????The previous issue has received some delightful criticism. Namely, the distinction between belief or truth was not addressed in the examination for the Socratic-Platonic method; and that a definition for logical thinking was not given. This issue will both address that distinction and provide a definition for logical thinking in context of an examination for rationality.?

????What is rationality? Is it the apathetic but clear calculation of Mr. Spoke in “Star Trek?” Or rather, the cold and ruthless pragmatism of Frank Underwood in “House of Cards?”?

????Suppose there is a funeral, and the priest is praising the life of whoever passed away, “he was a good father, brother, and colleague.” Spoke then made the remark, “actually, he was a bad worker.” Perhaps nobody will doubt Spoke’s honesty, but the action would certainly harm Spoke’s credibility. The failure to observe the environment harms Spoke’s long-term social interest.?

????In this case, Spoke shows a substantial lack of epistemic rationality. The term “epistemic rationality” refers the rationality behinds what to believe. In essence, it deals with the perception of the world. Spoke failed in that regard because he wasn’t able to capture the social reality of the situation. Indeed, to be epistemically rational is to refine one’s perception, which includes not only empirical truth, but also social conventions. Spoke maybe a master of the scientific method and formal reasoning, but he remains epistemically irrational. ????

????Despite its merits, epistemic rationality is not the only factor one should consider in life. Suppose you are fighting a ferocious electoral campaign against a relentless opponent like Frank Underwood. And your campaign staff is growing tired. You know you are not likely to win the campaign, but this ship must sail. Do you tell your staff the truth: we are not likely to win? Or do you give them an inspiration speech, assuring them that you odds of victory as your staff lose faith in you. Lying to them, however, would help to rescue the dwindling morale, and that may score you a victory. Yet, it’s epistemically irrational to voice a wrong perception.?

????If your goal is winning the election, it’s instrumentally rational for you to lie because not doing so would mean an instant loss. Instrumental rationality stands for the rationale behind actions. Instrumentally rational action can vary based on the goals of an individual. It may oppose and often supersedes epistemic rationality. After all, one’s perception of reality is frequently secondary to one’s personal goal.?

????With the concept of epistemic and instrumental rationality established, we may now discuss the distinction between belief and truth. Many makes that distinction by separating personal perception of reality and the objective truth. For instance, one’s belief that a car will start upon ignition is irrelevant to the fact that the car won’t start. Yet, is that distinction truly relevant? Or rather, is objective truth truly different from personal truth??

????It should be noted that objective truth are often unattainable until decades after the actual event. Rather, the objective fact is the product of long discovery process and extensive debate. In essence, it’s epistemically rational to assume the so called “truth” unattainable, and instrumentally rational to compare “belief” in order to obtain the objective truth decades later.?

????This is not denying the existence of objective truth: the sum of one and one would always be two. However, when dealing with complex issues like diplomatic affairs or societal conflicts, it’s reasonable to assume everything one knows as beliefs. And one should keep updating that belief as new discoveries are made overtime.?

????Logical thinking, in turn, are cognitive tools that aids both epistemic and instrumental rationality. The Socratic-Platonic method mentioned in the first issue, for instance, serves both rationality. Epistemically, it updates one’s belief. Instrumentally, it helps one get closer to the objective truth.

Acknowledgement: this issue is heavily influenced by Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “Less Wrong.” I recommend everyone checking it out.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Written by: Plautus