undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdanans4y ago0 comments

> In the past, it is a rational concern to be worried about being jumped by a predator from behind a bush, and if you don’t know if or if not there is a predator, it is perfectly rational to be worried about such a concern!

I think we agree, but I also think you are using "rational" here in the colloquial sense to mean the "smartest" thing to do.

The article, and my comment in response, uses the traditional definition of "rational" as something derived from logic, and not from impulse or instinct.

The two definitions are not the same (not that one is better than the other, they just mean different things).

0 comments

lazide4y ago

Nope, explicitly using logic. We didn’t invent thinking about things in the last hundred years after all.

If you don’t know what is behind x thing, and every y times someone walks by a thing like x thing they get jumped by a leopard, then only walk by x thing when the risk is worth it. Which it rarely is.

If you’re referring to formal logic, then sure - but almost no one in that thread seems to be using that definition either. Formal logic is incredibly expensive (mentally), and only a few percent of folks even now can afford to use it with any regularity.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse