The elephant in the room of rationalism: the direct path to truth doesn’t always work

In contexts of deep disagreement —with political, moral, or identity-related ramifications— direct rational discussion based on arguments and evidence produces genuinely poor results. Data not only fails to convince; it is often used selectively to reinforce prior beliefs. Discussion turns into litigation to be won, not a constructive inquiry against uncertainty. And unfortunately this is not limited to explicitly political, moral, or identity-laden topics—such as a debate on political philosophy, sexuality, or religion—but also underlies discussions that could initially appear purely technical, such as assessing the risk of nuclear energy, choosing measurement criteria, urban planning, or the application of laws.

Read more: https://manuherran.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-room-of-rationalism