Lakoff is completely right that so-called logical reasoning is extremely faulty because it fails to take into account human nature. For example, our biased perceptions were faulted by Plato, the father of the socratic tradition... though Plato went on to claim that such systems can fully compensate, by self-correcting for bad perceptions. One of the great ironies in the history of thought -- since our human talent for delusion easily extends to the misleading incantations of "logic."

Also, recent advances in neuroscience seem to be supporting the cynics. As Lakoff points out, our brains seem wired for bias, which reasoning generally serves only to rationalize. We process new “facts” offered by our opponents through parts of the brain associated by emotion, rather than logic. To see how bad it gets, just look at yourself, by taking my infamous “Questionnaire on Ideology.”

On the other hand, I must quibble --

Lakoff asserts that logic and reason are fundamental underpinnings of the Enlightenment Experiment. And I will confess that they started out that way, and still are vital components of the non-Anglic (e.g. Franco-German) wing of the Enlightenment.

But the Anglo-American wing long ago demoted reason to second-tier status. It is still important, as an ideal to be yearned-for. But primary position was given -- by Locke, Smith, Franklin, and Madison -- to something else: Reciprocal Accountability.

Knowing how good human beings are at delusion and at rationalization, the sages of the Enlightenment's pragmatic wing chose to emphasize adversarial processes, in markets, democracy, justice and science. Competitive criticism and reward systems, based on actual outcomes and repeatable tests were supposed to overcome the biases that the Founders knew to be inherent in human nature.

Let me elaborate: while reason has clearly been revealed as faulty in guiding us to useful conclusions, it still serves science crucially well as a hypothesis generator! As a fertile source -- like manure -- of the assertions and wagers that then make the basis for subsequent science.

By far, most of the assertions that are later subjected to Popperian falsification arise, either wholly or in part, through processes of abstract reasoning. In other words, reason is a great truth-seeking tool when it is paired with other essential things... diversity, competition, reciprocal accountability, experimental testing,... and a cultural tradition of cheerful -- or at least grudging -- acceptance of the paramount value of evidence.

As Herbert Spencer once wryly quipped, "There is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory, disproved." Well, tragic, except in comparison to 10,000 years of wrong theories that were forced upon folks, by bullying.

Sure, all of these ingredients come hard, especially the willingness to heed criticism. Only scientists are actually trained to use them systematically, and still they squirm! We are at-root, genetically, and at-heart, immature cavemen.

And yet, we are cavemen who built a spectacular Enlightenment civilization, more successful in every way -- including gentle decency -- than all others combined. We did it by learning and applying reason... and then (a crucial second step) by refusing to be bullied by it. By subjecting logic to the superior authority of evidence.