Can we stop using the word "rationalism"?

You see, I've seen the word "rationalism" used to mean all five of these things at different times:

The belief that we should come to know the world through reason and experimentation, shunning intuition.
The belief that we should come to know the world through reason and intuition, shunning experimentation.
The belief that we should come to know the world through knowledge of (and correction for) cognitive biases, and knowledge of (and correct use of) probability theory.
Being effective at believing things that are true and not things that are false.
Being effective at doing things that are good and not things that are bad.

In most of the mainstream philosophy I've read, the word "rationalism" has been used, without qualification, to mean the second of these, even though that type of rationalism strongly contradicts the stuff we call rationalism! One of my friends has freely used the word "rationalism" in conversation, referring to "our" rationalism, completely unaware that, to most people, the word means something completely different. Another of my friends said that he "hates rationalism with a passion"—and I have no idea which of these five things is the one he hates!

Given that "rationalism" to most people (or, at least, most philosophers) means something utterly unlike what it means to us, perhaps calling our philosophy "rationalism" is about as wise as developing a political philosophy, based on socialism but with nationalist influences, and calling it "national socialism".

I suggest that we use the word "sensibilism" instead, since nobody else is using it, it seems unobjectionable, and I think it captures what we're all about.

Edited to remove a proposed solution.

Edited to reinstate that proposed solution, since this discussion is presumably finished.

You see, I've seen the word "rationalism" used to mean all five of these things at different times:

The belief that we should come to know the world through reason and experimentation, shunning intuition.
The belief that we should come to know the world through reason and intuition, shunning experimentation.
The belief that we should come to know the world through knowledge of (and correction for) cognitive biases, and knowledge of (and correct use of) probability theory.
Being effective at believing things that are true and not things that are false.
Being effective at doing things that are good and not things that are bad.

I suggest that we use the word "sensibilism" instead, since nobody else is using it, it seems unobjectionable, and I think it captures what we're all about.

Edited to remove a proposed solution.

Edited to reinstate that proposed solution, since this discussion is presumably finished.

Yes, good idea. Here are some things I can think of:

It should be free of confusing double meanings.
It should not be silly.
It should be suggestive of what we're about.

Any other thoughts?

I agree with the first and third bullet points, but could you please elaborate on what you mean by the second one?

Also, I would like to add that we usually divide rationality into epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality, as described in What Do We Mean By "Rationality"? So whichever name we pick, it has to describe both branches, which is tricky. Maybe we should ask ourselves what the connection is between the two, and focus on that?

6JenniferRM15y

From a marketing perspective, when introducing something novel it is frequently a good idea to name things descriptively, so that if someone lacks the right keywords but has a felt need for "your thing" they find you anyway because you already use those keywords in your name or associated description. This is potentially a project in itself because you have to do market research and figure out what inferentially distant potential "customers" think, when they think about your stuff. Looking at the tag cloud for the discussion area I would say that what we actually do in the discussion area is "talk and share links about psychologically rational meta-philosophy concerned with artificial intelligence and the singularity". Based on the tag cloud, the front page is for "meetup scheduling and discussion of a bayesian moral meta-philosophy inspired by science and artificial intelligence, with specific concern for the psychology of self deception and akrasia". Another possible angle: Sometimes it's useful to identify and reclaim the name applied to you by your critics, who are likely to have a good handle on what about you is distinctive enough to object to. (I've heard that Christian sects like the Puritans did this sort of epithet reclamation back in the 1600's.) If that's a useful strategy we might impatiently adopt Jaron Lanier's term "cybernetic totalism" or if we have more patience then wait until someone else comes up with a more piercing criticism :-) If we follow Lanier's term maybe we could be said to be a community of cybernetic totalists dedicated to refining the human art of "cybernetic efficacy"? Sometimes I actively appreciate the fuzziness of the status quo. Sometimes if you have a stable name for something it causes people to go crazy about it in specific ways and imagine it has an "essence" that grows out of its dictionary definition and then you have this whole stupid conversation about words instead of talking about regularities within the world and