trc@houca.UUCP (10/29/83)
Response to Monty Estis on Mr. R I think I understand what the point of your example is now. The crux of your difficulty seems to be the idea that reality must be subjective, because we do not seem to be able to fully grasp it (or describe it). A good way to sum it up is "how can rational people be *certain* of anything?". Thus your comments about "is the universe REALLY infinite" and about Newtonian mechanics being shown to be an incomplete explanation of the universe. Our ideas, correct or incorrect, do not affect whether the universe really is infinite, or not describable by Newtonian mechanics. They merely indicate the degree of our knowledge about what that reality is. The fact that we do not know something doesnt affect reality. Nor does it mean that we cannot know anything - merely that we may have to examine reality more closely in some circumstances. One can easily say "that wall exists and is solid", and be certain of it. When one starts going for more precision, one finds that, in fact, that wall has a lot of empty space between its elementary particles. Does that mean that it is no longer solid? Or does it just mean that we over-extended the concept of "solid" beyond what we knew by our senses (the wall feels unyielding), to what we could not know (that solid matter is infinitely subdividable into further solid chunks). Thus, in the case of the Flakeville residents, they and Mr. R have different ideas about what the reality is. They cannot both be correct. If they are rational, they will all agree upon this latter fact. This will prompt them to go back and re-examine the reality (search for signs of damage) again. They will point out the evidence that they think proves their case, and the other side will say "I didnt see that" or "I saw that, but I know that that was caused by this other thing - and here's how I know". And as for the definition being operational - as the participants in this case examine the claimed evidence of the others, it will become readily apparent whether the other side is reality-oriented, or is trying to evade reality. The key phrase of my definition was "Rationality is the state or process of using that faculty [reason] *fully* to accept (hold) and use concepts that represent things in reality." I think that this makes it "operational" by your meaning. Tom Craver houca!trc