[corrral]

They're very prone, in my experience, to believing that their explanations are ultra-rational, though, reality be damned. And to falling for arguments with the trappings of rationality, but deeply flawed premises or early steps slyly skipped so the castle's built on sand but looks like a perfect castle with all these crazy-tall minarets reaching for the sky (ahem, like a certain popular-online political & economic philosophy) and then treating everyone who doesn't agree that the castle's beautiful as irrational, probably-emotion-driven morons.

[mistermann]

> They're very prone, in my experience, to believing that their explanations are ultra-rational, though, reality be damned.

Like for example, their analyses of "conspiracy theorists" (when what they are actually analyzing is their own incredibly flawed semi-conscious representation of conspiracy theorists). It's quite funny that the world is this way if you think about it deeply, because it could be otherwise.

[corrral]

How many exchanges building on this before we reach a particularly helpless flavor of solipsism, you think? I'd say about three more posts.

[mistermann]

You are free and welcome to play the solipsism card to avoid epistemic soundness. I'd even say it is the most popular approach.

Alternatively, you could desire to know what is true, at least in theory.

Consider what is going on from an architectural perspective - do you believe that what I say is incorrect?