A Root Of Rationality

A Root Of Rationality

It is strange to think that some rational arguments have their roots in irrational opinions. Before one can make a stand couched in rationality, one can have a subjective opinion on the matter. Given this possibility, it is not unexpected that irrational motions can be defended by rational arguments. For example, an objective fact like “Rabbits reproduce quickly” can be verified by objective comparisons between the rate of reproduction of rabbits relative to every other living creature. It becomes harder to do so when saying “Rabbits have too much sex”, in which case it is a subjective motion that requires, in addition to the rate at which they have sex, the definition of just how much is too much sex.

Who defines such things, and how are they defined? In a subject as distant and perhaps irrelevant as figuring out how much rabbits reproduce or if they’re too sexed up, it’s easy to tell the difference between arguments based on objective observations (regardless of their correctness; that is due to the researcher’s methods) and subjective ones. Better yet, in matters that are of fundamental concern to people, like say group activities in a collectivist society or religion in a theocracy, one may be tempted to couch irrational opinions in rational arguments.

The examples are all over history. Consider Gallileo, who had his ideas turned down by the Church for contradicting what was then a well established dogmatic “fact”. Undoubtedly, even the Church at the time had perfectly good rational arguments to defend their opinions which were not testable in reality. It was simply a matter of faith.

This leads to a crisis of faith, especially in matters where uncritical thought is celebrated. As some may quote Einstein, common sense is a collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. Being a collection of prejudices, the only real defense is to have some people thinking critically about what is widely accepted as the established reality.

Granted, it is impractical to have all of society mulling over every single matter, fearing for its factual accuracy or practicality. That would probably be as bad as or even worse than blind faith (or better, seeing as a surprising number of misconceptions could be hidden in common sense matters and someone may question the practicality of capitalism itself). Still, it helps that the rational arguments be tested for epistemological errors, and not just in the social sciences or “hard” sciences, but indeed in all areas that may harbor them. This would probably help prevent rationality from experiencing a serious case of root rot. As my subjective opinion on the matter, it should also be tested to verify its status as a viable option in an uncritical world.