Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: ity vs izing
Message-ID: <466@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Nov-83 15:17:27 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.466
Posted: Thu Nov  3 15:17:27 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Nov-83 19:43:03 EST
References: <1370@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M, Toronto, Canada
Lines: 21

For once I partially agree with Tom Craver about something! He hit
the nail on the head about the difference between rationality and
rationalizing. One rationalizes when one considers logically the
reasons behind a decision already made (I don't agree with Tom that
it need be a wrong decision); one decides rationally when the logical
argument is used in order to make a decision.

I remain unconvinced that rational decisions are necessarily better than
intuitive ones, or even that ANYONE can make a truly rational decision
on a matter of substance. After all, everyone agrees that Newtonian
mechanics is a pretty good representation of how planetary bodies
interact gravitationally, but how many people can solve even the
interactions among three point masses analytically? If such a simple
system is insoluble, how much further from solubility must be the
interactions among three people!

(In respect of my last note, it may have seemed that I was criticizing
Tom personally for not providing rational arguments on specific issues;
I intended only to say what I put more clearly(?) in the last paragraph.)

Martin Taylor