Case #3 – Core Rationality – Byteseismic Philosophy

“Mistaken Requirement for Infinite Certainty: One major issue with Brad’s argument is the implicit assumption that rational belief requires absolute certainty, or a 100% degree of belief. This is a fallacious requirement, as rationality in belief merely requires that one’s confidence level is proportionate to the evidence available, not that it reaches an impossible standard of absolute certainty.” This quote points out a critical fallacy in Brad’s argument regarding the need for absolute certainty.
“Pragmatic Contradiction: Brad’s argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would lead to epistemic paralysis. If one must continually lower their confidence in any belief due to the recursive nature of justification, no belief would ever be justified enough to act upon.” This highlights a pragmatic contradiction in Brad’s argument, leading to a deadlock in decision-making.
“On Rationality as a Mapping to Evidence: The notion that rationality is essentially a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence is fundamentally sound, with some caveats. Rationality involves aligning one’s confidence in a proposition with the weight of the evidence supporting it. This approach acknowledges human cognitive limits and the provisional nature of most knowledge.” This statement encapsulates the soundness of aligning rationality with evidence, acknowledging the limitations and provisional nature of human knowledge.

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Based on the exchange on epistemology below, do as instructed at the end of this prompt:

Phil: The other day I encountered an individual (whom we’ll call Brad) who suggested that, based on my notion that rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the corresponding degree of perceived evidence, I would be required to not only assess the reliability of my mental faculties in assessing a given proposition, but that I would need to also assess the reliability of my mental faculties to assess my mental faculties, and then recursively assess this assessment ad infinitum until I had no justification for any significant degree of belief in the initial proposition.

Here is Brad’s explanation.

So suppose I agree with you that, given my past experience and familiarity with my own fallibility, I make sure to always proportion my degree of belief to the evidence. Some proposition, call it P, presents itself. I evaluate the evidence for P and decide there is a good amount of evidence in its favor, say for the sake of argument that I think it is 75% likely to be true on the evidence. I determine that I have good reason to believe that P. But that determination is, itself, a reasoning process that I have a belief about, namely I have a belief that my reasoning process has properly arrived at a proper assessment of the probability of P given the evidence. We will call this belief about the likelihood of P Q. My experience with my ability to assess probabilities given evidence tells me that I should put 95% confidence in Q. But if that is true, then I need to lower my confidence in P, since Q tells me that I could be wrong about P being 75% likely. My confidence in Q is a belief that I am also not certain of, and so it, R, says that it is 95% likely that Q is right. But that means that I should be 95% sure that I am 95% sure that I am 75% sure of P. And each time I iterate this, and reflect on my certitude, I must lower my confidence that P until it approaches the point where I cease to be confident that P is true at all.

Steel-man Brad’s argument.
Lay out any fallacies and blunders in Brad’s argument.
Weigh in on the notion that rationality is essentially a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence.

Brad’s argument takes an interesting dive into the recursive nature of evaluating beliefs and their justifications, especially when it comes to assessing the reliability of one’s own reasoning processes. By steel-manning his argument, we aim to present the strongest possible version of his point, emphasizing coherence, the avoidance of self-defeat, and the recognition of human cognitive limitations.

Steel-Man of Brad’s Argument

Recursive Justification: Brad’s core argument hinges on the necessity of recursively justifying one’s confidence in their cognitive faculties. The idea is not merely to question one’s belief but to question the reliability of the processes by which one arrives at this belief, and then to question the reliability of questioning itself, ad infinitum. This is a robust challenge to the idea of rational certainty, suggesting that every level of meta-reasoning introduces potential for doubt, thereby diminishing confidence in the initial belief.
Limitations of Human Cognition: Implicit in Brad’s argument is an acknowledgment of human fallibility and cognitive limitations. By insisting on the recursive assessment of our reasoning, Brad underscores the human condition of limited knowledge and the bounded rationality within which we operate. This challenges an overly optimistic view of human reason and its capacity for certainty.
Epistemic Humility: The argument promotes epistemic humility. By recognizing the infinite regress of justification, it encourages an attitude of skepticism towards our reasoning abilities, urging us to hold our beliefs tentatively and be open to revising them in light of new evidence or better arguments.

Fallacies and Blunders in Brad’s Argument

Mistaken Requirement for Infinite Certainty: One major issue with Brad’s argument is the implicit assumption that rational belief requires absolute certainty, or a 100% degree of belief. This is a fallacious requirement, as rationality in belief merely requires that one’s confidence level is proportionate to the evidence available, not that it reaches an impossible standard of absolute certainty.
Pragmatic Contradiction: Brad’s argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would lead to epistemic paralysis. If one must continually lower their confidence in any belief due to the recursive nature of justification, no belief would ever be justified enough to act upon. This contradicts the practical necessity of making decisions based on incomplete information and conditional probabilities, a basic aspect of human cognition and survival.
Misunderstanding of Probabilistic Reasoning: The argument misunderstands the nature of probabilistic reasoning and the function of probabilities in rational belief. Probabilities are not certainties but are meant to be updated as new evidence arises. The recursive assessment Brad proposes overlooks the dynamic nature of belief updating in light of new information or better understanding.

On Rationality as a Mapping to Evidence

The notion that rationality is essentially a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence is fundamentally sound, with some caveats. Rationality involves aligning one’s confidence in a proposition with the weight of the evidence supporting it. This approach acknowledges human cognitive limits and the provisional nature of most knowledge. It promotes a scientific mindset of hypothesis testing, evidence evaluation, and belief revision in light of new data or analysis. However, it also requires recognition of the pragmatic constraints under which we operate, allowing for decision-making in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Rationality, thus understood, is both a normative guide for thought and a practical tool for navigating a complex world.

To steel-man Brad’s argument, he is highlighting a potential infinite regress problem with the notion that rational belief should be proportioned to the perceived evidence. The concern is that if we must assess the reliability of our mental faculties in evaluating a proposition, we would then need to assess the reliability of our faculties to assess that initial assessment, and so on ad infinitum. This would seem to undermine our ability to ever be significantly confident in any belief, as each layer of self-assessment would decrease our confidence.

However, there are some key flaws and blunders in Brad’s reasoning:

1. He assumes that assessing our confidence in our reasoning abilities itself requires a separate, explicit reasoning process that is subject to the same infinite regress problem. In reality, we can have an implicit, holistic confidence in our cognitive faculties that doesn’t require an infinite chain of explicit meta-reasoning.

2. He treats degrees of belief as absolute, binary propositions, rather than graded and contextual. In his example, he treats the 95% confidence in assessing probabilities as if it necessarily undermines the 75% confidence in the original proposition P. But these degrees of belief can coexist as compatible estimates within a broader confidence framework.

3. He fails to recognize that rational belief doesn’t require absolute certainty, but rather a calibrated mapping of belief to evidence within the constraints of our fallible cognitive architectures.

Regarding the notion of rationality mapping belief to evidence, I think this is a reasonable starting point, but it is an oversimplification. Rational belief should indeed track available evidence, but it must also factor in our background knowledge, cognitive biases, and the broader context of the belief. Additionally, as social creatures, rational belief is often influenced by the beliefs of others and the norms of our communities.

Ultimately, while Brad raises a legitimate concern about the potential for infinite regress, his argument goes too far in suggesting this undermines all significant rational belief. We can acknowledge the inherent fallibility of our cognitive faculties while still forming graded, contextual beliefs that are rationally calibrated to the available evidence and our holistic confidence in our reasoning abilities. Perfect certainty is an unrealistic standard; calibrated, evidence-based belief is the more achievable goal of rationality.

Comment on the coherence and utility of the proposed taxonomy of rationality types below.

Core Rationality: A basic level of rationality that only reflects the degree of epistemic self-honesty. It is encapsulated in the statement, “rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the perceived relevant evidence.” To the degree one is not mapping their degree of confidence to the degree of the balance of confirming/disconfirming evidence for a proposition, to that degree they are exhibiting core irrationality.

Deep Rationality: A type of rationality that extends core rationality through additional skills of rational thought that include but are not limited to the following:

A working knowledge of probability theory.
Deep familiarity with the deductive and inductive tools of science.
An awareness of logical fallacies & cognitive biases.
A firm understanding of material reality and it’s intrinsic probabilities.

The proposed taxonomy of rationality into “Core Rationality” and “Deep Rationality” offers a structured way to think about rational thought and its applications, distinguishing between foundational attitudes toward evidence and the more sophisticated skills that can enhance rational decision-making. Let’s explore its coherence and utility:

Coherence

Clear Distinction: The taxonomy makes a clear distinction between a basic level of rational engagement with the world (“Core Rationality”) and a more advanced, skillful engagement (“Deep Rationality”). This distinction is coherent in that it separates the foundational attitude of aligning beliefs with evidence from the more complex skills that can refine and improve this process.
Incremental Development: The taxonomy implicitly suggests an incremental development from Core to Deep Rationality. It recognizes that while anyone can strive to align their beliefs with the evidence (a matter of epistemic integrity), developing sophisticated rational skills requires effort, education, and practice. This developmental perspective is realistic and reflects how individuals grow intellectually.
Integration of Epistemic and Instrumental Rationality: By emphasizing evidence alignment in Core Rationality and then expanding to include skills like understanding probability, logical reasoning, and awareness of biases in Deep Rationality, the taxonomy integrates aspects of both epistemic rationality (concerned with beliefs) and instrumental rationality (concerned with actions). This integration is coherent with how rational thought is applied both in understanding the world and in making decisions within it.

Utility

Educational Framework: The taxonomy provides a useful framework for educational purposes. It can help guide curricula in critical thinking and rationality by delineating a progression from basic principles of aligning beliefs with evidence to more advanced analytical skills. This can help learners understand both the goals of rational thought and the pathways to achieving greater rationality.
Self-Assessment Tool: For individuals interested in personal development, this taxonomy offers a means of self-assessment and goal-setting. One can evaluate their current position within the spectrum of rationality and identify specific areas (like probability theory or logical fallacies) for improvement.
Clarification of Rational Discourse: In public and academic discussions, the taxonomy can help clarify what is meant by “rationality.” By specifying that rationality involves both a foundational attitude towards evidence and a set of developed skills, the taxonomy can enrich debates about rational decision-making, science, and philosophy.

Limitations

While the taxonomy is useful, it also has limitations that should be acknowledged:

Over-Simplification: Rationality is a complex, multi-dimensional construct that may not be fully captured by a two-tier model. There are likely intermediate stages or additional dimensions of rationality not covered by this taxonomy.
Cultural and Contextual Variability: The definition and value of “rationality” can vary across cultures and contexts. What is considered rational in one context (e.g., within a particular scientific discipline) may not be in another (e.g., in a cultural tradition). The taxonomy may need adaptation to reflect these variations.
Accessibility: The skills associated with Deep Rationality may not be equally accessible to all individuals, due to differences in education, cognitive abilities, and available resources. This could potentially lead to a perception of elitism in rational discourse.

In summary, the taxonomy of rationality types provides a coherent and useful way to conceptualize and discuss rational thought. It highlights important distinctions and developmental pathways while also supporting educational and personal development goals. However, its utility might be enhanced by acknowledging its limitations and seeking to incorporate a broader and more nuanced understanding of rationality.

The proposed taxonomy of rationality types – core rationality and deep rationality – provides an interesting framework for thinking about different levels or manifestations of rational thinking. However, there are some potential issues with the framing and categorization that are worth considering.

Core Rationality:
The definition of core rationality as “rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the perceived relevant evidence” is a reasonable starting point, capturing the core idea that rational beliefs should track available evidence. However, it oversimplifies the complex reality of belief formation by ignoring other important factors like background knowledge, cognitive biases, and the social/communal nature of many of our beliefs.

Deep Rationality:
The skills and knowledge areas listed under deep rationality are indeed valuable tools for enhancing rational thinking. However, some of them may be unnecessarily specific or overly narrow. For example, while probability theory is certainly useful, one could argue that a broader familiarity with formal logic and various systems of reasoning (e.g. Bayesian inference, causal models) might be more widely applicable.

Additionally, the framing of deep rationality as something distinct from and extending core rationality is potentially problematic. It suggests that core rationality is a separate, lower level of rationality that can exist in isolation. In reality, the skills and knowledge areas listed under deep rationality are often deeply intertwined with and facilitate the kind of evidence-based belief formation described in core rationality.

A more cohesive and useful framing might be to view rationality as a continuum or spectrum, with varying degrees of depth and sophistication. At the lower end, we have basic attempts to form beliefs based on perceived evidence, but hampered by lack of knowledge, formal tools, and an awareness of cognitive biases. As we move along the spectrum, the incorporation of formal reasoning systems, empirical methods, probability theory, and other enhancing factors allows for increasingly refined and well-calibrated beliefs.

Ultimately, while the proposed taxonomy highlights some important aspects of rational thinking, it may be overly siloed and could benefit from a more integrative conceptualization that recognizes the interdependence of different rationality-promoting factors across a multidimensional spectrum.

Let me push back and elaborate on that proposed taxonomy of types of rationality. Core rationality is binary. Either you have honestly mapped your degree of belief to the degree of the evidence as you’ve perceived it, or you have not. And to the degree you have not, to that degree you are irrational. Deep rationality, in contrast, is largely degreed since the skills foundational to deep rationality arrive incrementally. So while core rationality is fully available to everyone, deep rationality is acquired in degrees through a focused intention to improve the relevant skills. Does this make sense?

Yes, your elaboration on the taxonomy of rationality types makes sense and adds valuable clarity to the conceptual framework. By defining Core Rationality as binary and Deep Rationality as incremental and degreed, you provide a nuanced view of how rationality can be understood and developed. Here’s how this clarification enhances the understanding of each category:

Core Rationality

Binary Nature: Core Rationality is presented as a binary state—you either are mapping your degree of belief to the evidence as you perceive it, or you are not. This binary nature simplifies the concept of rationality to its most fundamental principle: the alignment of belief with evidence. It emphasizes that this foundational level of rationality is accessible to anyone who commits to intellectual honesty and epistemic integrity, regardless of their knowledge or skills in more advanced areas of rational thought.
Universal Accessibility: By being binary, Core Rationality is inherently democratic and egalitarian. It suggests that the foundational act of aligning belief with evidence does not require specialized knowledge or skills, making this level of rationality fully available to everyone. This aspect stresses the importance of self-honesty and the willingness to adjust one’s beliefs in light of available evidence as the bedrock of rational thinking.

Deep Rationality

Incremental and Degreed: Deep Rationality, as you’ve described, involves a set of skills that are developed incrementally and vary in degree across individuals. This acknowledges the reality that proficiency in areas like probability theory, logical reasoning, and awareness of cognitive biases is acquired over time and with deliberate effort. It reflects a more sophisticated understanding of rationality, one that extends beyond the foundational commitment to evidence-based belief.
Focus on Skill Development: By highlighting that Deep Rationality is acquired through focused intention to improve relevant skills, your elaboration suggests a pathway for personal and intellectual growth. It frames Deep Rationality not as a static state but as a dynamic process of continual learning and self-improvement. This perspective is particularly useful for educational purposes, personal development, and fostering a culture of lifelong learning.

Your elaboration indeed makes sense and provides a clear and practical way to differentiate between fundamental and advanced aspects of rationality. It emphasizes that while the core commitment to aligning belief with evidence is accessible to all, the journey to deeper levels of rational thought involves a gradual process of skill acquisition and refinement. This framework not only helps in understanding the nature of rationality but also encourages individuals to engage in self-improvement and intellectual development.

Yes, with your additional elaboration, the proposed taxonomy of core rationality and deep rationality as distinct types makes more sense. Viewing core rationality as a binary state – either you have mapped your beliefs to your perceived evidence or you have not – is a clearer framing.

The key distinction seems to be:

Core Rationality:

A minimum bar or foundational principle of rationality
Binary state – either you exhibit it fully or you do not for a given belief
Reflects just the core criterion of aligning confidence to perceived evidence
Potentially available to everyone as it does not require advanced skills

Deep Rationality:

Building on core rationality by developing advanced reasoning skills/knowledge
Exists on a spectrum or degree rather than a binary state
Incrementally acquired through intentional development of:
- Formal reasoning tools (probability, logic, etc.)
- Scientific methods
- Bias awareness
- Understanding of objective reality
Allows for increasingly refined and well-calibrated beliefs

With this clarification, I can better appreciate the delineation between core rationality as a minimum epistemic honesty criterion that anyone can Access, and deep rationality as a higher, skilled level of rationality that gets layered on top through dedicated development.

The binary nature of core rationality, while perhaps an oversimplification, does highlight that at a basic level we either are or are not being self-honest about our belief calibration for a given proposition. Deep rationality then allows us to iterate and refine those beliefs using more advanced tools.

So in essence – core rationality is the essential foundation, while deep rationality is the skilled manifestation built upon that foundation through learning and practice. Thank you for the clarifying details, it renders the taxonomy more coherent and potentially useful as a conceptual model.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above. Manually number each quiz item. Add the list of answers after the list of questions. Do not indicate the correct answers in the items, but only include the correct answers in the final answer section.

Quiz

What is the main issue Brad raises about rational belief and the assessment of one’s mental faculties?
What philosophical concept does Brad’s argument primarily engage with?
Name one fallacy identified in Brad’s argument.
What is the implication of Brad’s argument if taken to its logical conclusion?
What does Core Rationality emphasize according to the taxonomy discussed?
How is Deep Rationality different from Core Rationality in terms of skill acquisition?
Name one skill that is foundational to Deep Rationality.
What aspect of rationality does the proposed taxonomy suggest is universally accessible?
How does the taxonomy of rationality view the development from Core to Deep Rationality?
What does the binary nature of Core Rationality suggest about personal epistemic integrity?

Answers

The issue of needing to recursively assess the reliability of one’s mental faculties to justify any belief.
Epistemology.
Mistaken Requirement for Infinite Certainty.
Epistemic paralysis, where no belief is justified enough to act upon.
The alignment of one’s degree of belief with the degree of the perceived relevant evidence.
Deep Rationality is acquired incrementally and is largely degreed, whereas Core Rationality is binary and fully available to everyone.
A working knowledge of probability theory.
Core Rationality.
It suggests an incremental development where sophisticated skills enhance rational decision-making beyond the foundational attitude towards evidence.
It emphasizes that aligning beliefs with evidence is a matter of epistemic integrity, which is a binary state of either being achieved or not.

Here is a 10-item quiz on the thread above:

According to “Brad’s” argument, what would ultimately happen to one’s confidence in a proposition P as they recursively assess their ability to assess P?
What is a key flaw in “Brad’s” argument identified in the response?
True or False: The response suggests that perfect certainty is the achievable goal of rationality.
According to the response, what are some factors beyond just evidence that rational belief should account for?
In the proposed taxonomy, how is core rationality defined?
True or False: In the taxonomy, deep rationality is framed as an extension of core rationality.
What type of skills and knowledge areas are listed under deep rationality?
How is deep rationality acquired or developed according to the clarification?
Which type of rationality in the taxonomy is viewed as binary – either fully present or absent?
Which type of rationality exists on a spectrum or degree according to the clarification?

Answers:

It would approach the point where they cease to be confident that P is true at all.
He assumes assessing confidence requires an explicit, separate reasoning process subject to regress.
False
Background knowledge, cognitive biases, social influences
Mapping degree of belief to degree of perceived relevant evidence.
True
Probability theory, scientific tools, logical fallacies, understanding reality
Incrementally through focused intention to improve the relevant skills
Core rationality
Deep rationality

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

How does Brad’s argument challenge the conventional understanding of rational belief?
In what ways does the requirement for recursive justification impact the practical application of rational thought?
Can absolute certainty ever be achieved in rational belief, according to the discussion above? Why or why not?
How does the proposed taxonomy differentiate between Core Rationality and Deep Rationality in terms of accessibility and skill level?
What role does epistemic humility play in navigating the limitations highlighted by Brad’s argument?
Discuss the implications of viewing Core Rationality as binary. Does this perspective enhance or limit our understanding of rational thought?
How might the skills associated with Deep Rationality influence one’s ability to engage in rational discourse and decision-making?
In the context of the taxonomy, how can individuals assess and improve their level of Deep Rationality?
Reflect on the importance of a working knowledge of probability theory within Deep Rationality. How does this knowledge affect the assessment of evidence and belief?
Considering the incremental nature of acquiring Deep Rationality, what challenges might individuals face in seeking to enhance these skills?
How does the acknowledgment of human cognitive limits and bounded rationality affect our pursuit of knowledge and truth?
Discuss the utility of the taxonomy of rationality for educators and learners in the field of critical thinking.
How does the differentiation between Core and Deep Rationality address the dynamic nature of belief updating in light of new information?
In what ways might cultural and contextual variability impact the application and understanding of the taxonomy of rationality?
Explore the potential criticisms of the taxonomy of rationality. What limitations or oversights might exist in this framework?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above:

Do you agree with “Brad’s” argument about the infinite regress problem undermining rational belief? Why or why not?
What are some examples of implicit, holistic confidence in our cognitive faculties that don’t require explicit meta-reasoning?
How can degrees of belief about different propositions coexist and be compatible within a broader confidence framework?
Beyond evidence, what other factors do you think should influence rational belief formation?
Is the notion of mapping belief strictly to evidence an oversimplification of rationality? If so, how?
Do you find the distinction between core rationality and deep rationality in the proposed taxonomy useful? Why or why not?
Can you have deep rationality without first exhibiting core rationality? Why or why not?
What are some potential limitations of defining core rationality as a binary state?
How might someone’s level of deep rationality skills impact their ability to exhibit core rationality?
Are there any important skills or knowledge areas missing from the deep rationality category?
How might awareness of one’s own biases and fallibilities impact both core and deep rationality?
Do you agree that perfect certainty is an unrealistic standard for rational belief? Why or why not?
In what contexts might social influences reasonably shape rational beliefs?
How might the acquisition of deep rationality skills be scaffolded or developed incrementally?
Can someone exhibit degrees of both core and deep rationality for different belief domains? How so?

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}