A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not.
This is a rational argument:
- Premise 1: The Earth is a planet.
- Premise 2: The Earth is flat.
- Premise 3: All flat planets have edges.
- Conclusion: The Earth has edges.
Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense.
This is nonsense and irrational:
- Premise 1: Apples are round.
- Premise 2: Pyramids exist.
- Premise 3: Unicorns have horns.
- Conclusion: Aliens!
There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection.
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense
- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises
- https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/
Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation.
Good day.