jamesireland wrote:Now this is possibly getting off topic, but the term 'rational' definitely has no widely agreed upon definition. At best it represents a sort of value judgment regarding ways of thinking - to call something rational is to say that it is an acceptable/good way of thinking. Hume would certainly not want to impute causal reasoning, or any other form of scientific reasoning for that matter.
It may be that according to the writers of the LSAT, all causal reasoning is flawed. But, this is certainly not something we can find out by looking to Hume, since he clearly did not think scientific reasoning flawed.
Actually, "rational" has many
widely agreed upon definitions. You just have to use common sense to see figure out what meaning is being used based on context. Was I saying "Hume says science is dumb, lol"? No, then I wasn't using your suggested definition. Was I talking about the LSAT, which deals almost exclusively in deductive reasoning? Hmm.. well, this is an LSAT forum, the question was about the LSAT. But I guess if your point had really just been "wait, what do you mean by 'rational' there?" you wouldn't have had an excuse to bring up Karl Popper.
I haven't said anything incorrect: causal arguments can't really be deductively valid. Knowing this is helpful on the LSAT. Hume among others point out this problem without saying that inductive reasoning,science, etc., is garbage. There's a reason they say induction is the triumph of science but the shame of philosophy.