I originally posted this as a comment on my Extraordinary Claims post, but it really deserves its own entry. It's one of those observations that explains so much about the world and why people cling to certain ideas:

You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into.

This quote is commonly attributed to Jonathan Swift, who wrote Gulliver's Travels. However, I disagree with it a little bit. I think it is possible, but it takes a lot more work to break someone of long-held beliefs that they didn't form using logic, reason, and evidence than it does for someone who formulated their beliefs based on empirical data.

A lot of people believe things not because they arrived at those beliefs through logic or evidence, but because they were taught them at a young age or because those beliefs just feel right. Take flat-earthers, for example. The idea that the world is flat may seem ridiculous to most of us, but for some people it just feels true based on their own intuition and what they see with their own eyes. They're not starting from evidence. They're starting from a gut feeling and then working backward to justify it.

I think a lot of personal beliefs work the same way, especially the ones we pick up in childhood. When I was a kid, my grandmother told me that dragonflies were called ear sewers, and that if one flew near you, it would sew your ears shut. It sounds silly now, but I believed that well into my teenage years. I even remember asking my biology teacher if it was true. Of course it wasn't. But I never thought to question it until someone challenged it with facts.

Take The Waterboy, for example. There's a perfect moment where Bobby Boucher is in class, and the professor asks why alligators are so ornery. Bobby replies, "Because Mama says they got all them teeth and no toothbrush." The professor tries to correct him by explaining it's actually because of the medulla oblongata, but Bobby digs in. "No, Colonel Sanders, you're wrong," he says, and then tackles him. It's funny because it's absurd, but it's also a perfect example of someone clinging to a belief simply because Mama said so, not because it made sense or was based on evidence.

Many people carry beliefs like that into adulthood. Sometimes they're harmless, but sometimes they're not. And even when confronted with solid evidence, they won't let go. Instead, they try to reshape the facts to match what they already believe. If more people were willing to challenge the ideas they were handed and follow reason and evidence, even when it feels uncomfortable, the world would be a better place.

You see this in business too. Back when I did a lot of consulting, I'd walk into companies still running everything on index cards, Excel spreadsheets, or old DOS-based systems. I'd say, "We can really streamline this with a proper database. It'll save you time and cut down on errors." But they'd push back with, "Oh no, we can't change that. This is how we do it." And when I'd ask why, the answer was usually something like, "That's how our founder set it up back in 1963." I'd have to remind them, "You know it's the 21st century now, right?" Just doing something the same way because it's how it's always been done isn't a good reason to keep doing it. It's actually a good reason to take a closer look and see if there's a better way.

The funny thing about this scenario is back in 1963, when Joe Founder created the method of doing what they've been doing this whole time, that might have been the most efficient method when index cards and typewriters were the norm. Flash forward 60 years, and that's no longer the case. And some of these people can't be reasoned out of their illogical belief that what the Founder did was best.

You see this kind of thinking in programming and database development all the time. I've had students who just couldn't accept that Access might work differently from what they were taught years ago. They'll say, "That's not how my instructor showed me," even when their method doesn't fit the situation or breaks in newer versions. It's not about what works best or follows current standards. It's just what they're familiar with, and changing it feels uncomfortable.

I've had people tell me, "I'm an old COBOL guy," or "I used to write everything in C," and then they come into Visual Basic or Access with all kinds of habits and assumptions. They question why things are done a certain way. When I ask why they do it their way, the answer is usually, "That's how I learned it in school." And I say, "Okay, but does that actually work well in Access?" Most of the time, the honest answer is no. But they still resist because it's what they're used to.

I've known people who swear by old wives' tales instead of going to a doctor. Or who think AI is evil because they saw a movie once where robots took over the world*. They weren't reasoned into those beliefs, so it's nearly impossible to logic them out of them.

And of course, in Star Trek, this kind of thinking shows up all the time, too. Take the episode Attached from TNG. The Kes, one of the native factions on Kesprytt III, believed for generations that the Prytt were a threat, despite all evidence to the contrary. No reason or diplomatic effort could sway them, because their paranoia wasn't based on logic. It was cultural conditioning. They weren't reasoned into fear, so no reasoning could undo it. The same goes for the Prytt. They were so consumed by suspicion and fear of outsiders that they captured and imprisoned Picard and Crusher simply for showing up. They implanted devices in their brains, treated them like spies, and refused all cooperation with the Enterprise. Even when presented with proof that their beliefs were unfounded, the Prytt doubled down. Their worldview had nothing to do with facts. It was built on long-standing mistrust and isolationism. In the end, neither the Kes nor the Prytt were accepted into the Federation, not because they lacked technology or resources, but because they lacked the ability to think rationally and work together. It is a perfect example of what happens when beliefs are rooted in fear, not evidence. No amount of diplomacy or reasoning could change minds that had never been open in the first place.

Another great example comes from the episode I, Mudd in the original series. In this story, the crew of the Enterprise is captured by a group of androids who want to serve and protect humans by essentially imprisoning them in a utopia of comfort and safety. Harry Mudd, who originally brought the crew to the planet, ends up caught in his own scheme. The humans, particularly McCoy and the rest of the crew, start coming up with increasingly ridiculous and illogical behaviors in an attempt to confuse the androids and overload their circuits. It works, but the whole plan hinges on embracing irrationality, something that goes completely against Spock's nature. At one point, while McCoy is rambling through one of his arguments, Spock sharply responds, "I find your arguments strewn with gaping defects in logic." It is classic Spock. While the humans are making emotional leaps and nonsensical statements to break free, Spock stays grounded in reason. His comment cuts through the noise and highlights just how far people will go with irrational thinking, even when it works. The episode plays it for laughs, but it is also a reminder that irrationality can be contagious, and sometimes logic gets thrown out the airlock when people are desperate or stuck in their beliefs.

Reason matters. Logic matters. If we want a society that runs on facts instead of fear, we need to start teaching people how to think, not just what to think.

LLAP/RR

* OK, to be fair, there are a LOT of movies where AI takes over the world. It makes for great sci-fi.