Difference between revisions of "Rationalization"
(New page: ==Overview== category:conceptsRationalization is the process of creating of expounding a rational-sounding explanation to support a predetermined conclusion. Rationalizations t...) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <hide> | |
| − | [[category:concepts]][[Rationalization]] is the process of creating of expounding a [[rational]]-sounding explanation to support a predetermined | + | [[category:concepts]] |
| + | [[category:rhetorical deception]] | ||
| + | </hide> | ||
| + | ==About== | ||
| + | [[Rationalization]], or supportive/post-hoc justification, is the process of creating of expounding a [[rational]]-sounding explanation to support a predetermined conclusion. | ||
| − | [[Rationalist]]s are often accused of being rationalizers, | + | Rationalizations typically [[cherry-pick]] their [[premise]]s, ignoring key pieces of information which would otherwise lead to a different conclusion. |
| + | ===As an Accusation=== | ||
| + | ''Note: possibly this should be a separate page, since it is primarily this specific usage which is a rhetorical deception.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Rationalist]]s are often accused of being rationalizers, and rational arguments are often accused of being mere rationalizations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Any factual explanation necessarily involves a reasoned argument. If that reasoning is irrational in some way, then identifying the irrationality is a valid refutation of the argument. If no irrationality can be identified, then calling it a "rationalization" is not really justifiable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although [[rationalist]]s (i.e. people who are trying to think and behave rationally) are quite capable of making rationalizations, the mere accusation of such is not a valid refutation and is arguably a form of [[rhetorical deception]] in that it distracts attention from the substance of the argument by [[reasoning by reputation|interposing the emotionally-laden question of the speaker's credibility]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The only legitimate criticism of an argument claiming to be rational is to identify some part of it which is irrational or inaccurate. | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
| + | ===Posts=== | ||
| + | * '''2009-03-11''' [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZiQqsgGX6a42Sfpii/the-apologist-and-the-revolutionary The Apologist and the Revolutionary] - a cognitive theory to explain some forms of rationalization | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||
* {{wikipedia|Rationalization (psychology)}} | * {{wikipedia|Rationalization (psychology)}} | ||
| + | * {{rationalwiki}} | ||
| + | * {{!in|conservapedia}} no information as of 2009-07-26 | ||
| + | * {{!in|dkosopedia}} no equivalent page as of 2009-07-26; see [[dkosopedia:Defense mechanism|Defense mechanism]] | ||
| + | * {{!in|sourcewatch}} no information as of 2009-07-26 | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 3 August 2021
About
Rationalization, or supportive/post-hoc justification, is the process of creating of expounding a rational-sounding explanation to support a predetermined conclusion.
Rationalizations typically cherry-pick their premises, ignoring key pieces of information which would otherwise lead to a different conclusion.
As an Accusation
Note: possibly this should be a separate page, since it is primarily this specific usage which is a rhetorical deception.
Rationalists are often accused of being rationalizers, and rational arguments are often accused of being mere rationalizations.
Any factual explanation necessarily involves a reasoned argument. If that reasoning is irrational in some way, then identifying the irrationality is a valid refutation of the argument. If no irrationality can be identified, then calling it a "rationalization" is not really justifiable.
Although rationalists (i.e. people who are trying to think and behave rationally) are quite capable of making rationalizations, the mere accusation of such is not a valid refutation and is arguably a form of rhetorical deception in that it distracts attention from the substance of the argument by interposing the emotionally-laden question of the speaker's credibility.
The only legitimate criticism of an argument claiming to be rational is to identify some part of it which is irrational or inaccurate.
Links
Posts
- 2009-03-11 The Apologist and the Revolutionary - a cognitive theory to explain some forms of rationalization
Reference
- Wikipedia
- RationalWiki
Conservapediano information as of 2009-07-26
dKosopediano equivalent page as of 2009-07-26; see Defense mechanismSourceWatchno information as of 2009-07-26
