From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> But
>> studies show that people are not rational,[9] they give recently
>> presented information undue importance, thereby producing answers
>> that are not rational.
>
>But if the *studies* are not rational (evidence against their
>thesis), then why pay any attention to them, unless
>the paper they're printed on has good pheremones or something?
All of my comments concerning "rational" use the economist's definition:
"'Rationality' means the adaptation of means to ends." [p.16, Zey, 1992]
With this definition, "rationality" becomes a mathematical (Baysian) formula
that can be tested. Well, people have been tested, and they have failed.
Thus, people are not rational.
Democracy and Capitalism are founded on the premise that people know what's
best for themselves -- that people can make "rational" choices to reach
desired ends. That premise has been tested and found to be false.
>> If people can not make rational decisions, how can democratic
>> governments solve problems in complex systems?
>
>Athens existed -- at least for a while. It provides
>"proof of concept".
Affixing an undefined label to period in Greek history is not hypopthesis
testing -- it's not science. Popper said it best:
" What the scientist's and the lunatic's theories have in common is that
both belong to conjectural knowledge. But some conjectures are much better
than others..." -- Sir Karl Popper, THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION
http://dieoff.org/page126.htm
Jay
