This is some of my older writing about rationality that I wanted to share.
Objectivist and Critical Rationalist Epistemology discusses similarities and differences between Karl Popper and Ayn Rand. They agree more than most people realize.
Conflict, Criticism, Learning, Reason discusses rationality and fallibility.
Reasoning from Problems not Assumptions discusses focusing on solving problems, and making progress by error correction, instead of starting with assumed foundations and using them to justify ideas. We can keep all our ideas open to criticism and reconsideration (not all at the same time, but no idea is off-limits to being reconsidered) and learn without justified premises.
Don't Equivocate criticizes vague claims about epistemology.
Criticizing Ideas by Source explains something a little bit similar to judging an idea by its source, but it’s rational not irrational.
Popperian Alternative to Induction discusses how we learn without presupposing intelligent thought as a prerequisite for a thinking method. You can’t explain how intelligent thought works while using intelligent thought as a premise or a step in the process. Only Popper’s Critical Rationalism has a solution to that.
In Rand, Popper and Fallibility, I clarify some issues related to fallibility, and talk about Rand’s and Popper’s positions on the matter.