j03

I agree with many of your points, though the practicality of your test methodology is... well, impractical.

I think rationality itself is one of the ideological blinders you speak of. Forget blinding, it can be totally debilitating.

Irrational morons can be quite successful by any of the usual measures: procreation, monetary wealth, even happiness.

Rationality is simply a point of view. It is satisfying and maybe even fun. But it's not God. It's not the "one true way."

The world would be an awful place to live if everyone was "rational."

1. How do you know your determination of "ideological bias" isn't biased itself?
2. All experiments are flawed in one way or another to some degree. Are you saying one study is more methodologically flawed than another? How do you measure the degree of the flaws? How do you know your determination of flaws isn't biased?
3. Again, you've already decided the which study is "correct" based on your own biased interpretations. How do you prove the other person is wrong and it's not you that is biased?

I agree with the randomize and repeat bit though.

However, I would like to propose that this test methodology for rationality is deeply flawed.

I guess no-one wants to have a "rational" debate on the subject of rationality.

They'd rather vote-down minor problems like actually having concrete definitions for the basis of their faith in this abstract thing called "rationality."

Good luck with that!

Rationality is fiction.

Belief that purely rational thought is possible or even a reasonable goal is a sure sign of an irrational person.

That last sentence should cause a bit of cognitive dissonance if you're paying attention.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw