Using the easy to defend claim (acting without perfect information is necessary) to defend a much broader one (my judgement is rational and justified based on the information I have) is a classical motte and bailey fallacy.
People in the rationalist community don’t see it, because ironically they’re not rational enough. But they use the language and essay format to make it seem like they are.
People in the rationalist community don’t see it, because ironically they’re not rational enough. But they use the language and essay format to make it seem like they are.