Whew.. much too abstract for me guys, but I would argue that one could distinguish between a rational scientist and a rational person.
A person could be considered rational if they believe in experience collected over the lifetime of mankind, even if there is no proof. A person is probably rational to count on the sun always shining every day. Sure, maybe it doesn’t one day or the moon could be in front of it, but I wouldn’t call the person not being rational believing in the regular event.
I also wonder if probability plays into this. We know that events are rare, but we don’t know if they will hit us each of the next two days.
We could say that it is rational to buy a house in California if it is cheap, and earthquakes are rare. But what if one hits one week after you buy it? Both people will fight about who is more rational, the buyer because the chance was low, and the friend who warned him will say she was rational because an earthquake can hit any time in California.
Same with the market. I suppose you cannot claim that it is rational that a market will go up. Since you cannot predict the future, no prediction is rational. One person can claim it is rational that it goes up its historical rate, and another person can claim that this time is different and unforseen events might happen. Either way the market goes, one person will declare victory without proof that he was rational. Then what? Are they now only following the lead of the person who was right?
I suppose we would follow the person who was more often right the last couple of times, but is this rational?
Still a little conundrum for me how to resolve our differences on market predictions. I guess, the one who has made a better return when he retires was rational; or lucky, haha.
