When Rationalists Disagree

It might be very rare and only over relatively minor or hyper-specific details that do not necessarily impact core beliefs or direct actions at all, but it is possible for genuine rationalists to slightly disagree about some things.  This is not something that automatically disqualifies one or both (if both are indeed somehow insisting upon an error when fallacies, assumptions, and misunderstandings can be avoided in all of their forms) from the rationalism that otherwise defines their worldview and provides their lives with the ultimate foundation.  First, even a rationalist with a legitimate error is still a rationalist, albeit one that has made a mistake of some kind.  Second, the rationalists in disagreement still therefore have more in common with each other than is possible with non-rationalists.

When true rationalists disagree, as is the case with all disagreement, at least one party is certainly in demonstrable error.  With rationalists, the range of issues that are topics of disagreement are far smaller than they are with anyone else.  The truth of the matter is still knowable--even if the truth of the matter would just be that skepticism on the point of disagreement is called for by the nature of the concept and human epistemological limitations.  Still, it is not as if very relatively minor, often largely self-contained disagreements mean either rationalist is full of folly.  This is unsurprisingly not the case when it comes to those who are not rationalists.

Non-rationalists do not even so much as have a seat at the table of all-encompassing philosophical awareness; they neither deserve attention (except for mockery and being held up as examples of irrationality) nor have anything intelligent to contribute unless they stumble into something worthwhile by accident, as even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Yes, rationalists are still rationalists even if some of them are not perfectly consistent in living out the fundamental necessity of avoiding all assumptions, but non-rationalists are at best philosophically helpless imbeciles tossed about by ideas they do not even try to grasp rationally in any thorough sense.

An adult who has rejected or never thought about rationalism has no excuse.  Busyness, social conditioning, and personal ignorance are all bullshit bases for justification because reason is universal, making it omnipresent in how it governs reality and accessible to everyone no matter their occupational or broader cultural context.  Thus, there is literally no actual reason for someone to remain so unfocused on the only self-evident truths about reality (logical axioms) and what else can be known because of them and still plead that they have no philosophical laziness or incompetence unless they simply want to salvage their emotional view of their own self.  In other words, anyone at all can understand at least the basic but crucial truths of rationalism on their own if they actually tried.

In light of this, it is completely illicit for disagreements between non-rationalists and rationalists and disagreements strictly between rationalists to be treated or thought of as the same.  Even moreso than Christians could ever be apart from also being rationalists, true rationalists, as opposed to the irrationalists who are culturally or personally deluded into thinking that being born into modern times or respecting the scientific method somehow makes one rational, are the most sincere ideological sisters and brothers.  Since nothing is more foundational and inescapable than the necessary truths of logical axioms, no one besides those who bond over mutual recognition of this fact of reality can share so much in common without total agreement on less foundational truths.