From time to time I receive a letter in response to this column that accuses me
of being an intellectual snob. Often the writer refers to the very title of the
column, “rationally speaking.” The argument of my correspondents goes something
like this: (unstated premise) since rationality equals truth, and (obvious
statement of fact) you call your columns “rational,” then (first conclusion)
you are so arrogant as to claim that what you write must be the truth, and
(second conclusion) therefore imply that anybody who disagrees with you is
wrong.
Let’s carefully analyze the unstated premise and the two conclusions (no
sense in denying the fact that the column is, indeed, called “rationally
speaking”), because I think this will shed some light on both my goals in
writing these pieces and, more importantly, on some common misconceptions about
rationality and truth. First off, the unstated premise that rationality
necessarily leads to truth is clearly false, and acknowledged by philosophers
since the time of Plato. Don’t get me wrong, Plato did think that the best path
to the truth is indeed rational thought, but he also acknowledged that one can
arrive at the truth by other means (e.g., by sheer luck, as in guessing). More
importantly for our discussion, Plato’s dialogues are full of examples of
people rationally arguing different positions, of which at most one can be
correct!
Since there is no necessary equation between rationality and truth, this
takes care of the second conclusion from the above piece of reasoning: I cannot
possibly be implying in my columns that those who disagree with me must be
wrong. At best, these columns present an argument in favor of a particular
conclusion or position. Their value is in laying down that argument as clearly
as the writer can manage, to then let the reader decide how that argument
measures up against others. It is all part of the ongoing discourse among human
beings that is such a central part of any desirable society.
As far as the first conclusion of the above reasoning is concerned (I am
arrogant enough to think that I am right), surely that is a straw man. Anybody
defending a particular position, in writing or in person, must be doing so
because they think they are right (okay, perhaps with the exception of sophists
and some lawyers and politicians). It simply makes no sense to accuse somebody
who disagrees with you of being convinced of being right. You are too, or you
would not argue with them! Of course, just because people are convinced of
being right, it doesn’t follow that they are. But that is precisely the value
of continued rational discourse: I present my best arguments, you read them,
think about them, come up with your best counter-arguments, and so on.
Does this back and forth actually lead somewhere? Do people ever change
their mind? Of course they do. Why, I’ve changed my mind more than once just
this year! What may seem to make the enterprise of rational dialogue a
desperate one is that people seldom acknowledge their change of mind. There are
good reasons for this, other than simple human pride. To begin with, if you
have thought hard about something, and have formed an opinion over years of
reading and listening, you will not change your position overnight, and you
probably shouldn’t. Instantaneous conversions are the stuff of religious
experience, not of rational discourse. Second, research on critical thinking
and human cognition has shown that the human brain is naturally resistant to
changing its patterns, and does so only after repeated exposure to contrasting
information (which increases the so-called “cognitive dissonance” between one’s
own beliefs and the reality that one perceives). That is why one rarely wins
debates with other people, and yet debates—along with other forms of
dialogue—are useful because they can stir people to reconsider some of their
conclusions.
So, rationally speaking does not (necessarily) mean “truthfully” speaking,
though of course if I write something in good faith, I do think that I am
correct in what I am saying (and so do you, whenever you write a letter to me
arguing against my writings). The rational way to attack people’s arguments,
therefore, is not simply to accuse them of the arrogance of thinking they are
in the right, but in pointing out exactly where we think they went wrong.
The irony is that rational discourse is so entrenched in the human way of
thinking that even people who allegedly reject it as a way to the truth do, in
fact, use it. Not long ago a couple from a county in rural Tennessee complained
that they did not want their child to be exposed to critical thinking and
argumentation in the public school he was attending, because that was contrary
to their religious belief. Apparently oblivious to the obvious contradiction,
the parents hired a lawyer to argue their case in court! We just can’t do
without logic and rationality, even when we consciously attempt to reject it.
I can’t wait to read the arguments I will get against the position defended
in this column!
