Abstract:This paper attempts to reconcile the claims that the mind is both flat (Chater, 2018) and highly rational (Oaksford & Chater, 2020). According to the flat mind hypothesis, the mind is a mass of inconsistent and contradictory fragments of experience. However, standard accounts of rationality from formal epistemology argue that to be rational, our beliefs must be consistent, and we must believe all the logical consequences of our beliefs. A social account of rationality is developed based on Brandom's (1994) logical expressivism, in which respecting the norms of logic and probability theory is still central but where these standards apply to our public commitments in social dialogical contexts rather than to our individual belief systems (Skovgaard‐Olsen, 2017). According to this account, even if someone's individual beliefs are inconsistent, they cannot be condemned as irrational if they acknowledge the inconsistency and seek to resolve it. It is shown how this approach interacts with people's fragmented and shallow world knowledge, and its social distribution yields some counterintuitive consequences, such as it sometimes being rational individually not seeking to resolve contradictions. Other consequences of this social expressivist approach are considered, including for dual process theories of reasoning, our view of beliefs, the status of logic, and Fodor's (1983) view of central systems. It is concluded that people can have flat minds and yet be highly rational.

On logic of group reasoning and rationality of group

Reasoning in Social Settings

Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.

Logico-Computational Aspects of Rationality

Logic in the Community

Towards AI Logic for Social Reasoning

On Interdisciplinary Studies of a New Generation of Artificial Intelligence and Logic

Game Theory , Logic and Rational Choice

Problems of Inconsistency and Argumentation Logics

Social Rationality and Human Reasoning: Logical Expressivism and the Flat Mind

A Semiotic Perspective on Logical Reasoning

Logic and Reasoning: Do the Facts Matter?

Non-monotonic Reasoning and Argumentation System

Logic and Interactive RAtionality Yearbook 2012

Group Theoretical Characterizations of Rationality

Reasoning about Social Choice Functions

From Evaluating to Decision-Making :A Possible Turn in Research on Logic of Science

Modeling Reasoning in a Social Setting

Reasoning about Protocol Change and Knowledge.

Logic in A Social Setting

Interdisciplinary collaboration in the field of psychology of reasoning