456. The meaning of rationality



In item 394 of this blog I discussed rationality and non-rational decision heuristics. Here I return to the subject, from a different angle.



What does ‘rationality’ mean? It can mean the use of logic, facts and their combination in the ‘scientific method’ of hypothesis and empirical test. Logic then requires that scientists seek to falsify their theories ( Popper). In fact, scientists seek confirmation, to protect their reputation and gain attention and resources. Criticism and falsification are up to competition in the scientific community, not the individual. 



Sometimes, especially in economics, ‘rationality’ means doing what is ‘good’, in agreement with goals, maximizing utility. The question then is who determines that. It is known, in social psychology, that often choices, decisions, are not made ‘rationally’, with the use of reason, consciously and deliberately, but unconsciously and impulsively. That is not always bad, in situations that one has often experienced, as in walking and driving a car, things fir which you have developed a routine.



Sometimes, however, they go against ‘optimality’. Use is made of non-rational decision heuristics, as discussed in item 394. That has led to ‘nudging’, where impulsive or routine behaviour is used to steer decisions in the direction of optimality. An example is the ‘opt-out’ in insurance, or the donation of organs, where you indicate if you don’t want it, instead of the earlier ‘opt-in’, where you indicate it if you want it. That employs the inertia or unwillingness to choose, whereby people remain underinsured or donate organs too little. The ethics of nudging is that it may only be done in the interest of the people involved. One can see that as benevolent guidance, but also as manipulation. That is not new: it has been happening for long in advertising, but not always in the interest of the consumer. It happens in the use of ‘algorithms’, on the basis of data of conduct as collected via Facebook, Google of Amazon. Those ‘know you better than yourself’ in your subconscious conduct. Is that rational?  No, because it does not make conduct more ‘optimal’, but is to the benefit of those who do the manipulation. Yes, maybe, if it is used for nudging.  



In Object oriented philosophy (OOO) Harman claimed that  an object cannot be fully known, in all its features, but is partially ‘withdrawn’, with features that are inaccessible, because hidden or caught in an incomprehensible code or structure, or are not(yet) there. Bhaskar and DeLanda proposed that objects have potential to produce features, depending on circumstances. Then they are not yet present and hence unknowable.



Rationality, the use of reason, is a virtue, but has its limits. We do some things without rational deliberation, in routines, as mentioned above, and some things can only bed grasped by hunch. Also, emotions set the agenda for rational thought.



And then there is morality: rules for conduct that are not rationally deliberated, subjected to calculation, but adopted and followed unconditionally, having intrinsic value of a different order than interests.