Outstanding intellectuals

[Exnihiloest]

... many rational things today (aviation, organ transplants, computers, telecommunications, etc ...) were considered irrational in other times.

This is false, for the reason that the idea did not even come to mind at the time when it could have been seen as irrational. And that when the ideas came, especially in the 19th century, even if it could be science fiction à la Jules Vernes, it remained rational.
Being irrational has nothing to do with being beyond the reach of the technology of an era, but with being outside of reason and therefore without logic. If I say: "in a few centuries, possible that with the progress of its technology, man can join the Alpha Centauri system", I am not in the irrational. If I say "homeopathy heals beyond the placebo effect", there I am in the irrational because no facts prove it in the present where I make the affirmation.

[GuyGadebois]

... many rational things today (aviation, organ transplants, computers, telecommunications, etc ...) were considered irrational in other times.

This is false, for the reason that the idea did not even come to mind at the time when it could have been seen as irrational. And that when the ideas came, especially in the 19th century, even if it could be science fiction à la Jules Vernes, it remained rational.
Being irrational has nothing to do with being beyond the reach of the technology of an era, but with being outside of reason and therefore without logic. If I say: "in a few centuries, possible that with the progress of its technology, man can join the Alpha Centauri system", I am not in the irrational. If I say "homeopathy heals beyond the placebo effect", there I am in the irrational because no facts prove it in the present where I make the affirmation.

And in Leonardo da Vinci's day, was it "rational"? And the people ahead of their time who spent at the stake, the flaying, the pillory, was it "rational"?

[Janic]

If I say "homeopathy heals beyond the placebo effect", there I am in the irrational because no facts prove it in the present where I make the affirmation.

This is irrational because to be able to say it, you would have to know how to distinguish between a placebo effect and a poorly selected remedy which, inevitably, will give nothing. If a doctor gives a cure for hemorrhoids instead of an antibiotic for a covid, it's not going to work, nor a placebo too and so I say: "allopathy does not cure beyond the placebo effect"I am in the rational because the facts show that it is the case. But ignorance is to be classified where: in the rational or the irrational? And the lie?

[Exnihiloest]

...
And in Leonardo da Vinci's day, was it "rational"? And the people ahead of their time who spent at the stake, the flaying, the pillory, was it "rational"?

People ahead of their time may or may not be rational. Artists can be ahead of their time and not necessarily rational.
Rationality only concerns the internal logic of the discourse and, where appropriate, the logic of its references to external facts.
Math, for example, is rational: it suffices that the conclusions are logically linked to the postulates. We can start from the principle that by a point we can only pass a single parallel to a line, as did Euclid, or that we can make pass an infinity, as did Lobachevsky, and their geometries although incompatible with each other by their initial postulates, remain rational.

People ahead of their time or not ahead of their time are burned when their messages oppose the dominant religion or the dominant policy. This is the question of the ideology in power. We also saw it with Darwin.
There may be, in addition, the incomprehension of rationals as it happened at the very beginning of the publication of relativity by Einstein, but then it does not last, the rationales are gradually becoming obvious.

On the other hand, as there are many more mediocre and charlatans than geniuses, mediocre who believe they are ahead of their time or charlatans who want to make people believe it, we are right to doubt a priori extraordinary announcements that do not would not be accompanied by evidence to match the "extraordinary" nature of the claim.

[GuyGadebois]

Thank you, Janic's remark was therefore relevant.

[Janic]

GuyGadebois »29 / 03 / 20, 22: 27

Thank you, Janic's remark was therefore relevant.

And he clearly confirms it in his prose ... for relevance

People ahead of their time or not ahead of their time are burned when their messages oppose the dominant religion or the dominant policy. This is the question of the ideology in power. We also saw it with Darwin.

Now he defends the dominant just as in Western medicine: where is religion, dominant politics? at BP and its multinationals as you might have expected. This is the question of ideology in power, here !.

There may be, in addition, the incomprehension of rationals as happened at the very beginning of the publication of relativity by Einstein, but then it does not last, the rational ones are gradually coming to the evidence.

We must believe that not, since rationality is based on experience, on experience in the field and not in universities with abstract speeches given by old people (physically or mentally) with outdated and abstruse speeches

On the other hand, as there are many more mediocre and charlatans than geniuses, mediocre who believe they are ahead of their time or charlatans who want to make people believe it, we are right to doubt a priori extraordinary announcements that do not would not be accompanied by evidence to match the "extraordinary" nature of the claim.

So it sinks itself, because the extraordinary or supposed such is seen only by ignorant people; everything extra-ordinary only precedes the ordinary, even the banal, like seeing planes flying. However when he refuses to verify for himself this extra-ordinary, he can only treat it as quackery, which demonstrates his permanent obscurantism.
If he had the humility of a true scholar, he would be content to say: " I don't know, I don't know"rather than hiding his ignorance behind accusations of charlatanism and other assumptions. It is true that he does not apply, fortunately, to be himself an extraordinary intellectual. Phew, we escaped it!

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

It is true that he does not apply, fortunately, to be himself an exceptional intellectual.

Are you sure what you are saying a little bit

[Janic]

Are you sure what you are saying a little bit

mea culpa, i actually moved too fast!

[GuyGadebois]

Are you sure what you are saying a little bit

mea culpa, i actually moved too fast!

Your ballet (blue?) Reminds me of the song "when I move forward you go back ..."

[Janic]

Your ballet (blue?) Reminds me of the song "when I move forward you go back ..."

yep! but only by keeping a distance of at least 1 meter .