But isn’t this all self-defeating? If the post-rationalist is right, then they are just one part of the dyadic conflict between themselves and rationalists. So from an outsider’s perspective, neither is more correct than the other, anymore than any conflict between a group with set of values {X} is more correct than the group if set of values {Y} from the perspective of the post-rationalist. From the rationalists perspective, any attempt by the post-rationalist to defend their position will either be outside the bounds of rationality, and therefore be pointless, or it will be within the bounds of rationality, and therefore be self-contradictory, because it uses reason to argue against reason. You can’t use reason at all if reason is invalid in the case that you are concerned with. But if reason is valid in the case in which you are concerned with, then the rationalist stance is the correct stance by definition. There doesn’t seem to be any way to justify the conversion of either the rationalist, or the outsider with no interest in the conflict to post-rationalism. I know that from a descriptive perspective, there are social processes that lead people to become post-rationalists. However, that tells us nothing about the merits of post-rationalism.
Sewblon
Karma: 1
I don’t understand the calculations used in the pascal’s mugging section. would you please provide some more examples where all the calculations are explicit?