[FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

No, you're not a member of the population I point at with "rationalist". I guess it's ambiguous like "scientist" vs "scientismist" ... or "woke" vs. "wokeist".

The rationalists are a fairly well-defined community of tech-savvy intellectuals who engage in things like Effective Altruism (e.g. get a job making as much money as you possibly can, *then* giving away a large percentage of it, like 90%). They also take Bayesianism to an extreme, talk a lot about "priors", give their opinions "epistemological confidence" ratings, etc.

But moving to the interpersonal baroque, I don't consider you a rationalist. I don't even think you're very rational. Your commitment to metaphysical stances is way too strong. Such commitment is faith-based and irrational. But it *is*, I think, idealist. And in that context, I would suggest I'm more rational than you are. Agnosticism is rational.

On 4/30/21 9:49 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> So, I think I am a rationalist, right?  So if anybody is doing pearl clutching on this list, it's me.  So, here goes. 
> 
> Is rationality the same as rationalism.  You, glen, are patently rational.  Does that make you a rationalist?  I want you to clarify the meanings of your words, remove, to the extent possible, ambituities in how you use them, try to extract the same meanings FROM them that you put INTO them.  That seems rational to me.  Does that make me a rationalist?

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ