Thought of the Day 02.16.10

There are two basic ways of using reason:

The first is by starting with the conclusion and then employing any analysis you can find in support of it. Because the conclusion is seen as too important to depend on flimsy things like facts and logic, invalid reasoning patterns are accepted, and contrary evidence is ignored. This is probably the most common form of arguing in our culture today.

The ironic thing about this approach, however, is that a person who perverts reasoning this way isn’t actually putting value on the conclusion, but on his own prior investment in that conclusion. The thing being protected is ego, not truth.

This can best be seen by considering the proper use of reason: using only the most reliable sources and then following strict rules of logic to form conclusions from them. This means conclusions are often revised. But this is not because the truth is so lowly valued, but precisely because it is so highly valued. The truth is viewed as far more important than any embarrassment in having to admit you had it wrong in the past.

Conclusions which require bad reasoning to defend them don’t deserve the protection in the first place. And good ideas are happy to be freed from the taint of such “help.”