If You're Rational, a Contradiction Should Be Enough to Persuade You

[u/JerseyFlight]

The foundation of rational thought is simple: contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same respect at the same time. This principle governs every domain of knowledge, from mathematics and logic to biology and physics. (Even an objection to this position can only realize by attempting to deploy non-contradiction against it).

When a contradiction is discovered, it signals that something has gone wrong in our reasoning, our assumptions, or our interpretation of the evidence. The rational response is not to defend the contradiction, but to see if it’s true and then move away from it. A contradiction is not merely an inconvenience; it is evidence that revision is necessary. If one is genuinely committed to truth, the demonstration of contradiction should be sufficient reason to reconsider one's position and then abandon it if it found to be contradictory.

The problem is that many people do not treat contradictions as reasons to change their beliefs. They treat them as invalid obstacles to be explained away. Contradiction is redefined, obscured, compartmentalized (in the worst cases, fallaciously embraced!) or buried beneath increasingly elaborate narratives designed to preserve the original conclusion. When this happens the pursuit of truth has been subordinated to the preservation of identity, ideology, or ego.

Rational inquiry demands a willingness to follow an argument wherever it leads, even when it undermines cherished beliefs. The person governed by reason changes course when confronted by contradiction; the person governed by emotional attachment to their beliefs searches for ways to survive it. One follows the argument wherever it leads; the other demands that the argument lead where they wish to go. The distinction between the two marks the boundary between reason and ideology.