[net.philosophy] Mr. R and Conflict

gandalf@hogpd.UUCP (10/27/83)

By operational definition of rational, I mean one by which person A can
use the definition to determine with certainty if person B is rational
(or behaving rationally). A definition which can be applied to measure
the degree, size, amount, etc. of something.

My evidence that Tom Craver's definition of reality is not operational 
is that it is not sufficient (as far as I can see) for
the people of Flakeville to determine if Mr. Rational is indeed being 
rational. I agree that reality is the final arbitrator when rational
people have conflicting evidence, but how the hell do you determine
what reality is? The wall is real (at least for me) because if I hit my
head against it, my head hurts (maybe I should stop doing that).  However,
is the universe REALLY infinite? Newtonian mechanics would be real to
any rational person in the 1800s since all evidence supported it. Only
problem is it's wrong. So with out a way to determine reality, rational
people can have contradictory evidence, and hence take conflicting courses
of action, without a means to resolve the conflict (at least in a reasonable 
amount of time).

Monty Estis
hogpd!gandalf