Motivated reasoning

Jump to: navigation, search

Motivated reasoning is style of analysis characterised in that, that the reasoner (colleague, opponent politician) considers the observations and evidences selectively, picking up those in his/her profit and ignoring observations that contradict his/her concept.

In the strongest form, the motivated reasoning can be qualified as dialectics, propaganda and demagogy.


motivated reasoning versus science

The motivated reasoning oppose the science as it is defined in TORI, which implies the search and analysis of possibilities of refutation of any concept.

Motivated reasoning is specific feature of politics. Often, it appears in the apology of some specific religion. Various phenomena of the so–called female logic can be qualified as motivated reasoning.

The motivated reasoning causes destruction of the psychics of the reasoner; the reasoner begin to believe in the arguments he or she suggests. Someone’s brain begin to search any concept (even an obviously wrong and already refuted one) in a way to justify support for what it wants to be true [1].


Motivated reasoning is typical for petirions. Genre of the document requires the shortness; in a petition, usually, there is no space to analyse argument pro and contra the solutions suggested.


Within the TORI philosophy, the motivated reasoning appears either as a fraud, if the reasoner has doubts in the statements he or she pretends to be true, or as a religion, if the reasoner believes in his/her own arguments. Any evidence of the motivated reasoning within any paradigm is sufficient criterion for the disqualification as a scientific concept. The motivated reasoning is not comparable with the requirement of refutability, that is specified among the TORI axioms.


The defence of the taboos, commonly accepted in the civilised society, is based mostly on the motivated reasoning; the defenders switch-out any ability to the critical analysis truing to justify their taboo [2].

Motivated reasoning is typical, specific tool to defend any religious concept. Some examples are collected in article vestism. Any vestist can explain, why namely his branch of vestism is "true", and all others are "wrong".


  1. Arnie Gundersen. Lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. October 16, 2013. ..Indian Point presents an interesting dichotomy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) claims that the chance of a meltdown is one in a million. With 400 operating nuclear reactors worldwide, the NRC data means one meltdown would occur every 2,500 years. .. But that is not what has happened in real life. Instead, history shows us that there have been five meltdowns during the last 35 years: TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, and 3 (apologies for not including Windscale, Santa Susana, and about a dozen more reactors). The real numbers show that there is a seven-year frequency between meltdowns. .. While demanding that taxpayers cover the risk of a nuclear accident by paying for the Price-Anderson nuclear insurance, it seems that the NRC and every major politician and nuclear fabricator actually believes that A Nuclear Accident Can’t Happen at Indian Point or Pilgrim. When someone’s brain reasons in a way to justify support for what it wants to be true, psychologists call it “Motivated Reasoning”.
  2. Nihilist: Taboos. (2010)


Demagogy, Dialectic, Doublethink, Female logic, Fraud, Orwell1984, Petition, Politics, Propaganda, Religion, Sovietism, Taboo