Difference between revisions of "Arational"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by 76.169.178.32 (Talk) to last version by Woozle) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Overview== | |
| − | + | [[category:working definitions]]Something which is [[arational]] is not grounded in [[rationality]] but is not necessarily [[irrational]] i.e. going directly against [[rationality]]. It typically applies to beliefs in areas for which no firm rationality-based conclusions have been reached. | |
| + | ===Misuse=== | ||
| + | It is often used as a sort of "weasel concept" to justify belief in that which is extremely unlikely but nonetheless not [[falsifiable|provably false]]. | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
* [http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/reason_and_faith.htm Reason and Faith]: "What is “[[arational]]” or above the reason is what [[reason]] and [[science]] cannot define. It cannot be proven nor can it be disproved. Take the example of the survival of the soul after the death. There is no hard evidence to this belief, but no scientific fact has disproved it either." | * [http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/reason_and_faith.htm Reason and Faith]: "What is “[[arational]]” or above the reason is what [[reason]] and [[science]] cannot define. It cannot be proven nor can it be disproved. Take the example of the survival of the soul after the death. There is no hard evidence to this belief, but no scientific fact has disproved it either." | ||
* '''1991-02''' [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2026906 Arational Actions], Rosalind Hursthouse, ''The Journal of Philosophy'', Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 57-68 | * '''1991-02''' [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2026906 Arational Actions], Rosalind Hursthouse, ''The Journal of Philosophy'', Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 57-68 | ||
Latest revision as of 12:38, 14 July 2009
Overview
Something which is arational is not grounded in rationality but is not necessarily irrational i.e. going directly against rationality. It typically applies to beliefs in areas for which no firm rationality-based conclusions have been reached.
Misuse
It is often used as a sort of "weasel concept" to justify belief in that which is extremely unlikely but nonetheless not provably false.
Links
- Reason and Faith: "What is “arational” or above the reason is what reason and science cannot define. It cannot be proven nor can it be disproved. Take the example of the survival of the soul after the death. There is no hard evidence to this belief, but no scientific fact has disproved it either."
- 1991-02 Arational Actions, Rosalind Hursthouse, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 57-68