Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
Philosophers sometimes ask whether it could ever be rational to trust other people.
Sometimes moral beliefs and moral emotions can diverge, yet it can be rational to trust the moral emotion rather than the moral belief.
It may thus on occasion be practically rational to trust a person whose likelihood of trustworthiness is low, if a sufficiently valuable outcome may be achieved only by so doing.
Similar(57)
Similarly, it may be rational for me to trust my brother not because I have good evidence of his trustworthiness but rather because trusting him is essential to our having a loving relationship.[7] Thus, trust can be rational depending on whether one conceives of rationality as truth-directed or end-directed.
Under the assumption of a 50%50%% success rate, the patient's rational behavior is to trust the researcher, while the researcher has incentive to dishonor the patient's trust.
Epistemic principles tell us what is rational to believe and what sources and methods for forming beliefs are worthy of our trust.
Both the rational-analytic and naturalistic-intuitive decision-making styles offer benefits and drawbacks, and users should understand how much to trust rational-analytic systems, in addition to being aware of naturalistic-intuitive biases.
Under the baseline assumption of the model, the most rational strategy for the patient is not to trust and for the researcher to abuse this trust.
To be entitled to accept, or trust, some presupposition is for it to be rational to accept or trust it, though this is supposed to be different from being justified in believing it.
Somebody to trust.
To trust.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com