Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is why Koestler openly contests the contemporary rejection of possible "non-causal interactions" and phenomena such as telepathy and extrasensory perceptions, to which he will return in his subsequent research. [3] "The conclusion he puts forward at the end of the book is that modern science is trying too hard to be rational.
Technological rationality or technical rationality is a philosophical idea postulated by the Frankfurt School philosopher Herbert Marcuse in his 1941 article, "Some Social Implications of Modern Technology," published first in the journal Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences, Vol. IX. [1] It gained mainstream repute and a more holistic treatment in his 1964 book One-Dimensional Man.
The hard problem of consciousness is the question of what consciousness is and why we have consciousness as opposed to being philosophical zombies. The adjective "hard" is to contrast with the "easy" consciousness problems, which seek to explain the mechanisms of consciousness ("why" as compared with "how", or final cause versus efficient cause ...
Imagine there's a game where one person is placed in a room and assigned the role of the "sender." A second person in a different room is assigned the role of "receiver." The sender is given $20 ...
According to reason-responsiveness accounts, to be rational is to be responsive to reasons. For example, dark clouds are a reason for taking an umbrella, which is why it is rational for an agent to do so in response. An important rival to this approach are coherence-based accounts, which define rationality as internal coherence among the agent ...
An irrational negotiator cannot be put under rational pressure. [52] An indirect tactic is the rational use of the irrationalism of third parties. One concrete implementation of this tactic in human history has been, and continues to be, the use of suicide bombers, particularly in so-called asymmetric warfare.
'I don't believe in God, I believe in science,' atheists often argue. But that doesn't mean their thinking is evidence-based.
As the study of argument is of clear importance to the reasons that we hold things to be true, logic is of essential importance to rationality. Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", [1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge.