Search Ideas

If I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.

A belief in god is a form of mysticism. Rand writes that rationality “means the rejection of any form of mysticism […].” So a belief in god is not just false, it’s irrational. It’s also implausible that someone could hold on to as blatantly false an idea as the existence of god without some refusal to look into the matter critically.

Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it?

There’s more to it.

Are there true but irrational ideas?

I don’t think so, no.

I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?

Yes. Mere falsehood does not imply irrationality.

Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.

You asked if irrationality was just false or if there was something else to it. Note that the word ‘false’ does not occur on the linked page. Instead, she mentions the destruction of life, dishonesty, lack of integrity, context dropping, mysticism, and more examples of irrationality. These are attitudes toward truth seeking and their effects.

You asked whether rational but false ideas must exist. That is what Rand means by “not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” Blindness = being wrong on some issue, refusal to see = refusing to seek or recognize the truth on some issue. To her, blindness and the refusal to see are not the same thing, which answers your question.

Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it?

There’s more to it.

Are there true but irrational ideas?

I don’t think so, no.

I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?

Yes. Mere falsehood does not imply irrationality.

Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.

You asked if rationality was just false or if there was something else to it. Note that the word ‘false’ does not occur on the linked page. Instead, she mentions the destruction of life, dishonesty, lack of integrity, context dropping, the rejection of mysticism, and more. These are attitudes toward truth seeking and their effects.

You asked whether rational but false ideas must exist. That is what Rand means by “not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” Blindness = being wrong on some issue, refusal to see = refusing to seek or recognize the truth on some issue. To her, blindness and the refusal to see are not the same thing, which answers your question.

Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it?

There’s more to it.

Are there true but irrational ideas?

I don’t think so, no.

I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?

Yes. Mere falsehood does not imply irrationality.

Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.

You asked if rationality was just false or if there was something else to it. Note that the word ‘false’ does not occur on the linked page. Instead, she mentions the destruction of life, dishonesty, lack of integrity, context dropping, the rejection of mysticism, and more. These are attitudes toward truth seeking and their effects.

You asked whether rational but false ideas must exist. That is what Rand means by “not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” Blindness = being wrong on some issue, refusal to see = refusing to seek or recognize the truth on some issue. To her, blindness and the refusal to see are not the same thing, which answers your question.

If I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.

That’s technically a misquote of Rand. https://www.quote-checker.com/diffs/checking-ayn-rand-quote-re-rationality

How did that happen? Did you not copy/paste?

What do you think is the source of knowledge if not reason?

y as things get complex and more detailed, it becomes to know which part you are 100% right about.

Typos

You make several points here. Try breaking them up into separate ideas. Otherwise, you run the risk of receiving ‘bulk’ criticisms. See #465.

This idea should be posted as a criticism of #1578, not as a top-level idea itself.

Yeah, you’re right.

I suggest you change your idea (#1602) into a criticism so that it cancels out mine. Just click on “revise”, check the box that says “Is criticism?”, and submit the form.

We do in every single way in which we use the term "know".

Don’t people disagree about what ‘know’ means? As in, some think it means they’re justified in their belief, others think they have corrected a sufficient amount of errors, etc…

[Deutsch] suggests that a good explanation is better than a rival if it explains more — meaning it has fewer errors, fewer loose ends, or a broader explanatory range (i.e., it accounts for more phenomena). I believe Popper also describes a solution to be better if it has less unintended consequences than a rival idea. <my interpretations, not quotes>.

Citations needed, that disclaimer not withstanding.

We cannot always be wrong. If all our ideas are false, then so is the the idea that all our ideas are false.

In the future, be sure to ‘neutralize’ a criticism when you revise it by checking the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. Otherwise both the revision and the outdated version are counted as criticisms. Neutralizing ensures that only the most recent revision is counted as a criticism. See #1597.

You don’t need to do this again for this criticism. My counter-criticism already neutralizes it.

Avoid duplicate criticisms during revisions

When revising a criticism, check the box that says “Supersedes previous version?”. This will automatically ‘neutralize’ the older version to avoid counting a criticism twice.

I’ve made dozens of pizzas by now. I’ve gotten pretty good at it.

Ingredients

• Store-bought dough (312g)
• Tomato sauce (70g, low sodium)
• Mozzarella (whole milk, fresh, 100g)
• 2g extra virgin olive oil (optional)
• Semolina flour

Then, for garnish:

• Oregano
• Fresh basil leaves
• A dash of salt

Steps

1. Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
2. Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 650°F.
3. In the meantime, rest dough on counter top until it reaches room temperature.
4. Grate cheese and measure tomato sauce.
5. Dust counter with semolina flour and stretch the dough.
6. Add tomato sauce.
7. Place dough on peel.
8. Place dough on steel; still on top rack with the broiler still on.
9. Bake for 2 minutes.
10. Take out to add cheese and oregano.
11. Bake for another 1.5 minutes on top rack; again, the broiler is still on. Can turn it off halfway through if the pizza is burning on top but the center of the dough needs more time to bake.
12. Optional: take out steel and let pizza rest on steel for another minute to make the bottom crispy.
13. Optional: in the meantime, apply small amount of olive oil to the outer crust and sprinkle salt on outer crust. (Kind of overrated, not really worth the extra calories.)
14. Remove from steel and serve.

They are now implemented.

Much easier to use semolina flour instead of regular flour. h/t @edwin-de-wit

Need email notifications.

I’ve tried dough from a local pizzeria and compared how their dough tastes when they prepare it vs how it tastes when I prepare it at home. The crust wasn’t as crispy at home but overall the dough didn’t taste all that different. That tells me that my oven is at least decent for making pizza.

I’ve made pizza almost every day since the last revision (around 16 pizzas). I’ve gotten pretty good at it.

Ingredients

• Store-bought dough (312g)
• Tomato sauce (90g)
• Mozzarella (part skim, home-shredded, 100g)
• 2g extra virgin olive oil

Then, for garnish:

• Oregano
• Fresh basil leaves
• A dash of salt

Steps

1. Preheat oven for 1 hour. Ends up somewhere around 450°F.
2. Preheat pizza steel for 30 min on top rack underneath broiler, reaches about 650°F.
3. In the meantime, rest dough on counter top until it reaches room temperature.
4. Grate cheese and measure tomato sauce.
5. Stretch the dough.
6. Dust peel with flour.
7. Remove excess flour from dough.
8. Place dough on peel.
9. Add tomato sauce.
10. Place dough on steel; still on top rack with the broiler still on.
11. Bake for 2 minutes.
12. Take out to add oregano and cheese.
13. Bake for another minute on top rack; again, the broiler is still on.
14. Take out steel and let pizza rest on steel for another minute to make the bottom crispy.
15. In the meantime, apply small amount of olive oil to the outer crust and sprinkle salt on outer crust.
16. Remove from steel and serve.

Their suggestion was that this approach might make the crust crispier. It did not. I’m starting to think the store-bought dough is the problem…

Dough was shaped horribly. Need to practice stretching it.

I felt like trying more sauce. Mistake. 100g is enough.

Some had suggested parbaking without any toppings. Horrible idea: the dough rose everywhere at once. Tomato sauce is required to weigh down the dough in the center.