Difference between rationalization & reason?

[Cake]

I am having a tough time understanding exactly the difference between using reason to come to a conclusion and rationalizing an incorrect one. Any ideas?

[KevinD]

To employ a process of reason, is to apply the method of logic to a given issue or problem. Logic, as defined by Ayn Rand, is the art of non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality.

Rationalization, on the other hand, means starting with a conclusion, and then trying to work backwards to prop it up. For instance: Say my girlfriend is giving me every indication that she is losing her feelings for me, and wants to break off our relationship — but I'm so terrified of losing her, I seek out every bit of "evidence" I can find to convince myself that she still loves me and wants to be with me forever. I spin her negative statements until they have positive meaning — I blow the tiniest hint of a semi-pleasurable response from her vastly out of proportion — and that which I can't spin or inflate, I evade. I concoct a "reason" for everything: she's tired, she's sick, she's "not herself," she's under stress, and will soon be back to normal. Everything in my method is geared, not toward understanding the facts of reality, but specifically avoiding the one fact that I cannot bear to accept: that our relationship is irrevocably doomed.

That's rationalization.

A person who's rationalizing is not genuinely motivated to discover the truth, but to justify his feelings. Rationalization looks not at reality, but at what one wants to be true. It means the sin of living inside your own head; the confusing of the "I wish" with the "it is." As such, rationalization and reason have nothing in common; in fact, they're polar opposites.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Kevin Delaney

[BurgessLau]

Besides the "bad" meaning of rationalization that Kevin gave, I would like to point out that there is another, though less common, meaning of "rationalize" or "rationalization." This second meaning is a "good" one. It means to put things in some logical order. For example, a writer might speak of the invention of double-entry (debits and credits) bookkeeping as an effort to rationalize businesses that before had only a vague idea of whether they were ahead or behind their expectations for making money.

And then there is rationalism. Some writers have used "rationalism" as the name of support for reason. In the context of Objectivist philosophy, "rationalism" refers to a counterfeit form of "reason" -- a form in which all ideas are "logically" related to each other in a structure, but with no foundation in sense-perception.

See "Rationalism vs. Empiricism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, for a brief excerpt from Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual.

Edited September 28, 2005 by BurgessLau

[The Guru Kid]

In other words, follow the good old adage "don't jump to conclusions".

One of the biggest topics you see rationalization is in the area of Atheism vs. Agnosticism. Atheism argues pro-reason and states that since the existence of such an thing as god cannot be proven, by default, it does not exist. Agnosticism argues through rationalism and chooses the statement "There is God" first and then try to prove it one way or the other.

[Aphex_Twin]

One of the biggest topics you see rationalization is in the area of Atheism vs. Agnosticism. Atheism argues pro-reason and states that since the existence of such an thing as god cannot be proven, by default, it does not exist.

One would expect a rational being not to jump to conclusions about Atheists jumping to conclusions

[BurgessLau]

One of the biggest topics you see rationalization is in the area of Atheism vs. Agnosticism. Atheism argues pro-reason and states that since the existence of such an thing as god cannot be proven, by default, it does not exist. Agnosticism argues through rationalism and chooses the statement "There is God" first and then try to prove it one way or the other.

Based on personal observation, I see that some atheists (that is, "not-theists") are atheists because they are nihilists. They do not support reason, but hate all values, including God, the ultimate value of religious people. So, it is an invalid generalization to say that atheists are pro-reason. Only some of them are.

Some agnostics ("not-knowers") do not argue rationalistically. Instead, these agnostics are simply skeptics. They think nothing can be known, and certainly not the ineffable being religionists claim God is.

[The Guru Kid]

Based on personal observation, I see that some atheists (that is, "not-theists") are atheists because they are nihilists. They do not support reason, but hate all values, including God, the ultimate value of religious people. So, it is an invalid generalization to say that atheists are pro-reason. Only some of them are.

Some agnostics ("not-knowers") do not argue rationalistically. Instead, these agnostics are simply skeptics. They think nothing can be known, and certainly not the ineffable being religionists claim God is.

hmmm. Perhaps i should've said the Objectivist view on the matter is pro-reason. And i say that agnostics try to rationalize because most of the agnostics i've met use the old argument "can you prove god does not exist?". For them, statements are just "out there" and unknown and calling them true or fale BOTH require proof.

Even on the instances when i make a ridiculous and trivial statement to prove my point, they nod and say that it could be true.

Getting kind of off topic here.

[Cake]

In other words, follow the good old adage "don't jump to conclusions".

I find adages like this one to be so overused that they kind of lose thier meaning. I know that it is easy to see that one should make conclusions based on the evidence presented, but often it can become difficult to make sure one is using reason properly when faced with a alot of evidence that can be misinterpreted.

Rationalization, on the other hand, means starting with a conclusion, and then trying to work backwards to prop it up.

I understand what rationalization is through this definition.

I would like to know what induction is, and how rationalization is different than something like theory testing? I am trying to get technical, so please dont respond with vauge generalities.

Edited October 2, 2005 by Cake