It's a particular variety of "everyone else is wrong (and maybe a bit stupid)".
Like, sure, sometimes you get popular nonsense like recovered memories or accidental fires can't be as hot as intentional fires or shaken-baby syndrome or bite-mark analysis. But a lot of times, everyone isn't wrong and you've just overlooked something critical or misdefined the problem.
> Like, sure, sometimes you get popular nonsense like recovered memories or accidental fires can't be as hot as intentional fires or shaken-baby syndrome or bite-mark analysis. But a lot of times, everyone isn't wrong and you've just overlooked something critical or misdefined the problem.
The older I get, the more I find that everyone is wrong. It's fucking astounding how much stuff either was never actually checked, or is true only under very select circumstances with those caveats being widely ignored. For example at work right now we have been using a test for 40 years that was developed around the idea that our product absorbed air - chemical variation would lead to extreme differences in results and you can't retest an item for at least 24 hours because it will still be affected. Turns out that none of that was true, all the error we were getting was from temperature change, the items can be retested after 45 seconds. 40 years and no one took 30 minutes to verify this claim which costs us millions of dollars per year. And this is just the example from this past week. I've probably seen several hundred such cases of completely unjustified claims being treated as gospel truth.
I can't speak for the countless things I've never tested, but if nearly everything I do test is wrong, across numerous fields full of very intelligent people, it doesn't give me much confidence about everything else. We live in a world that values simplicity and confidence, not nuance and rigorous verification. I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything without verification, not even my own past work.
> It's a particular variety of "everyone else is wrong (and maybe a bit stupid)".
Gestures at the current state of the world
Not that adopting rationalist modes of thinking will fix the problem, of course. Teach rationalist principles to an idiot and you will have a slightly more rational idiot, who will reason himself into absurdity. Teach them to a manipulative, amoral psychopath and you will have a more skillful manipulator.
Rationalist principles and methods provide superior tools for thinking through some complex problems, but they say nothing about foundational ethics (other than pointing out possible sources for the many different systems of ethical beliefs). And they cannot be wielded effectively by people who lack the ability to decouple, to think abstractly, or to create extended “chains” of thoughts and keep them in working memory.
One should be suspicious of anyone who claims that rationalism is a panacea, or alternatively that it is somehow a problem per se. It’s a neutral set of tools, a community who wants to improve those tools, and a small group hanging off the edge who have unrealistic and/or harmful views of how those tools should be applied. Unfortunately this third minority is presented by anti-rationalists as the core of rationalism. In reality, they are easily avoided unless you hold the same core values.
(I say this as a long time observer who appreciates their work but does not consider myself a part of the “rationalist” community.)
Like, sure, sometimes you get popular nonsense like recovered memories or accidental fires can't be as hot as intentional fires or shaken-baby syndrome or bite-mark analysis. But a lot of times, everyone isn't wrong and you've just overlooked something critical or misdefined the problem.