And I would not assert that the claim “The king of France is bald” was “nonsense”. Nor would anyone who has read Russell’s On Denoting (as I assume you have).

Whereas if they inferred from those two claims that Socrates is mortal, that would be rational. In general, it is rational to base one’s beliefs on the evidence, and irrational to believe things unsupported by evidence. Can’t we agree on that?

Statements in and of themselves are neither rational not irrational, because rationality is a matter of how the statement was arrived at. For example, if someone infers from the claims Socrates is a man and all men are mortal that Socrates must be Swedish (our Greek), that would be irrational.

Secondly, whilst I would say that the alternative to rationality is irrationality, I would not say that there is only one rational belief in any given case. So I endorse no false dilemma there.

Firstly, you’ve attempted to use reasoning to criticize my view, exemplifying and implicitly endorsing the very view I am defending: that rationality is an ideal worth preserving and is better than the alternatives. …

You’ve said a lot of interesting things, and I thank you for that. But I don’t see you as addressing any view I’ve stated or implied. …

First post here — what you should know about me. I’m a philosopher and photographer (mainly landscape and nature). My work in photography can be viewed on my Flickr page (peripateticphilosopher) or my website: www.martingodwyn.com.