It’s not far-fetched to assert that when we have opposing views with others, we often perceive them as illogical. Kevin Dorst PhD ’19 has amassed a collection of research with intriguing insights on this matter.
Dorst, an associate professor of philosophy at MIT, investigates rationality: how we implement it, or believe we do, and how it manifests in society. The aim is to assist us in thinking clearly and perhaps with renewed perspectives on matters we might take for granted.
Throughout his research, Dorst focuses on examining the subtleties of rationality. For instance, consider how ambiguity can influence rationality. Imagine there are two studies regarding the impact of a new housing development on local traffic conditions: one indicates a significant surge in traffic, and the other suggests a negligible effect. Even if both studies are rigorous in their methodologies and data, neither may present a completely indisputable case. Individuals who consider themselves to be rationally analyzing the figures may likely disagree on which one is most credible, and — although this may not be wholly rational — may leverage their preexisting beliefs to find flaws in the study that contradicts their prior views.
Among other aspects, this process also challenges the prevalent “Bayesian” notion that people’s opinions adjust and become aligned as they encounter new evidence. It might be that rather than converging, individuals apply rationality while their opinions diverge.
This is also the sort of phenomenon Dorst investigates in the paper “Rational Polarization,” published in The Philosophical Review in 2023; currently, Dorst is composing a book on how people can adopt rational approaches yet ultimately arrive at varying conclusions about reality. He integrates meticulous argumentation, mathematically structured representations of reasoning, and even experimental findings regarding cognition and people’s beliefs, a growing trend in the field of philosophy.
“There’s something liberating about the methodological openness in philosophy,” remarks Dorst, a witty and amiable conversationalist. “A question can be philosophical if it holds significance and we haven’t yet established definitive methods for addressing it, because in philosophy, it’s always acceptable to inquire about the methods we should employ. It’s one of the thrilling aspects of philosophy.”
For his research and instruction, Dorst was granted tenure at MIT the previous year.
Show me your work
Dorst was raised in Missouri, not particularly anticipating a career as a philosopher, but he began to follow in the academic footsteps of his elder brother, who cultivated an interest in philosophy.
“We weren’t aware of what philosophy was during our upbringing, but once my brother became interested, there was a bit of mutual encouragement, motivating each other, and having someone to engage in discussions with,” says Dorst.
As an undergraduate at Washington University in St. Louis, Dorst majored in philosophy and political science. By the time he graduated, he was committed to studying philosophy full-time and was accepted into MIT’s doctoral program.
At the Institute, he began to specialize in the issues he now examines full-time, focusing on how we acquire knowledge and the extent to which our thinking is rational, all while collaborating with Roger White as his primary adviser, alongside faculty members Robert Stalnaker and Kieran Setiya from MIT and Branden Fitelson from Northeastern University.
After completing his PhD, Dorst spent a year as a fellow at Oxford University’s Magdalen College, before joining the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh. He returned to MIT, this time as faculty, in 2022. Now firmly established in the MIT philosophy department, Dorst strives to uphold the tradition of engaged teaching with his students.
“They grapple like everyone else with the conceptual and philosophical inquiries, but the pace at which you can cover technical material in a course is remarkable,” Dorst observes regarding MIT undergraduates.
New methods, time-honored issues
Currently, Dorst, who has published extensively in philosophical journals, is immersed in the process of drafting a book manuscript addressing the intricacies of rationality. Chapter topics encompass hindsight bias, confirmation bias, overconfidence, and polarization.
In this endeavor, Dorst is also designing and conducting more experiments than ever before, to investigate how individuals process information and perceive themselves as rational.
“There’s a sizable movement of experimental philosophy, utilizing empirical data, being attentive to cognitive science, and aiming to connect our inquiries to it,” Dorst explains.
In his case, he adds, “The overarching goal is to bridge the theoretical research on rationality with more empirical studies examining what contributes to polarization,” he states. The relevance of this work, meanwhile, spans a broad array of topics: “People have been polarized throughout history about countless subjects.”
As he articulates all of this, Dorst glances at the whiteboard in his office, where a comprehensive array of equations reflects the outcomes of some experiments and his ongoing efforts to comprehend the findings, as part of the book project. Upon completion, he aspires to produce work that is broadly beneficial in philosophy, cognitive science, and related fields.
“We might employ some varied models in philosophy,” he notes, “but let’s all strive to understand how individuals process information and assess arguments.”