I agree. First off, I think it has a lot to do with a person's overall definition of 'win'. In the eyes of 'outside society' rationalists don't win. I believe that is because, as you said, if you look at things overall, you don't see an influx of success for the people who are rationalists. That isn't to say that they don't win, or that rationalism is pointless and does't offer up anything worthwhile. That would be a lie. I think that rationalists have a better grip on the workings of the world, and thenceforth, know what to do and how to achieve success, or at least now the theoretical way to victory. The thing/problem/catch would be that we have not, as of yet- because we will (someday it is going to be absolutely necessary to be a rationalist or at least dabble in rationalism), achieved a success large enough as to be noted by society as a success. I believe that we could, with the right amount of hard work and effort, gain a victory broad enough that i can't be put down or denied. A victory so large that it will be seen as a victory and not just a minor win. Overall, the question 'why don't rationalists win?' seems to depend on the, per se, 'winners' definition of victory/success. And, until we can all 1) achieve a success so large it is counted by everyone as a success, or 2) decide on a set definition of success and reach that, rationalist are going to appear, to the world, as if we have not, and may never win.
I agree. First off, I think it has a lot to do with a person's overall definition of 'win'. In the eyes of 'outside society' rationalists don't win. I believe that is because, as you said, if you look at things overall, you don't see an influx of success for the people who are rationalists. That isn't to say that they don't win, or that rationalism is pointless and does't offer up anything worthwhile. That would be a lie. I think that rationalists have a better grip on the workings of the world, and thenceforth, know what to do and how to achieve success, or at least now the theoretical way to victory. The thing/problem/catch would be that we have not, as of yet- because we will (someday it is going to be absolutely necessary to be a rationalist or at least dabble in rationalism), achieved a success large enough as to be noted by society as a success. I believe that we could, with the right amount of hard work and effort, gain a victory broad enough that i can't be put down or denied. A victory so large that it will be seen as a victory and not just a minor win. Overall, the question 'why don't rationalists win?' seems to depend on the, per se, 'winners' definition of victory/success. And, until we can all 1) achieve a success so large it is counted by everyone as a success, or 2) decide on a set definition of success and reach that, rationalist are going to appear, to the world, as if we have not, and may never win.