Your definition appears indefensible to me—that isn’t a useful definition of what rationality is. I’m surprised that you are bothering to defend it.
“Your definition appears indefensible to me—that isn’t a useful definition of what rationality is. ”
It both conveys what the generally-recognized meaning is, and describes a very useful concept that is fundamental to all sorts of processes.
I can only conclude that I don’t understand what you mean by ‘useful’, and I see no benefit to learning what you men.
I disagree—but having now read some more of your messages, I can see that there is no point in discussing the issue further.
In what way is the definition not useful? What are you trying to use it for?
Your surprise seems to add little to my understanding of your comment.
I said it all the first time really—there seems no need to explain the problem again.
Your definition appears indefensible to me—that isn’t a useful definition of what rationality is. I’m surprised that you are bothering to defend it.
“Your definition appears indefensible to me—that isn’t a useful definition of what rationality is. ”
It both conveys what the generally-recognized meaning is, and describes a very useful concept that is fundamental to all sorts of processes.
I can only conclude that I don’t understand what you mean by ‘useful’, and I see no benefit to learning what you men.
I disagree—but having now read some more of your messages, I can see that there is no point in discussing the issue further.
In what way is the definition not useful? What are you trying to use it for?
Your surprise seems to add little to my understanding of your comment.
I said it all the first time really—there seems no need to explain the problem again.