They don’t construct arguments the same way normal thinking people do, they start with the conclusion and just make up whatever as a reason for it and hope people buy it.
Sure, if you have a novel result, say from some experiment, you afterwards come up with theories to explain it. This is different from policy decisions though, where you have a situation at hand and need to come up with a way to deal with it.
In this case:
There’s an epidemic, we need to contain it
-> it spreads through viruses expelled be sneezing
-> use a mask to hinder the spread
vs
People tell me to use masks, I don’t like that
-> I need a reason to justify not wearing a mask
-> “I can’t breathe!!”
They don’t construct arguments the same way normal thinking people do, they start with the conclusion and just make up whatever as a reason for it and hope people buy it.
I once called out my dad for this exact behavior. He literally laughed it off, “Yeah, that sounds like me.”
who doesn’t build the reasoning after the result? isn’t that how everyone does it?
Sure, if you have a novel result, say from some experiment, you afterwards come up with theories to explain it. This is different from policy decisions though, where you have a situation at hand and need to come up with a way to deal with it.
In this case:
There’s an epidemic, we need to contain it
-> it spreads through viruses expelled be sneezing
-> use a mask to hinder the spread
vs
People tell me to use masks, I don’t like that -> I need a reason to justify not wearing a mask
-> “I can’t breathe!!”