Talk:Rationalism

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rationalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Philosophy: Epistemology High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

"Rationalism", the scene associated with LessWrong and SlateStarCodex

Perhaps this deserves a section, or its own article? Here are some sources:[1][2][3] Prezbo (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, in that context, the word "rationalist" derives from instrumental rationality, not philosophical rationalism. That's why they have tags for things like game theory, economics, utility functions, and empiricism. They are not opposed to empiricism, and in fact they generally agree with Hume and other philosophical empiricists that information comes in from the senses, and that the mind just processes the information to manage models of the world and make predictions. The philosophical frameworks commonly favored over there are bayesian epistemology, consequentialism, reductionism, computationalism, and sentiocentric transhumanist values; they don't use the framework of philosophical rationalism at all, and have no conceptual lineage with it. They probably shouldn't be mentioned here, for the same reason that Bayes Rule goes in the rationality article, not the rationalism article. Rationalism and rationality have very little to do with each other but are commonly confused because of the similar name, and giving a group that discusses rationality a section in the rationalism article seems like a case of that confusion. OrangeCroutons (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent use of pull quotes

A few sections in this article lead with what appear to be pull quotes, which are a well-established no-no. I imagine they are potentially very old, but I wanted to sanity-check before removing them. — Remsense诉 11:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]