Re: virus: Logical beliefs

David McFadzean (
Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:05:09 -0600

At 10:01 AM 02/06/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:

>So you think I'm against "reasonable" and "sane".

I would like to think not :)

>So who's being unreasonable?!?! (I won't say insane.)

I really don't know. I admit I may be taking an unreasonable position,
but hopefully we can figure this out through more discussion.

>There is a world of difference between believing in "the principles of
>logic or reason", and viewing #2 as a good definition of rationality.
>In fact, I think missing that difference is an example of irrationality
>(your defn).

I do see the difference however as far as I can tell the definition
you quoted above is not only in the dictionary (definition #2), it is in
common usage by philosophers, scientists, economists and many reasonable and
sane people (as opposed philosophers :).

For example, think of a court of law. Person A kills person B because A
thinks B is an alien in league with the devil. Person A carefully reasoned
the act through to execution, however in court he is deemed to be irrational
and sent to a mental institution.

Next case, A kills B in self defence. It was a very quick, life or death
situation and A didn't have time to think it through, he just acted on
instinct when his wife and kid were threatened by the perp. Yet A is
acquitted because he acted rationally. Wouldn't you agree that this fits
with the way I use the term rationality?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus