Sanctity of Reason
by Joseph Rowlands
I just finished reading James Randi's Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and other Delusions. It's a great book that takes on psychics and mystical beliefs, and those who claim to support these beliefs with science. For those unfamiliar with Randi, he challenged the world to prove through controlled experiments the existence of paranormal abilities. He's put his own money on the line. The book describes many of the people who took his challenge and how they failed.
The book has a lot to offer, but in particular it is useful in understanding how people continue to believe such irrational ideas in the face of overwhelming evidence against. The big answer seems to be rationalization. When a "psychic" is tested under a controlled test (where cheating isn't permitted, and the results are objectively measured), they fail to perform. But instead of seeing the test as conclusive, they provide all kinds of reasons why the test failed (only if it fails, of course!). One popular excuse is that "negative energy" from the scientist interfered with their powers. Every failure is excusable and any success is deemed definitive.
It's one thing to reject reason in favor of the mystical. People do that all the time, and if the psychics want to believe they have hidden powers, there's nothing really new there. They want to reject the evidence of their failures and keep on believing in it. But they do more than simply reject reason. They pervert it. They rationalize.
Rationalization is an attempt to support the non-rational by giving it the appearance of being based on reason. They make their conclusions through non-rational means, whether it's through emotion, faith, or just really bad epistemology. But then they seek to give the illusion that the conclusion was based on reason. Since their conclusion is fixed no matter what reason tells them, reason is distorted until it accomplishes their purpose.
As offensive as it is for these psychics to distort reason to support their wishes, the book makes clear that there is a far more odious group. These are the para-psychologists, the "scientists" who study the paranormal. The book documents examples of shoddy methods, wishful thinking, exaggerations, and of course, more rationalizations. When an experiment failed to prove a psychic power, these so-called scientists were ready to provide rationalizations for the poor mystics. They were just as eager to cover up any failures and to shift the blame on those who insist on practicing a little objectivity.
Why is this more offensive? Because the psychics are expected to be irrational. They don't make a serious case for their views based on objectivity and rationality. Objectivity and rationality are not related to the concept of 'psychic' or 'mystic' or 'user of paranormal powers'. Not only is there no requirement, but the opposite can be inferred. But the nature of science is intimately tied to objectivity and rationality. A scientist qua scientist must have these qualities. If he decides to reject these attributes, he has no business calling himself a scientist.
I think this same argument applies to Objectivists, but even more so. Where a scientist must be rational and objective in his day job, there is no requirement that he applies it to the rest of his life. Many scientists are explicitly religious, for instance. As long as he keeps his religious beliefs out of his work, he can still be legitimately viewed as doing science. And if he rationalizes his religious beliefs while at home, he can still maintain that distinction.
An Objectivist doesn't have this luxury. The nature of the philosophy requires us to use reason in all areas of our lives, and not restricted it. Objectivism is a radical philosophy based on the radical idea that reason should be supreme, and we should follow it wherever it takes us. This can be scary for those who think reason leads to nightmarish consequences, but those who can see the big picture will see past this mistaken view.
So if reason reigns supreme, think about what it would mean for an Objectivist to rationalize. First, it shows that they aren't really committed to reason. In fact, when someone rationalizes, it shows that they use reason as an excuse for their beliefs, instead of as a foundation for them. This might not be true all the time, of course. Sometimes they may really believe something because it's rational. But that's not rationality. To pick and choose when to follow reason based on how you feel is the same thing as always choosing to go with our emotions. In that situation, you're always going with your emotions, and in the cases where your reason agrees, you're simply rationalizing it.
Consider what this does to an Objectivist's arguments. How do you adopt a radical philosophy that promotes self-interest as the moral ideal in the face of a culture that doesn't understand or accept it, and may even call it evil? An Objectivist could argue that reason has led him to these beliefs, and he knows they're right. But if practices rationalization, he undermines his entire position. When the altruist claims that an Objectivist is just promoting selfishness so they can do whatever they feel like, his argument is underscored with every act of rationalization. It screams out to the world that this morality of self-interest is just an excuse to be immoral. Without reason as the foundation, it's simply a rejection of conventional morality because you don't feel like being "moral".
Rationalization is a form of deception. It seeks to obscure the truth and to trick others into believing your conclusions are based on an objective process of evaluation. It creates the idea that reason and logic are just word games people play to excuse their pre-existing beliefs. An Objectivist who rationalizes works to destroy the foundation of his beliefs. Instead of seeking clarity, understanding, and possibly persuasion, the rationalizing Objectivist mocks the efficacy of reason and lends support to all of reason's detractors.
Objectivists need to promote the sanctity of reason. We not only cannot rationalize ourselves, but we should have zero tolerance for others who do it, especially among Objectivists. We need to recognize that reason is the unifying base of our entire philosophy, and that the perversion of reason through rationalization is an attack on that philosophy. If someone wants to arrive at their conclusions through non-rational means, they should be stripped of the pretense of being rational. If they want to be irrational, fine, but they don't get to have it both ways.
Discuss this Article (5 messages)
|
