Rationalistic Sociology

A rationalist can easily see that a non-rationalist is a slave to chance beliefs, unexamined concepts, personal assumptions, and cultural pressures to at least a large extent.  After all, any belief held without rationalistic awareness and logical proof is a mere assumption even if the belief is both true and provable.  When non-rationalists are the majority members of a society, no matter what other worldviews they might have, their society is built on a foundation of mud instead of a philosophical foundation of necessary truths and absolute certainty.  Its members are delusional, hypocritical (even if only on the level of inconsistent beliefs), and intellectually helpless on their own by choice.

Unfortunately, there is not a single truly rationalistic culture evidenced by the historical record or modern experiences.  There might be or have been cultures that believed they were rationalistic without truly making no assumptions at least as a collective group and without even being consistent in rather basic issues of epistemology or ethics.  There are cultures that conflate reason with an individual's subjective comprehension of a given issue or with the assumption-riddled framework of science divorced from rationalistic skepticism that the external world is even as it appears; the kind of person who would be a typical part of a society like this is easy to find.

One of the most important and foundational truths about rational sociology--that is, rationalistic sociology, for the two can only be the same thing--is that most people are examples of philosophical superficiality, slaves to personal preferences or societal ones, and dismissive of the only truths that are self-verifying (which means them not being true would result in contradiction because they would still have to be true) as they believe in impossibilities or unprovable ideas.  In spite of this, they might actually misperceive true rationalists to be the insane ones and think that their arbitrary assumptions are validated by their emotional experiences and subjective hopes.  All of this is the case even though they will likely condemn other non-rationalists for doing the same with different assumptions!

Approaching "sociology" with any assumptions at all is irrational by definition, but any approach to sociology that does not acknowledge the sheer stupidity or apathy or non-rationalists is doomed to be untrue at its very start.  People are not consistently intelligent, self-aware, or deep just because there is always the hypothetical potential for them to be such a thing.  Cultures formed by people of different ideologies cannot all have the same level of philosophical validity.  It is therefore irrational to believe or pretend otherwise, and this is one of the most significant truths about sociological developments and interactions.  The rationalistic minority has every reason to forcefully make this fact known.