I am perplexed by Alexander George's recent posting (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2854). He says "Your observation that we sometimes take pleasure in beliefs even if they have been irrationally arrived at seems correct but beside the point: it speaks neither to the truth of (1) nor to that of (2)." (2), in this case, is "(2) that actions guided by false beliefs are not likely to get us what we want. " I believe the science of psychology has shown us that we form many beliefs entirely irrationally. The mechanism for their formation is often a defense mechanism. The purpose of their formation is often to hide some truth about ourselves from ourselves - to hide some unpleasant information that we would have gleaned had we formed our belief rationally. I just can't see how the above information is "beside the point". The point is: 1) I want to be happy. 2) My beliefs are formed irrationally in order to reach that desired end. Perhaps what is beside the point is that the belief-forming...

When is rational to say "I do not have an explanation for this event, but the explanation you propose is not a good one." For example, my friend (hypothetically) believes there are ghosts in her house. As proof, she tells me some weird stories of things that happened in her house. I can't think of any good explanations for the things that happen in the stories. Nonetheless, can I still dismiss her conclusion that ghosts are in her house?

Can somebody oppose physical pain (felt by other people) and be indifferent to other kinds of suffering without being irrational? I'm affraid that the answer is "yes": you can hate or dislike anything without hating or disliking anything else, and these are perhaps the best grounds for opposing something. But on the other hand I can't help seeing here some kind of contradiction... What do you say?

Richard Dawkins wrote in his “The Selfish Gene,” that people are essentially biological robots. If he is right then all of our thoughts are simply the result of cerebral and neurological processes. Electrochemical signals produced by entirely physical processes. So, assuming he’s correct, then what reason do we have to trust our thoughts and logic? Perhaps what we think is universally true is not, we’re simply programmed to –think- it is? Actually, that’d be a profoundly effective evolutionary tool for preservation of the species. Our emotional values and logic may have developed as a way to augment survival instincts beyond the level of less cognitive organisms, right? So, why trust our thoughts? How do we know our logic is truly logical and not simply an illusion of logic?

When two people disagree, is there always one right person and one wrong person?

Can one learn to be rational? How would this be done?

Hume showed that belief in induction has no rational basis, yet everyone believes it and in fact one can't help believing it. How then can one criticize religious belief, the person who says "I know my belief in God has no rational basis, but I believe it anyway"?

Is "you should..." synonymous with "it is rational for you to..."?

My husband critised me for holding on to my opinion despite persuasive opposing views from others in our discussion group; his point being that, as a general rule, the opinion held by the majority is more likely to be right than the opinion held by the minority. He continued to say that if he was in similar circumstances he would begin to doubt his own certainty and concede that the majority must be right. Although I see some merit in his point in some situations I would never concede on something on which I was certain, regardless of pressure, unless I was convinced by facts I hadn't originally considered, etc. Two questions: Am I just being stubborn and how does one determine when we are simply being stubborn as opposed to being justifiably strong-willed?

Decisions are (usually) based on information. It seems to me that flawed information would lead to a flawed decision. Yet people with incomplete or flawed information often succeed. How is this possible?