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!!”
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!!”