Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.
Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.}
Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.
MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 week ago
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
LengAwaits@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.
Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.}
Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.