"Is it rational to deny everyone elses basis for rationality? If it's subjective..."

But that is my whole point. If rationality is according to the individual, it is going to be subjective to some degree and a more-informed third party is going to evaluate rationality - even if in the same situation - differently. So it's rather self-serving and subject to bias to self-examine and self-declare rationality. I'm not arguing that acting on our own knowledge isn't logical and isn't what we should be doing, I'm just pointing out what I perceive to be a significant definitional issue: that of rationality.

In every other aspect, we disallow subjectivity in the philosophy of Objectivism. Though some people may adhere to the standards better than others, it isn't people who are the standards: the standards are objective and external. As soon as we start saying that a specific person's interpretation is more important than the objective and external, we violate the standard of objectivity and plunge ourselves into the chaos of subjectivity. Where once the waters were clear, now they are muddied. When we begin comparing what we did to what we would have done, we're always going to see ourselves as rational! It is only when we compare ourselves and what we did to what a more informed person would have done that we can really perform an objective comparison.

SYNONYMS: logical, analytic, ratiocinative, rational. The central meaning shared by these adjectives is “capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning”: a logical mind; an analytic thinker; the ratiocinative process; a rational being.
ANTONYMS: illogical.

What I am trying to get at is that rational is an adjective implying only that the ability to reason is intact in whatever thing or process that it modifies. It indicates a particular type of thing or process. It has nothing to do with whether all the evidence is available, that, say all ravens are black in an absolute sense, only that ones reason exists. The thing or process would have to be looked into to see how evidence is used, as say in rational action, rational thought, etc., i.e., how reason is used. Thinking rationally would indicate using reason correctly and rationalness and rationality would indicate the reason itself. Thinking would be the application of reason and its tool of logic to perceptual - conceptual knowledge. That knowledge may or may not be extensive but must be considered valid for logical purposes. That is where honesty would enter so that those intuitions, emotions, feelings, dreams, and whatnot are questioned until the emergence of actual evidence. I am aware that at the subconscious level the brain can detect little subtleties that the mind finds valuable enough to make conscious in ways that have not been reasoned logically upon but likely logical with respect to whatever knowledge or beliefs that the brain has to work with with regard to percepts.
We both might be on the wrong tract but since most people don't even consider any of this, I mainly considered it with what I remember from Rand saying something about rational thought being relative to reality. Hope I have not wasted too much of your time trying to figure this out.

Thanks for referencing 'Blink', I read it years ago but must have not retained anything from it. Might have rubbed me the wrong way at the time.

I am running out of typing room on my monitor so will need to resume this somewhere later if you would like to do so.

But what you are actually arguing for here is subjective reason rather than absolute reason. Context can help us learn why someone acted in a certain manner, but context does not determine absolute rationality. It all comes down to whether an individual gets to set the standard for reality or whether reality itself is the standard.

I don't mince words and don't expect others to do so. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding what you were saying. Thanks.

"If you are, to the best of your knowledge, reasoning with respect to reality, then you are rational."

Okay, so you are equating logical to rational. Just wanted to make sure.

"If you pretend that you have part of your knowledge of reality, such as "I have a gut feeling" or "everyone believes that, so who am I to buck them", though those exist in reality, that would be irrational and not some OK position on a rationality scale."

I'm going to play devil's advocate with you on this statement. There is a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink. In it, he sites several examples where gut feelings (instances of "something is wrong with this picture") came to various experts and were later shown to be completely accurate but at the time the experts themselves couldn't quite identify why they felt they way. One example was an art forgery case, where the experts involved were signing off on the authenticity of a statue for sale and insurance purposes. The first instant or "blink" when the expert saw a particular piece of art, their first reaction was that it was fake. But the individual overrode that reaction and then went about performing all the standard tests of authentication. According to the tests, the statue passed and was accordingly sold, etc. for a handsome sum of money. But the particular expert thought about her initial reaction and couldn't shake it. Some months later, she finally isolated what about the statue had twinged the initial reaction: the toes. They did another investigation and it turned out to be a massive forgery, but it had fooled all of the experts precisely because they ignored their intuitive senses which had - literally - arrived at the correct/real conclusion in the blink of an eye. The whole point of his book was that in many cases we actually arrive instantaneously at the correct decision without knowing why and we frequently talk ourselves out of it in favor of "facts" which are more to our liking or experience.

If you ever talk to law enforcement personnel, you will find that nearly all of them can cite a similar example of where - though they couldn't readily identify the source of the feeling - something just seemed off about a person or situation and their intuition turned out to be a game-changer. I've also seen the same thing with mother's instincts as well as in my own life. There is also the old test-taking maxim where one's original impression is usually correct. So I am going to differ with you in disallowing gut feelings. Groupthink I will agree, however, is just laziness.

I think what I'm mostly getting at, however, is that you seem to be categorizing rationality from a personal measurement standpoint in which something is either rational or not rational and I am attempting to take a third-party stance. I think we both may be accurate from our individual points of view (relative vs absolute), but the flaw I see in self-evaluation is that nearly every given decision when evaluated personally can be argued to be rational with respect to one's self, yet be very irrational when viewed from the perspective of someone else and in particular someone with more knowledge.

I am saying that there is no measurement scale for rational. That is an exclusive thing where you can not sneak in what is not known. If you are, to the best of your knowledge, reasoning with respect to reality, then you are rational. If you pretend that you have part of your knowledge of reality, such as "I have a gut feeling" or "everyone believes that, so who am I to buck them", though those exist in reality, that would be irrational and not some OK position on a rationality scale.
There is no way to even consider something like 100% rationality since there may be something not yet discovered. But you can be say that 100% rationality would be when you act with regard to all that you believe to be true with no little added stuff to make reality look better than it looks with what you can actually know that you know. You seem to be wanting to categorize some degrees of irrationality as being rational in some way. It is the same with irrational, it is or it is not, it is more about honesty with oneself about reality. Same with honesty and integrity. There are not 0 to100 scales for them so that you can pretend. You are either rational, honest, or have integrity or not.
That might seem a bit harsh, but the natural world is more harsh than lenient. No mental free lunches.

So I'm a little confused. You say that rationality is either all or none, yet there is the huge caveat in there that because of imperfect knowledge we can not be 100% rational. So according to your definition, rationality is as much about will as anything.

"You do not get the pretend absoluteness of religious faith."

No idea what that means.

"Other thinking should be noted as having little mental question marks meaning that evidence might be lacking but the thinking still would be rational."

Again - if by your definition rationality is an absolute, how does one justify decision-making based on incomplete information (a constant guarantee) as being rational? Again I go back to my example of someone who has been taught global warming as doctrine: they are being logical, but according to my definition they are not rational, where by your definition they would be rational. Which is it?

That is right. Now that took a small amount of thought. In your case, your previous thought would have been helpful. To many people even that small amount of thought would be too much to make the effort.

No, there is no measurement for rationality. It is all or none. You either think with respect to reality to the best of your knowledge, or you do not. You do not get the pretend absoluteness of religious faith.There are large numbers of absolutes from being rational, such as one needs food and water in order to continue to live. Other thinking should be noted as having little mental question marks meaning that evidence might be lacking but the thinking still would be rational. Guessing counts when rational or there could never be a hypothesis created. Mathematics is very rational because the reality is that of valid conceptual formation and discovered logic and real and mentally created abstract relationships.

"Rational means having or exorcising the ability to reason and would imply with respect to reality..." (emphasis mine)

That is entirely my point. We do not have the capacity to be 100% rational because we don't have the capacity to determine reality 100%. We can be logical and act on what we know, however. Rationality ultimately can only be measured to the degree we understand reality and thus "rational" thinking can never be 100% objective - i.e. 0% uncertainty. The goal is to strive for better, but also to recognize that gaps in knowledge inevitably exist and may taint logical thought processes - thus the need to re-examine our premises when new information arises.

PS - I've seen this puzzle with two choices, but never with a third. It's an interesting twist. "Are you James? would be answered by a No by either William (truthful) or James(untruthful) but by a Yes by John(untruthful). Is that right?

Rational means having or exorcising the ability to reason and would imply with respect to reality, which thinking, even theoretical thought, is about. Reason is harder to pin down. Sometimes it refers to the result of thinking and sometimes to the thinking itself. But in the end, they are contingent on ones choice and so could be considered as not absolute and depend upon the ability to choose by a particular rational animal.
There is no way, even in mathematics to not have surprises to show up, to be omniscient, and one must reason with the knowledge context available. Some will have more knowledge than others but all have to have a possible lack of some knowledge. What is conscious in reason is the choosing, though that even has some subconscious source, or allowing oneself to do the work of thinking logically. Most of what is considered thinking is done automatically in the brain and then later one becomes aware of it as thoughts.
Here is an example of a little problem that takes a bit of mental work and may, in some people with experience be instantly answered:
"We are given three brothers named John, James, and William. John and James (the two J's) always lie, but William always tells the truth. The three are indistinguishable in appearance. You meet one of the three brothers on the street one day and wish to find out whether he is John (because John owes you money). You are allowed to ask him one question answerable by yes or no but the question may not contain more than three words! What question would you ask?"

So really, when Rand uses the word rational in descriptions of human behavior, she isn't using it in an absolute sense, is that what you are saying? She is using it to mean acting logically with a heavy dose of intent to compensate for the very real potential of missing knowledge? I'm good with that.

I inferred that a wish for omniscience might be in the background with that lament that we must sometimes act without knowing what we are doing due to lack of evidence, where many times that is due to emotion driven action, but emotion is from previously learned pro or con, to the self, knowledge. The brain will give a logically correct, with regard to that knowledge, since natural processes can not be illogical in regard to nature.

In your example: if the premises that one has are true as far as one knows and are not contradicted by other evidence from reality, then to use them, in the context, to justify an action would be rational. The other person's accepted facts as being true and causing some action, in their context, would also be rational. The conclusion by the latter would in the same way be rational as would be the conclusion that the former is being irrational while the former could have the same conclusion about the latter. The question as to whether there is a contradiction between the premises used by the two analysts is what would be important for the beliefs. It could be the case that both are acting rationally due to some other factor not yet discovered. Of course, there could be the choice of not acting in some knee jerk way until more is known. I have been studying the conflict for many years and find problems on both sides along with the nastiness being flung back and forth. On blogs, the common thing is to close comments when there could be some new thought on the subject.

Right, as I was using it, also means 'in accordance with fact, reason, or truth' as well as your connotation.

And where do I say I believe that to be rational? I did not. I merely stated it would viewed as such.

I don't know that anyone was promised omniscience. That wasn't part of the question. The question was one of the difference between acting logically and acting rationally. A decision may be logical, but it may not be rational. Example: If you have been taught all your life that global warming is real, to act on that in support of initiatives curbing CO2 is logical, but to someone who knows that the "proof" of global warming is manufactured and false, that same act - though the product of logical thought - is irrational to the informed observer.

"Being rational does not mean always being right"

The key word here is "right". "Right" in this use implies a moral destination or outcome which is logically sound and based on correct premises. What you are actually saying is that it is difficult to ascertain in some cases whether or not a particular outcome is "right" - not necessarily whether or not one is acting logically - until after the decision has been made and the consequences arrived at. I don't disagree with you at all. The question is rather the determination of what is "right", because that entirely determines what is actually rational.

Maybe from this comment of yours.
" I specifically stated that while right now we consider it rational to spend that money elsewhere given our current context, in a future where we were invaded our decisions now would be viewed as irrational to the survivors."

Since when were you promised by nature that omniscience was part of human rationality. A hypothesis is a guess from evidence that something might be true and it must be tested before accepting it as a truth (note the necessity of evidence before even forming a hypothesis or even a guess). Even then, it is possible to need to modify it should new evidence be found. So it is not that "we sometimes must act to test out the validity of a hypothesis..." we must always do so. Seems like pragmatism with kind of a "I don't know so I will try this and that until I hit right and then I will have been rational, to hell with all that data gathering nonsense". Being rational does not mean always being right, but only that you are focused on reality and not act on just random guesses or emotions or other reality modeling constructs without evidence. If humans are rational animals, all that means is that they have a consciousness that can focus on objective reality and create a conceptual view, as a model, of it. Objectivism requires that one have an understanding that knowledge is contextual and that omniscience is not possible no matter how hard you wish or pray that nature is not that way.

Yes, but the problem is that we don't always know whether or not our premises are valid. We sometimes must act to test out the validity of a hypothesis, so we don't know whether or not our actions are rational until after the fact. They would, however, be logical - a deduction based on premises, etc.

" Why do you believe that it is rational to judge those, who in the past and had no objective knowledge of the future, as being irrational if something happens in that future that they did not know in the past."

Where did I say I believe this? Noting that it happens, and expecting it to happen in the future, is not the same as saying it is a good thing, or rational, or that I believe it to be so. Don't add beliefs to others to support your argument. If you're going to do that, it would be irrational to continue discussion with you.

Rational pertains to the facts of objective reality. To be inclusive, objective reality must include all that exists that can be sensed by the body as well as the patterns in the brain from which emerges the mind, its knowledge, and theories that it creates. Why do you believe that it is rational to judge those, who in the past and had no objective knowledge of the future, as being irrational if something happens in that future that they did not know in the past. It would be irrational for those in the past to act without knowledge and yes, knowledge is contextual and in the absence of a context, pretending that one exists would be irrational. Rational action requires known facts of reality for direction. Good stories are not enough to act on other than searching out sequels and other works of the author. The fact of the destructive state of the world at present should be enough to show that good stories are not enough for civilizations because stories like math are not reifiable.

As for a terrestrial defense system, fine for possible asteroid defense and anti-missile defense but depends upon how ruthless the taxers can become to get funds. If there is no clear threat, then one should not pretend that there is one.
Mathematics is part of those mental patterns but it must be remembered that mental patterns are only that, patterns. They cannot be reified as real things of matter and radiation. The faster than light tachyons from SToR are mathematical artifacts and have not been shown to exist. GToR has many interesting posited mathematical entities, but only attempted to be made real by trying to reify mathematics leading to fantasy worlds. Other math gives possible means for time travel but would require resetting existence to a previous state because light cones do not exist as other than the mental patterns of mathematics.

I think you're missing the point which is that context is required for a judgement of rationality. You are caught up in "defending" an untenable straw man. Nobody said anything by about asserting we should be subverting individual liberties, or even what a reasonable cost is. Hell, I'm not even saying we should be building up such defenses. I specifically stated that while right now we consider it rational to spend that money elsewhere given our current context, in a future where we were invaded our decisions now would be viewed as irrational to the survivors. This is because you can't judge a scenario as rational or not on information the actors involved did not have. That said, the belief that any aliens that came here would have to be benevolent and "evolved beyond violence" is irrational within our current context because it goes against what we do know. It is at best wishful thinking. We have zero evidence it has ever happened - certainly not on this planet. The closest you can get to such an idea is the Bonobo, and they aren't climbing the technological ladder.

As to speculating advanced transportation there are indeed some solid theories at the edge of serious research. The SToR does indeed say the speed limit is light speed. But the GToR actuall specifies some ways around this limit. Most of them do require serious levels of energy - few within our technical capability, and none within our economic or political will. For a specific short example according to the Big Bang theory (not the show), space itself is capable of expanding or contracting faster than the speed of light. With enough energy itbosnt ossicle to warp space. Ergo to say it is impossible is untenable based on currently known mainstream science. That said it is arguable that a civilization capable of generating and harnessing that level of energy (a Type III civilization certainly, maybe a type II) would be one we could militarily contend with.

But fun digression side, you don't seem to be actually disagreeing with me on whether it is rational given what we know, but you seem to think you are. I'm saying that the idea that aliens will have to be benevolent is itself irrational, and that if we were invaded in the future our views today that seem rational to us would be viewed as irrational due to their different and "updated" knowledge.

That said I can't agree with your assertion that a concerted effort to build a terrestrial defense system must be a waste of time and resources. It is likely it would be absent a clear threat, but that isn't a given. A large chunk of our advancements have come from application to military purposes.

Even M&Ms and the interstate highway system - curiously both have fallen into relatively sorry state. Apparently the newer ones can easily melt in your hands. My oldest daughter complains of this happening.