Professor MacMillan left an interesting comment in response to Ludwig von Mises’s “Economics and the Revolt Against Reason.”

His conclusion:

My theory is as follows, and I guess it’s pretty obvious: To deny undesirable implications or conclusions that follow from rational argument has a cost to most people. They feel badly about it. But to accept undesirable consequences of a rational argument also has a cost. If the cost of accepting the consequences of a rational argument are greater than the cost of intellectual dishonesty, then the rational argument will be rejected. Of course to each individual, the consequences of a particular rational argument will have a different cost (and they will imply benefits to some). Also, the internal cost of intellectual dishonesty varies greatly by individual.

[emphasis added]