Is It Possible to Be Rational, But Wrong?

[Justice and Mercy]

Before explaining the difficulties of answering this question (and then answering it), I want to get a sense of what everyone here thinks.

An optional request: If you feel up to the job of defning "rational" and "wrong" in your answer, please do so.

[Boer]

Yes, at least temporarily. Without getting into definitions, you can have a rational thought process but lack some necessary information, especially if you don't realize you are missing it. Or you could have unwittingly been fed false information which you rationally processed to reach an erroneous conclusion.

[Mr. Scott]

I'm no philosopher, nor have I taken a class on it, but my take of this is.

Rationally speaking, eugenics would be beneficial for man in the long run, as genetic deficiencies could be removed and the human race could artificially evolve itself.
Its wrong though because it would involve the sterilization of millions and likely decrease genetic variance.

In my opinion, "Wrong" is a subjective, if not moralistic terminology. Rational, is pure logical thinking.
Purely rational thought is like Spock. It logically makes sense, but it lacks the moral/ethical factor.

[Blau&Gruen]

If you hold two apples in your hands and you add one apple, you assume that you have three apples.
Should you realize now that you have been dreaming, you know your assumption had been wrong.

It's rational (related to the example) to assume that two and one apple equals three apples.
It's wrong (related to the example) to identify the assumed apples you are holding in the hands while dreaming
with three real apples that fall simultaneously on your head when you actually sit under a biological tree.

[AJStoner]

Of course you can be both! Take the ancient astronomer/astrologer Ptolemy: He came up with the Earth-centered model of the cosmos that reigned for thousands of years. It was brilliant, intricate, predicted the movements of celestial bodies to an astonishing degree of accuracy--AND WAS DEAD WRONG. You need a boat to cross an ocean--having a boat is no guarantee you will survive the passage.

[Blau&Gruen]

You need a boat to cross an ocean--having a boat is no guarantee you will survive the passage.

You need a boat when you want to falsify the assumption planets were disk shaped bodies.

[AJStoner]

You need a boat when you want to falsify the assumption planets were a disks.

Not sure I'm following you here. I highly doubt Ptolemy intended to falsify anything, he just had no concept of inertia and so assume the earth musty be stationary. Or is that not what you meant?

[Blau&Gruen]

Not sure I'm following you here. I highly doubt Ptolemy intended to falsify anything, he just had no concept of inertia and so assume the earth musty be stationary. Or is that not what you meant?

No, but Copernicus falsified, better said replaced the geocentric model.

Don't ask me how, I am no mathematician.

[Jack04]

I think you probably can. You can approach a situation rationally and arrive at the wrong conclusion, simply as a result of having an incomplete picture. To me, all that rationality entails (though it is never hugely well defined) is a state of non-contradiction with the available evidence and compatibility with/the following of certain logical rules and principles (Occam's razor might be considered a rational tool capable of causing an incorrect conclusion, for example).

[AJStoner]

No, but Copernicus falsified, better said replaced the geocentric model.

Don't ask me how, I am no mathematician.

Ah! I just looked at your profile and noticed you were from Burkina Faso (French speaking, correct?). "Falsify" actually means to lie or deliberately give incorrect information. "Disprove" is the word you wanted, that's why I was confused.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Yes. Reason is not a substitute for experience.

[Blau&Gruen]

Well, you do not need a boat to know that Earth is not the center of the cosmos. What you need is a telescope, good knowledge in Mathematics and a clear mind.

[Taiji]

Yes. To me rational means in accordance with a specific rationale, if the rationale is deemed wrong then then so is the rationality. Rationales are designed and chosen, when agreed upon they become a consensus only as long as the agreement persists.

[AJStoner]

Your English is a lot better than my French.

[Claudius Gothicus]

OK: definition number one: Sociological, analyzing risks/gains and proceeding to take a calculative action under the relationship between those 2. ''Rationalization'' is the systematic fitting of means to ends... and yes it can be end up wrong and mistaken.

Definition number two, Logical Rationality, Popper's defense of Scientific thinking, yes. It can lead you to mistakes like miscalculation or falsification of hypotheses.

Rationality can be synthesized as a logical calculation between what ends you aim to reach and what means you fit to them, and because of of an Uncertain world those logical calculation can make you made mistakes.

Both Deductive and Inductive reasonings prevent you from reaching a fully founded truth.

[Justice and Mercy]

Definition number two, Logical Rationality, Popper's defense of Scientific thinking, yes. It can lead you to mistakes like miscalculation or falsification of hypotheses.

Both Deductive and Inductive reasonings prevent you from reaching a fully founded truth.

Rationality can't lead you to mistakes at all. Rationality is how you discover the truth, which includes discovering past mistakes.

Further, deduction and induction both are how you reach fully founded truth. They can't "prevent you from" it.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Rationality can't lead you to mistakes at all. Rationality is how you discover the truth, which includes discovering past mistakes.

Further, deduction and induction both are how you reach fully founded truth. They can't "prevent you from" it.

Induction: fails due to Hume's critique, nothing prevents the accumulation of certain factors arranged in a certain way to develop into the very same consequences each time ad-eternal.

If you want to go with a probabilistic solution the problem only expands:

Number of actually carried out experiments (finite number)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0 % of truth
Number of possible experiments that can be carried out (infinite number)

Deduction: There's not a single deductive reasoning that can lead you to an absolutely new founded truth, excepting tautologies, but you can't derive new knowledge from them.

That's why Science relies more on it's fallibility than it's verifiability.

[Justice and Mercy]

Induction: fails due to Hume's critique, nothing prevents the accumulation of certain factors arranged in a certain way to develop into the very same consequences each time ad-eternal.

If you want to go with a probabilistic solution the problem only expands:

Number of actually carried out experiments (finite number)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0 % of truth
Number of possible experiments that can be carried out through time (infinite number)

Deduction: There's no a single deductive reasoning that can lead you to an absolutely founded truth, excepting tautologies, but you can't derive new knowledge from them.

*sigh* I didn't want to have to prove the validity of reason here, that's not really the point. But I'll try:

Alright, let's begin by asking a question. If induction and deduction prevent you from reaching the truth... how does one reach it?

[Claudius Gothicus]

*sigh* I didn't want to have to prove the validity of reason here, that's not really the point. But I'll try:

Alright, let's begin by asking a question. If induction and deduction prevent you from reaching the truth... how does one reach it?

There's no such as a thing as ''truth'' beyond what's implicitly and explicitly accepted as such by individuals. Therefore you can make a rational and educated choice(choosing to save in gold rather than dollar because of the depreciating nature of the second) yet fail to reach your actual goals(being more rich, because in the end the dollar made a recovery thanks to the Fed's policies finally making progress in job creation).

On the logical side of things:

The ''truth'' of reasonings(especially Scientific one's) depend on the corroboration of the Basic statements that are used to contrast said reasonings, the ultimate corroboration of said arguments can't be proved by logic and it's more inter-subjective than anything.

[Himster]

how does one reach it?

Faith?