Reason in Reverse: The Dangers of Rationalization
If we want to thrive, our ideas must be derived from the evidence around us, not formed in advance and justified after the fact.
What's the most fundamental idea we must accept if we want to flourish in life? In a single sentence, I would say: “The only way to form correct ideas about anything is by looking at evidence and forming non-contradictory ideas based on it.” In short, the bedrock of rational thinking is the facts of reality.
Unfortunately, an opposite method of thought dominates in our society: looking for evidence to justify pre-established ideas. The direct source of those ideas may vary; they may come from one’s friends or family, they may come from a cultural or religious tradition, or they may simply conform to or support one’s own feelings.
The fact that an idea comes from one of these sources tells us virtually nothing about whether it’s true. We can form judgments about others based on evidence to help us determine if what they say is likely to be true, but even the word of a person we know to be rational and well-informed is not guaranteed to be correct (nor is the word of an irrational and uninformed person guaranteed to be wrong). Similarly, we can evaluate cultures and religions by rational standards, and doing so will reveal that some are predominantly good and others predominantly bad. But virtually all of them contain some good and some bad ideas. And our own feelings may be better or worse at aligning with reality depending on the thinking that informs them, but a feeling on its own ultimately only tells us one thing: That that is how we feel. We cannot know a thing is true merely by feeling it.
Most of us sense this on some level. We have a subconscious awareness of when our ideas are not built on a solid foundation of evidence. Sometimes—especially when the ideas in question form a key part of our sense of identity—we respond to that feeling not by questioning and re-evaluating our ideas, but by seeking out confirming evidence for them. This can include creating rationalizations—structures of argumentation designed to lead to a pre-established conclusion—to defend those ideas.
This essentially reverses the proper process of forming rational ideas. To demonstrate the difference visually:
Proper approach:
Rationalization:
It’s a sign that somebody is rationalizing in this way is if the evidence or argumentation he or she provides for their idea is:
Highly selective (ignores other relevant evidence or reasonable alternative interpretations)
At odds with other evidence or evidence-based ideas
Internally inconsistent
In the first case, there may be limited evidence supporting the idea, such as the limited evidence that the artificial sweetener aspartame causes cancer. Focusing on this without providing new evidence (i.e. reliable evidence beyond what is widely available) in support of the claim is an indication of rationalization, especially if the person has a pre-existing negative attitude toward artificial foods or sweet foods.
For an example of the second case, people who believe the moon landings never happened will search for any “evidence” that they believe supports this idea. This usually includes arguments based on a failure (or refusal) to understand how physics operates in space. For example, they will point to the fact that there are multiple shadows in pictures taken on the Moon, claiming there should only be one light source (the Sun). This ignores the fact that the large, water-covered Earth in the sky reflects the Sun’s light, that the Moon’s mountains are also highly reflective, and that there is no atmosphere to soften and combine these light sources. Similar misunderstandings underlie all the arguments I’ve heard advanced by moon-landing conspiracy theorists. These arguments are wildly at odds with all available evidence.
Lastly, internal inconsistencies in the evidence and arguments a person provides can be a sign that these arguments do not come from a consistent evidence-based approach. For example, a person may combine arguments based on evidence (e.g. photographs or reports of UFO sightings) with arguments based on faith or feelings, such as the argument that belief in the unknown is a virtue or appeals to an intuitive sense that aliens exist.
Dealing with Rationalization—Rationally
Although it’s important to watch out for rationalization in others’ arguments (as well as our own thinking) we also run the risk of making assumptions about other people’s thinking. It is possible that a person may have made an innocent mistake in interpreting a piece of evidence, may have access to evidence we don’t, or may understand evidence better than most people.
To get to the root of why someone is advancing a particular idea, a helpful question to ask is: “What originally convinced you of that?” Instead of prompting the person to list justifications for his idea, this prompts him to identify the one piece of evidence that convinced him—if he was convinced by evidence. If he was not, he will struggle to answer, and may continue to bounce between different kinds of argument, especially if pressed on his process of coming to the conclusion.
Ultimately, forming conclusions about other people’s ideas is itself a process of evaluating evidence and coming to a conclusion on the basis of it. It is important not to jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence. We must hold our own ideas, and those of others, to the same standard: that it is derived from the evidence around us, not formed in advance and justified after the fact.