: trc@houca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Mr. Rational
Message-ID: <414@houca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Oct-83 17:16:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: houca.414
Posted: Wed Oct 26 17:16:08 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Oct-83 02:08:45 EDT
Organization: American Bell, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 24

Response to Monty Estis on rationality:

You make two claims - that my "definition of rationality is not operational
enough to work with" and that it "does not resolve the problem of 
conflicting rationalities".  So far as I can tell, you did not provide
any support for the former - nor any explanation of what you mean by
"operational enough".  As I understand that term, I disagree.  I am not 
too clear on what you *essentially* mean by "conflicting rationalities"
either.  I have interpreted below to just mean "two rational people in
conflict".

The example you presented (generalized to ignore the specifics) seems to 
be one of conflicting evidence which brings rational people into conflict. 
In cases of conflicting evidence, there is a final arbiter - reality.  The 
persons in conflict should compare their evidence, find any contradictions,
and look to reality to resolve them.  Either damage was done, or it wasnt -
it cannot be both.  If Mr. Rational really is rational, and if the government
is being rational, they will be able to come to an agreement on the facts.  
If the government is being irrational (under public pressure from Flakeville),
then Mr. Rational is in a bad situation - as is any citizen of that country,
since the government has a monopoly on the right to use retaliatory force.

	Tom Craver
	houca!trc