Does a brilliant argument prove that a conclusion is true?

Rabbi Landau teaches that it does not, and he asks a sharp question: “Did your reasoning lead you to your conclusion? Or did your conclusion hire your reasoning?” For years, he says, we treated a long, brilliant explanation as proof that its conclusion was correct.

AI has exposed the problem. Ask it why one side is wrong and it gives you twenty pages. Ask why the other side is wrong and you get another twenty pages, both equally convincing. “So what did the 20 pages ever prove?” If AI can argue both sides with equal brilliance, “maybe humans always could, too.” Maybe every reasoned position in history “was never proof of truth; it was proof of commitment to a conclusion.”

He quotes Shlomo HaMelech: “Tzaddik harishon berivo, uva re'eihu vachakaro,” the first person presenting his case seems right until the other comes and examines him. “Shlomo Hamelech didn't write that about AI. He wrote it about us thousands of years ago.” In Rabbi Landau's words, a brilliant argument “proves nothing except that someone wanted to win.”

Also answered in this teaching

What is the difference between intelligence and wisdom in an argument?

Rabbi Landau teaches that intelligence can defend almost anything. Wisdom is knowing whether you are actually looking for the truth, or only for reasons to support what you already decided.

Going deeper: Rabbi Landau's teaching, level by level

Surface claim

A long, brilliant explanation is not proof; AI can produce one for either side.

Fear, vulnerability, or tension

What does it mean that a conclusion can hire its reasoning?

Rabbi Landau warns that our own reasoning may have been hired by a conclusion we already wanted, so that it shows commitment rather than truth.

Underlying need or longing

What a person really needs is the truth, and the first case always sounds convincing until another side examines it.

Deepest human truth

Shlomo HaMelech was not writing about AI but about us: brilliant argument proves only that someone wanted to win.

More questions from this teaching

• What does “the first to plead his case seems right” mean?