forceOfHabit
Aug 22, 2017 · 2 min read

“…it might not be the case that beliefs enhance survival value “exactly” as they correspond to reality.”

Granted. But we still need a different word than “rational” to describe such beliefs.

“…but the point is that the old definition was incoherent anyway. Truth is unknowable…”

The old definition had issues (Liar’s Paradox, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem) but it was far from incoherent. The rules for deduction in axiomatic systems made determining the truth or falsity of a huge number of statements in those axiomatic systems not just knowable but well defined and indisputable. How effectively you could use those axiomatic systems to describe the real world was never perfect, but math and physics have provided us with very useful approximations to reality over a wide range of circumstances. This is the province of traditionally defined rationality.

If you want to argue that there are many and important questions that rationality (Aristotelian logic, the scientific method) is woefully inadequate to address, I will certainly agree. If you want to argue that in practice, the acquisition (and indeed the definition) of (even scientific) knowledge is not / has not been / can never be entirley rational, I will agree. If you want to argue that beliefs that lead to survival are more important than beliefs that correspond to reality, we can have that debate. But in order to discuss it cogently, we still need a word other than “rational” to describe “beliefs that enhance survival”.

“Shifting the definition of “rationality” towards enhancing survival rather than the usual definition of mathematical consistency and truth…” isn’t “provocative” it’s obfuscation. “Rationality” is a long standinge, reasonably well defined, and well respected term. I get it that Taleb has a different way of evaluating the best (most survival enhancing) way to compare beliefs, and I get that he would like to borrow some of the respect and acceptance accorded to the description “rational” by “shifting the definition” towards his preferred perspective, but that is simple sophistry. He should define his own term and let it stand or fall on its own merits.

)
    forceOfHabit

    Written by

    In time of flood, the well is never deep enough.