I have never liked the “rat” nickname. I’m not a filthy rodent. I’ve never heard the term “rationalish” before now.
I’ve always resisted using the term “rationalism”. I feel like “-ism” is a misstep into politics (and already the name of the 17th-century anti-empericists). We practice “epistemic rationality” and “instrumental rationality”, together, “rationality”, not “rationalism”.
So is your discomfort with having a name for the community/movement/field/whatever? With a particular process by which it’s determined? With a particular choice of name? With a sense of identity attached to the information and practice?
I object to others calling me names. (That I don’t approve of, yes.) Ad hominem is a Dark Art. Even if the name isn’t exactly an insult, it can still put you in a box you maybe shouldn’t be in. It can bias how others see you, or how you see yourself, once internalized. I want to keep my identity small, because identity is one of those things that can bias thinking in unhealthy ways.
I object to your name-calling being the price of entry to a tribe that I already feel that I belong to. Names are boundaries. They can exclude as well as include. If part of the tribe objects to the name, but part accepts it, that’s a schism. Schisms aren’t categorically bad, but I think this one would make the tribe weaker.
I object to having the same name for the community/movement/field/whatever. They should each have different names. You seem to think they’re all the same thing. They’re not.
In another comment here, you said:
So is your discomfort with having a name for the community/movement/field/whatever? With a particular process by which it’s determined? With a particular choice of name? With a sense of identity attached to the information and practice?
I object to others calling me names. (That I don’t approve of, yes.) Ad hominem is a Dark Art. Even if the name isn’t exactly an insult, it can still put you in a box you maybe shouldn’t be in. It can bias how others see you, or how you see yourself, once internalized. I want to keep my identity small, because identity is one of those things that can bias thinking in unhealthy ways.
I object to your name-calling being the price of entry to a tribe that I already feel that I belong to. Names are boundaries. They can exclude as well as include. If part of the tribe objects to the name, but part accepts it, that’s a schism. Schisms aren’t categorically bad, but I think this one would make the tribe weaker.
I object to having the same name for the community/movement/field/whatever. They should each have different names. You seem to think they’re all the same thing. They’re not.