The Black Swan author, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, often writes that most of his work is impervious to fact-checking. It is automatically correct. He posits this is because he uses logic. For him, logic is an unbreakable lever on his observations, allowing him to gain insight and take action in profitable ways from limited data.
The logic lever fascinates me. I imagine a long bar, with observation as a fulcrum and positioned under a big rock labeled "insight" at the other end. It is the basis for many successes and failures all around me in finance and entrepreneurship. The idea is that internal, mathematically-grounded analysis will let you go from point A to B to C without requiring more data. Because this is all based on internal reasoning, there is no extra "fact check" beyond your initial observation.
Taleb and Matt Ridley both cite Titus Lucretius Carus as a thinker far ahead of his time. He uses the logic lever phenomenally. His Ars Rerum Natura discusses Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics 1,700 years before Sir Isaac in a way that blew my mind. He had minimal observations and more primitive tools than Newton. He further faced a social dynamic that made such ideas more dangerous to his safety.
But Lucretius and his writings faded in and out of the history of thought in the intervening centuries. We don't call them Lucretian laws of motion.
After too little research, my hypothesis is this: his lever was too long to persuade others. One had to trust in his logic. Even if you followed it, did you trust that there was not some trick in there? Humans can only hold so much data in their short-term memory at once. One must have a basis of confidence that this lever won't break under a false assumption or faulty step in the reasoning. The longer the lever, the more trust I need in the logic. That means trust in my previous calculations that have since shuffled out of my RAM.
When the insight is unpleasant or challenging, the mental burden of proof is higher. When I don't want to believe, I become more disinclined to do the hard work of studying the logic in detail.
This tension between logical integrity and reader trust has a few implications. First, the initial user of the logic lever is most likely the thinker who built it. Taleb, for example, trades options based on his logic levers - and makes a bundle doing it. His difficulty persuading others of his ideas works to his advantage as he takes their money. He makes bets he has an edge in as a result of the insight. That's a pretty typical finance application. Use the lever for investing first. That way, you can profit without requiring persuasion.
Second, if one wants to persuade, one should look for testable segments within the lever. If the world supports parts of the reasoning, one need not depend on that reasoning: one can substitute observation. These supports are perhaps unnecessary for logical completeness. But they shorten the distance between fulcrum and insight, decreasing the stress on the logic in the middle.
The difference between the successes of Lucretius and Newton is the context of technology and society. Observation, more precise tests, and accepted reality were different in the 17th century. The faster pace of technology today means we do not need centuries. As the pandemic vaccine push taught us, we barely need years.
The ability to persuade does not need to come from logic. It rarely does. "Reality distortion fields" get people to believe something they otherwise would not. The belief might or might not be grounded in a new reality. Most often, however, it is not - this is flimflammery.
Charlatans have an easier time persuading because they do not need to ground their pitch in truth. The skill to convince people to follow, spend, or act in one's interest is independent of objective reality. At least not short-term. And in the long run, a grifter is long gone or has mutated the game.
Figuring out truths and then persuading people of them is playing the game "on hard." But it also plays for the long run. A solid lever will be the basis of a value-priced business. That is where I want to invest.
If you have a nonintuitive insight, I want to hear it. That is where the value lies. Let's bring it to the world without requiring 1,700 years to pass.