Position:Home>Philosophy> Reasoning cannot establish a theoretical course of action?

The options that are "in the range," whatever you may mean by that, are found on page 5 of this link!. http://phil240!.tamu!.edu/LectureNotes/6!.1!.!.!.
Anything outside of that "range" is NECESSARILY irrational, when you know the choices that are necessarily IN THE RANGE!.

But being within the "range" is not enough on its own!. Once in the "range," those choices must also be "sound!." A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false!. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid!.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true!. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound!. http://www!.iep!.utm!.edu/v/val-snd!.htm

There may be many choices in the "range" that are also sound!. The acceptable choice(s) are only those that are contextually appropriate!. It is the job of reason to choose the contextually appropriate!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Reason can lead to a new option as a result of new evidence!.
Why should we exclude the minds cognitive ability to reform existing information to form new options by any number of methods of abstract experiments!. This would allow us to then test for the new predicted option empirically!.
Not to mention that we seemingly are capable at times of intuition where it would seem a random bit of data sparks a previously unbeknownst associative connection between separate observations!.
If these are not to be classified as consequences of reason then how shall we describe this type of phenomena!?
Eurika!. You have supposed that the options are created by reason and not revealed by them!. Might we refute your claim with an appeal to the concept that all the options are present with or without the nessecity of our awareness of them!?
There was that intuition thing I was talking about!.
Unless of course you suggest determinism then reason would provide us with the steps at arriving at the best option where a step a would increase the probability of outcome b and that from out come be we would move to step c that would increase the probability of outcome d until we reached the desired option and insured taking into account as many parameters as possible so to increase the probablility of the desired result!.
Reason can process to the course of action by exacting influence to increase the probability of a desired result in a system!.
I believe this process applied in reverse is how we are able to arrive at valid theories based on limited data!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Tell me, do you think they'll ever let you out of the Mental Institution, your in!.
Obviously this question clearly indicates, you are entirely mentally unstable or have you been sampling a variety of hallucinogenic Plant Life or Drugs!.
Of course the other option is, you are just trying to gain attention and bring some activity to a boring, dull and mundane life!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Empiricism is an excellent way to uncover the truth, but it is not necessarily the best technique for decision-making!. Most successful people will tell you that they rely on "instinct"!. Go with yer gut!. Blink!

This works because most of life's choices are relatively mundane!. So, you don't need to be 100% right all of the time!. You simply need to be close to right, most of the time, and have ample opportunity to correct your errors!.

Think about that for a second!Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

i agree that reason is a way!.

i agree that options must be in range of reasoning!.

i disagree that options are established by empiricism!. human sense does not see everything!. empiricism is a subset of something more and bigger!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

There are some problems with your description under your initial question!.

First, by "reasoning *is* a way to choose [!.!.!.]" do you mean the "is" of identity, like ' Aristotle *is* the most famous disciple of Plato'!? Or, do you mean it like "mumbling *is* a way of speaking"!? Either way, it seems your account of what reasoning is, is wrong!. Then, you put forth a proposition, one for which you offer no argument, that empiricism establishes are options within reason - surely this is false!. For the proposition 'all prime numbers greater than 2 are odd numbers' is true, and it is not empirical at all by any means!. In fact, mathematical proofs in general are not empirical, nor are the laws of logic, e!.g!. 'a proposition and it's negation both cannot be true simultaneously' also known as the law of noncontradiction, are not empirical!.

Here is the thesis of Empiricism:

(1) "The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience!." (see source at bottom)!.

So, by your question, together with the thesis of empiricism (it may be that you meant something different by 'empiricism'), the only thing I can make out of your question is this: Since our source of reason is empirical, allegedly, we cannot empirically establish a theoretical course of action!. Yet, 'theoretically' we can nearly establish anything whatever!. I can 'theoretically' solve a proof with the conclusion that 'no tables exist'!. I could 'theoretically' solve Fermi's last conjecture, et cetera!.

You probably mean that reasoning - pure reasoning - cannot establish a course of action!. But, it can, and it does!.
If reasoning cannot establish a course of action, then what does!.!.!.!? Either it is purely ones nonconscious state or it is nothing, because those are our only other options, and quite frankly, they look dim at best!.

I suggest reevaluating what you mean by 'reason' and then rethinking the question you have asked - it seems to me your question, as it stands now, is a non sequitur!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---