There are cases where it's rational to reject logic entirely, for example, when you lack the necessary background knowledge in a field to apply it reliably. Classical logic fails very badly when one of its premises fails to be completely true, as numerous famous paradoxes illustrate, and we all know some people who have been convinced of false things through logical argument.
And, although Bayesian reasoning can deal with degrees of uncertainty other than "impossible" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt", it can still collapse under an onslaught of evidence chosen to favor one position:
But the problem with taking the debate out of the logical realm and into the emotional realm is that, while you may win the debate, you will only win it if you are better at emotional manipulation than the other side is. In particular you will always lose if the other side is, for example, a Hollywood studio. And this is true whether you are right or wrong.
Gandhi's greatest claimed advantage for satyagraha over coercion by armed struggle was not that it was more likely to win; it was that it was incapable of effectively promoting evil goals.
Predictably, there's a Slate Star Codex post ascribing the same virtue to rational argument:
Hey Sophistry!
There's a big difference between convincing the person you're arguing with and convincing an audience. I may persuade you, or you may persuade me and I think in that situation we both get closer to the truth. But if we have an audience, our arguments are restricted to what might convince each other AND what might convince the audience.
If the audience is the real decider, I can't really know how logical the audience is, so I'm going to play every dirty trick I can to win.
it's subtle, and textured. If I gotta convince you - say for funding, I've got a broader array of arguments to use. if I've gotta convince you and the audience, I've got a fairly narrow range of options. If I gotta convince the audience, well, that's all analogies about how my dog died and it sucked, so if we'd done this my dog would still be around and it's better for everybody.
historically you'd have to worry about the audience of 20 or so people that cared. and we'd probably both know them and how to sway their opinions. Kennedy Nixon is held up as a big example of persuading millions. You gotta scope in two dimensions. Your interlocutor and the audience. They have different weights. It's hard. Our ancestral heritage doesn't really give us much support for persuading a bazillion people. But that's sort of the table stakes today. Maybe not persuaded, but the audience must remain indifferent.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
And, although Bayesian reasoning can deal with degrees of uncertainty other than "impossible" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt", it can still collapse under an onslaught of evidence chosen to favor one position:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chin...
But the problem with taking the debate out of the logical realm and into the emotional realm is that, while you may win the debate, you will only win it if you are better at emotional manipulation than the other side is. In particular you will always lose if the other side is, for example, a Hollywood studio. And this is true whether you are right or wrong.
Gandhi's greatest claimed advantage for satyagraha over coercion by armed struggle was not that it was more likely to win; it was that it was incapable of effectively promoting evil goals.
Predictably, there's a Slate Star Codex post ascribing the same virtue to rational argument:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...