That, to our minds, is the gist of the debate about the reason for reason going on at "The Stone" at The New York Times. We have a different, though perhaps no less cynical, take.
While observing and thereafter interviewing more than a few juries we've noticed something peculiar. Most people would rather be wrong, but thought right, than right, but thought wrong. Why? Our guess is that leadership, and all the perks that come with it, has for a very long time tended to be bestowed upon he or she who made the most accurate predictions about what the future held (e.g. rain or drought) for his or her tribe. And isn't that ultimately what reason does; improve your forecast for tomorrow?
Of course such a faculty would also be an invaluable tool for anyone who would be king. Thus perhaps the fascination with, and fear of, raw human reason. And thus, perhaps, the hesitation of so many courts to yield to it (however error-prone the alternative might be). Food for thought.