Why People Claim Chains Of Deduction Don't Work For Human Issues

[David Sklansky]

And of course they are right to some extent as compared to using logic to examine scientific issues. But most people go way overboard. Giving little credence even to being caught in logical contradictions about their own beliefs.

I used to think that this syndrome occurred because most people are weak in the academic subject of properly applying logic. Thus they don't want to believe that the subject can be very useful for everyday issues.

But after many discussions on this and other forums, I now realize that there is another reason people resist the idea that logical arguments, such as those that expose contradictions in a person's worldview, are strong (if imperfect) impetuses to make people change their minds. Its not that people don't want to admit their weakness in logic. Rather it is because people hate to change their minds. Minds that for the most part were originally made up based on gut feelings. Without regard to whether it contradicted a gut feeling on another issue.

Some people, like me, resist any urge to make up their mind before carefully examining the points involved. Pair The Board calls them boring. But for me the alternative is worse. Having a bunch of conflicting ideas about the world (though it may take some deep thought to see the conflict) and then going on to make a fool of yourself by claiming the chain of reasoning necessary to see those conflicts contains serious flaws. Just so that you can desperately hold on to those ill thought out ideas.