If I’m understanding empiricism correctly, rationalists value truth because it allows them to properly function in their world. I’m confused. Is a rationalist’s success more important than the truth which gives them success?
Rifle scopes do not help help snipers shoot guns. They help snipers know where to aim to hit a target. If the military cut all funding for scopes, it’s still physically possible to perform all the actions that would have been chosen had they had the equipment. It’s even physically possible to shoot more accurately by firing unaimed shots than by firing aimed shots.
However, that would be a stupid idea. It’s stupid because the odds are not better for a random shot than for an aimed shot.
Likewise, rationalists want to win, to hit the target. Sometimes we reason that for an individual shot, it feels like we would do better by not aiming. We check our reasoning over and over, but the output is “It is slightly better to not aim than aim here, this is an exception to the usual rule.” In such cases, we aimanyway.
One problem with trying to believe false things is that those things can corrupt other beliefs and areas of study where we need truth and can’t afford to be wrong. We can do better by relentlessly seeking truth, even when it seems like it would somewhat be better not to know.
Opinions may differ for cases where it seems extremely important to avoid the truth.
In short, we seek truth not for its own sake, but to win, and still seek it when it seems falsehood would probably better help us win, because that seeming is unreliable and usually wrong.
Likewise for killing people to accomplish a goal, they are analogous.
If I’m understanding empiricism correctly, rationalists value truth because it allows them to properly function in their world. I’m confused. Is a rationalist’s success more important than the truth which gives them success?
Rifle scopes do not help help snipers shoot guns. They help snipers know where to aim to hit a target. If the military cut all funding for scopes, it’s still physically possible to perform all the actions that would have been chosen had they had the equipment. It’s even physically possible to shoot more accurately by firing unaimed shots than by firing aimed shots.
However, that would be a stupid idea. It’s stupid because the odds are not better for a random shot than for an aimed shot.
Likewise, rationalists want to win, to hit the target. Sometimes we reason that for an individual shot, it feels like we would do better by not aiming. We check our reasoning over and over, but the output is “It is slightly better to not aim than aim here, this is an exception to the usual rule.” In such cases, we aim anyway.
One problem with trying to believe false things is that those things can corrupt other beliefs and areas of study where we need truth and can’t afford to be wrong. We can do better by relentlessly seeking truth, even when it seems like it would somewhat be better not to know.
Opinions may differ for cases where it seems extremely important to avoid the truth.
In short, we seek truth not for its own sake, but to win, and still seek it when it seems falsehood would probably better help us win, because that seeming is unreliable and usually wrong.
Likewise for killing people to accomplish a goal, they are analogous.
I say “we” but in truth only speak for myself.
Thank you! I think I have a better understanding of rationality now.