You use an invalid argument to argue for a correct conclusion. It doesn’t generally follow that something that can’t be improved is not worth “worrying about”, at least in the sense of being a useful piece of knowledge to pay attention to.
What do you mean? Whose irrationality? Isn’t it more straightforward (it’s there among the ‘virtues of rationality’ no?) to just not call things ‘rational’ if they do not involve thinking?
It’s a definitional dispute, mostly caused by my original failure to specific that I meant mental processes in this comment.
It’s all irrelevant to my point, which is a self-contained criticism of a particular argument you’ve made in this comment and doesn’t depend on the purpose of that argument.
(Your quoting someone else’s writing without clarification, in a reply to my comment, is unnecessarily confusing...)
You use an invalid argument to argue for a correct conclusion. It doesn’t generally follow that something that can’t be improved is not worth “worrying about”, at least in the sense of being a useful piece of knowledge to pay attention to.
It’s a definitional dispute, mostly caused by my original failure to specific that I meant mental processes in this comment.
It’s all irrelevant to my point, which is a self-contained criticism of a particular argument you’ve made in this comment and doesn’t depend on the purpose of that argument.
(Your quoting someone else’s writing without clarification, in a reply to my comment, is unnecessarily confusing...)