Idealism and realism of irrationalism and rationalism
There is an interesting social phenomenon that can be considered real irrationalism and ideal rationalism. The rationalism is ideal because the people that subscribe to it don't fully understand it and the real is irrational because what occurs are false appeals that seem rationational based on the ideal.
This kind of thing happens in many situations, but one I noticed is the idealization of doctors and the concepts like 'orders', 'prescription', 'opinion', 'prognostication', etc. There's many. The appeal to authority is fallacious, but the rationalism is not a logical one, but following rules. That type of rationalism is just an idea.
In the real the i. false appeal to authority legitimizes opinion, ii. creates prescribed actions ( in medicine ie. pharmaceutucals. How to think ie. 2500 words with citations), iii. legitimizing opinion as valid, and iv. prognostication as a deterministic expectation of anything a doctor can make into a disease (ie. daydreaming, being alone, paranoia). A deterministic expectation is a cornerstone of modernist thought. The real is irrational because all of the appeals are false:i. authority, ii.opinion, iii. someone telling you how to think is against the spirit of logic iv. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. A deterministic expectation is considered a self-fulfilling prophesy and deludes some into thinking there are prognostic powers. Usually the outcomes of things are statistical or people organize to create the outcome.
The example given here is just for discussion purposes, in a hypothetical "what-if" (if things were actually that way). It adds another level of rationalisms to realisms.
This kind of thing happens in many situations, but one I noticed is the idealization of doctors and the concepts like 'orders', 'prescription', 'opinion', 'prognostication', etc. There's many. The appeal to authority is fallacious, but the rationalism is not a logical one, but following rules. That type of rationalism is just an idea.
In the real the i. false appeal to authority legitimizes opinion, ii. creates prescribed actions ( in medicine ie. pharmaceutucals. How to think ie. 2500 words with citations), iii. legitimizing opinion as valid, and iv. prognostication as a deterministic expectation of anything a doctor can make into a disease (ie. daydreaming, being alone, paranoia). A deterministic expectation is a cornerstone of modernist thought. The real is irrational because all of the appeals are false:i. authority, ii.opinion, iii. someone telling you how to think is against the spirit of logic iv. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. A deterministic expectation is considered a self-fulfilling prophesy and deludes some into thinking there are prognostic powers. Usually the outcomes of things are statistical or people organize to create the outcome.
The example given here is just for discussion purposes, in a hypothetical "what-if" (if things were actually that way). It adds another level of rationalisms to realisms.
Comments (20)
The short answer is determinism is based on expectations, or what is determined is expected. Prior to modern naive action resulted in indeterminancy.
In your amplification of the ideal rationalism you say is implied in the acceptance of authority, you say that "a physician is not a chemical engineer." However the essence of authority is specialization, and specialists complement one another within an overarching framework of scientific legitimacy. You seem to be saying that the only true authority would be one with a universal compass, the ideal of the Renaissance man. Now I believe that sentiment has validity, especially when it comes to the extension of knowledge past its current empirical limits. But I don't think it is necessarily a valid criticism of authority. Certainly not of medical authority. Doctors know as much about the actions of drugs as they need to know in order to prescribe them effectively.
The argument you have made about a physician being a specialization is not relevant in that my argument implies the doctor is assumed to have knowledge.
But isn't your argument also specifically about the fact that the doctor's knowledge is inadequate because of a lack of expertise in chemistry?
Meaning what? Are you saying that only some doctors are qualified? Are you saying no doctors are qualified? I already discounted the cross-domain specialization case (or at least brought it up for discussion). Where are you saying that this appeal to authority fails?
I see. So you don't really want to discuss the epistemological validity of authority from the perspective of rationality?
Hi.
Do you mean that the concept of "rationalism" is not completely clear, and that, in contast, the concepts of "real" and "irrational", are completely clear?
But if "rationalism", which is based on "rationality", is not completely clear how can "irrationality" be?
Then, if indeed this is true, why is something that is not fully undestood considred "ideal"? In what way? What's the connection?
Can you explain all this, please?
If we were talking about ethical egoism for example it is opposed to egoistic states, implies they are unethical but acknowleges the self does exist, but erodes individual.
That is an example if how that when talking about rational idealism we contrast with the opposite and in the other with ontology and psychology
And yet, when your car doesn't work you don't take it to a cardiologist and when you have chest pains, you don't go to a mechanic.