From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irrational redirects here[edit]

Perhaps people in search of Irrational Games might appreciate a disambiguation one-liner at the top of this article? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. For whomever makes the inevitable revert: I did it with the best intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added a link to the article on irrational numbers, since 'irrational' redirects here. This is a very common mathematics topic, so a link or a disambiguation page would be helpful. Trshaffer (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


What does "belief in logical fallacies" mean? Thanks. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 03:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

--Greasysteve13 10:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How is belief in logical fallacies irrational? Logic is like a computer: it's a garbage-in-garbage-out device. It is a method for either proving or disproving a given theory by presenting evidence, both for and against, then debating the evidence found. However, this process does not edit the data put in, so it is possible for logic to produce garbage should garbage be presented as evidence. Like a computer, it's only as good as the user. Logical fallacies DO exist and do happen, even to well-educated persons (usually, I hope, by accident/oversight). In fact, they may even turn up when someone intentially provides bogus evidence in order to prove a specific viewpoint. Remember, just because you think something is the Right Way, that doesn't mean it is. So how is it irrational to believe in logical fallacies? Yeah, I'm the one who removed it from the article. I apologize for the vandalism should someone prove me wrong, that it really is irrational to believe that logic has flaws.

alternative definition[edit]

Should another page be added that describes the use of the term "irrationality" in psychology? Where philosophy describes irrationality as something that interferes with rational thought or an action done without regard to rationality, as I can recall, although I am not entirely certain, in psychology the term "irrational" is used to mean something that does not cotribute to reasoning, but not necissarily something that interferes with it. I will have to research this further, as I cannot recall if that was exactly the correct definition, or if it was not psychology but rather anothr field of study that used that or a similar definition. At any rate, I would want someone to respond as to whether or not this should be done.

Growth of article over time[edit]

I love this article and I beleive it be great reading and hope for that it should grow over time 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


The section in this article where it says, "belief in the supernatural without evidence" could conflict with religious beliefs, and should either be removed, or reworded. (Not to say that I have any religious views, but others may find it offensive; I don't). Exothermic Reaction (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being irrational. If "belief in the supernatural without evidence" is irrational, then it should be listed, irrespective of whether it offends those who don't want to see anything that disagrees with their views. Would you say that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a supernatural entity without evidence, is rational? Don't consider "religious" opinions to be any more sacred than philosophical or political opinions. -- (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the phrase "belief in the supernatural without evidence" means. The "evidence" is presumably the believer's culture and traditions. "God" or "gods" is a conceptual bucket that contains those values, and if those values have utility to them as they inevitable do have, than I don't think we can call them-- belief in the supernatural-- irrational. They may seem irrational to us, but it doesn't follow that they are irrational to others. That is the problem with FSM-- it's a god-concept detached from culture, values, and tradition and thusly "evidence". It's for this reason I think discussion on the relationship of evidence to theisms is better suited for the atheism page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymallandnews (talkcontribs) 04:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As a discipline[edit]

I'm in the middle of Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational and I'm beginning to recognize its influence in college and university documents. I'm not the person, but I hope someone can add a section on how "irrationality" (as a method) seems to be becoming the next big subject matter for colleges and universities. -- kosboot (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


From the wiktionary:


Singular faith

Plural faiths

faith (plural faiths)

  1. Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
         I have faith in the healing power of crystals.

isn't that pretty much synonymous with irrationality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RowanEvans (talkcontribs) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition is incorrect. "Faith" means a firm, active trust, not how you define it as. (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


This article is a good start as the body covers a concise yet inclusive gamut of irrationality. The introduction, however, is not reflective of the body. The first sentence of the intro works as a concise overview, but the second, longer, paragraph focuses on the pajoritive use of the term. Not only is this focus not at all reflected in the body of the entry, I would argue it is not even the most intersting aspect of the concept from a philosophical or psycological point of view. And, since this article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, I would suggest that someone knowledgable in the field redo the intro to reflect this focus. The pajoritive aspect of the term could have a heading in the body of the article; but, since a quick sampling of dictionary definitions doesn't mention this aspect of the term, I don't believe it belongs in the intro.

Again, the body is a great start. I think the intro should reflect that body in nature and quality. Thanks to anyone in the field of philo or psych willing to augment.

Cheers, Wolfworks (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "intuistic" is actually a word.[edit]

"a new growing school of thought in which the importance of our intuistic capabilities is stressed" (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be an mutation of the word "intuitive", though it must be recent as the few thousand google hits for it don't actually seem to include any kind of dictionaries or anybody defining it. One suitably knowledgeable could still figure out what the intended word is based on the context, but until it's picked up by a reputable source with a set definition, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "intuitive". As it is it just gives the article the feel that you're being talked down upon. 99bluefoxx (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a sentence?[edit]

"It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate using reason , emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency."

Danj1953 (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims[edit]

The number of unsubstantiated claims made in this article is astounding. Just count the number of [citation needed] tags. Even more can be added, based on what I've read. I would invite other editors (perhaps with less cognitive bias than those who've worked the article so far) to address this issue.

Odd sources[edit]

The first two sources deal with male vs female and "feminist standpoint research". While the opening lines are written fairly generally, the sources seem oddly specific to a topic that doesn't summarize the entire topic. Wqwt (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Excised sentence, October 2016[edit]

I removed the following sentence from Irrationality#Irrationalist:

In contemporary philosophy "irrationalism" is, inspired by Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, emerging into a new growing school of thought in which the importance of our intuitive capability is stressed.[citation needed]

There is a long history of rational argumentation in Hindu philosophy and Buddhist philosophy, so this sentence would need elaboration and qualification to avoid being misleading, if not false. Biogeographist (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)