trc@houca.UUCP (10/27/83)
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
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/28/83)
I don't know whether my first article got there or not, but here is one along the same vein. You took the original article and used it to demonstrate the problem one has with a pwerful state that is given (or takes) the right to use force to make people acceed to its wishes. This is not the problem I see. The problems I have are more of the form: My mother's birthday is coming up, and my brother and I would like to buy her an expensive present -- a stereo. We want to get really neat stuff, and we are going to share the costs. Now here is the problem. I want to buy a Tandberg and my brother wants to buy a Nak. Okay? Simple problem. I have stated my reasons for wanting brand X and he has stated his reasons for wanting brand Y. I don't think that his reasons are sufficient and he doesn't think that mine are. We have tested them both. We still don't agree. BUT We are going to have to make a decision soon because we had better have a birthday present and that date is fixed. And we are not going to choke, force or kill each other over this either. But what are we going to do? Some of the subjective reasons for preferring brand X (but I prefer what you call YUCKY SILVER COLOUR) are not likely to go down as the most rational of arguments, but I have to make these sorts of decisions as well. Getting other people's opinions will not do much good either, i expect, because no matter how many people like YUCKY SILVER it will still be YUCKY SILVER to me. Now, we have a way to decide such things. We play one serious game of something, and winner-take-all. These days it is likely to be pool. We will play one table of pool, and the winner will select. This is likely to be too bad for me, because these days Dave is a much better pool player than I. Now this is a workable solution. However, I do not think that it is rational. There is no relationship between pool-playing ability and tape-deck judging ability as far as either of us know. it is just the traditional way to settle disputes. it is the traditional way because it works. No doubt other people have their own traditional ways. Flipping a coin, or asking your father might work for other people -- all I can say is that it didn't work for us in the past. So would this solution classify as rational? Note: DO NOT SEND ME TAPE DECK REVEIWS! This birthday situation is NOT HAPPENING NOW. I INVENTED IT. (However, we had to settle questions of a similar sort that way in the past, so this is very plausible.) And what would be a rational solution, if this is not one? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura