I’m trying to observe what people are using “rational” to mean. I agree with you that an argument can be rational even if the premises are false, as long as they are not known to be false by the arguer.
I’d be more comfortable with leaving the “are not known to be false by the arguer”. In this context, where we are evaluating an argument as rational, it’s simpler to leave off subjective states of the arguer. That saves all sorts of messy complications regarding motive and uncertainty. Making a rational argument from premises that are known to
I’m trying to observe what people are using “rational” to mean. I agree with you that an argument can be rational even if the premises are false, as long as they are not known to be false by the arguer.
I’d be more comfortable with leaving the “are not known to be false by the arguer”. In this context, where we are evaluating an argument as rational, it’s simpler to leave off subjective states of the arguer. That saves all sorts of messy complications regarding motive and uncertainty. Making a rational argument from premises that are known to