more on this theme | more from this thinker
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.
6950 | You can be rational with undetected or minor inconsistencies [Harman] |
6951 | Ordinary rationality is conservative, starting from where your beliefs currently are [Harman] |
6952 | Induction is 'defeasible', since additional information can invalidate it [Harman] |
6953 | All reasoning is inductive, and deduction only concerns implication [Harman] |
6954 | A coherent conceptual scheme contains best explanations of most of your beliefs [Harman] |
6955 | Enumerative induction is inference to the best explanation [Harman] |