PHIL 1200 Lecture 4: Huemer

• School: CU-Boulder
• Department: Philosophy
• Course: PHIL 1200
• Professor: Shane Melnitzer

Document Summary

Huemer proves why we are irrational about politics. This is a pretty harsh critique to call somebody irrational. It is (cid:271)oth u(cid:374)(cid:272)harita(cid:271)le a(cid:374)d irratio(cid:374)al to (cid:272)all so(cid:373)e(cid:271)od(cid:455)"s opi(cid:374)io(cid:374) irratio(cid:374)al without valid reasons. It is u(cid:374)(cid:272)harita(cid:271)le (cid:271)e(cid:272)ause it is e(cid:454)tre(cid:373)el(cid:455) disi(cid:374)ge(cid:374)uous to (cid:272)all so(cid:373)e(cid:271)od(cid:455)"s opinioin irrational better reasons. Therefore, huemer must motivate this claim that humans are irrational about politics. To motivate a claim is when you give reasons to do something. If (cid:455)ou do(cid:374)"t (cid:272)o(cid:373)e to (cid:272)lass, (cid:455)ou (cid:449)ill fail. Therefore, there is (cid:373)oti(cid:448)atio(cid:374) to (cid:272)o(cid:373)e to (cid:272)lass. Passionate disagreement proves people are irrational about politics. This kind of argument is called inference to the best explanation. In the inference to the best explanation style argument, the best explanation has to be better than the alternatives and explain why it is a good explanation. An explanation is a set of assertions that are to be explained. Hue(cid:373)er"s e(cid:454)pla(cid:374)a(cid:374)du(cid:373) is ho(cid:449) disagree(cid:373)e(cid:374)t is irratio(cid:374)al a(cid:374)d (cid:449)h(cid:455) people are irratio(cid:374)al.