When Inconsistent Irrationality is Better

I'm sure we can all agree that when truth and honesty are our priorities, then objective, verifiable evidence is the best path to take when exploring our environment....when time permits So, what about if time does not permit? Is it possible for there to be a certain time-constrained scenario where the absolutely verifiable perfection that is objective evidence just "takes too long" in order to make significant progress?Take, for example, the Travelling Salesman problem.
This is a computational problem where the issue is to solve the shortest round-trip distance between multiple cities.Using absolutely rational, consistent information, we could use a a brute-force method to check all possible paths. Then simply pick the shortest route. This would guarantee us the shortest path. The problem is that this can take a long time. Even with simply a few hundred cities, the computational power required to check all paths would take years to compute.Using irrational, inconsistent information, we could use approximate methods with some randomization to "look for" shorter paths and end up cutting our time for a 99% sure solution to a mere fraction of what a brute-force method would demand.So, this mean to me that there are situations where inconsistency and irrationality can be "better" than consistency and rationality. Generally, if time is a factor and we'ed like to make "good enough" progress and leave the absolute verification for later.Of course, this won't do for science. But it certainly could do for honest explorers. That is, if we deem the risks to be acceptable, we can save time and attempt to "jump to conclusions" in an irrational, random, inconsistent way. Then, when we land on something that "looks pretty good", we can take the time to add in a more rigorous approach to "make sure" we're not making any mistakes. Such an approach is faster then brute-force, consistent, rational methods. And, as long as the the after-thought rigorous check is insisted upon, it's just as valid in the end.My point is to say that consistency and rationality is not ALWAYS the best approach. It is not the best approach if time is a factor. If anyone is holding themselves to a standard where they want to be consistent, and rational for EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES, I am submitting that you are... wasting time As long as we can identify when we are being irrational, it can be to our advantage to put it to good use. Or course, it's "safer" to just always be rational and consistent. Then you don't have to worry about if you're being irrational, or if the situation calls for it. However, for anyone who is capable of identifying and controlling such things, you certainly can save time by using irrationality correctly, in the right situations. Just watch for thin ice Not sure where to put this. I'm hoping for "Is it Science?" But I understand if its non-connection to the direct EvC debate is too large and it needs to be put into Coffee House.

Thread copied to the When Inconsistent Irrationality is Better thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.