more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 6950

[filed under theme 2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 1. On Reason ]

Full Idea

Rationality doesn't require consistency, because you can be rational despite undetected inconsistencies in beliefs, and it isn't always rational to respond to a discovery of inconsistency by dropping everything in favour of eliminating that inconsistency.

Gist of Idea

You can be rational with undetected or minor inconsistencies

Source

Gilbert Harman (Rationality [1995], 1.2)

Book Ref

Harman,Gilbert: 'Reasoning Meaning and Mind' [OUP 1999], p.22


A Reaction

This strikes me as being correct, and is (I am beginning to realise) a vital contribution made to our understanding by pragmatism. European thinking has been too keen on logic as the model of good reasoning.


The 6 ideas from 'Rationality'

You can be rational with undetected or minor inconsistencies [Harman]
Ordinary rationality is conservative, starting from where your beliefs currently are [Harman]
Induction is 'defeasible', since additional information can invalidate it [Harman]
All reasoning is inductive, and deduction only concerns implication [Harman]
A coherent conceptual scheme contains best explanations of most of your beliefs [Harman]
Enumerative induction is inference to the best explanation [Harman]