> That doesn't seem to agree with your thesis.

My initial point was that some people will not be persuaded by rational arguments, and that therefore, we should account for that and consider that letting any affirmation run freely without some sort of intervention may not be the best.

Libel laws is an example of such intervention. If indeed it's just a matter of "showing the rational argument and everyone will agree with them", then libel laws have no reason to exist: if someone says something incorrect about someone else, the second person will obviously react, show the rational arguments showing that the claim is not proven, and everyone will agree that the first person was incorrect, which means that saying something incorrect was always a bad idea: no gain, only loss. The fact that we need a justice system to judge and statue on libel case seems to show that it is not enough to just let the people decide what is true because they are rational and check the argument of the two persons and will therefore not be convinced by the libelous claim. The reason libel should be settle by laws is because people are giving credit to irrational claims.

I believe that rational reasoning is indeed beneficial. My point is that I think rational reasoning is not able to change 100% of people opinion, and therefore it is legitimate to add some sort of intervention (not a dictatorship, but something that is well balanced, such as "libel laws").

> Well the entire history prior to the rise of rational argument consisted of religious wars. Were those environments more tolerant?

I don't think that humans had somehow the "irrational gene" until suddenly the "rational gene" emerged leading to the rise of the rational argument (not even sure when this "rise" is, the most impressive development of formal logic and rational argumentation was in Ancient Greece, in a society deeply religious, well before the end of religion wars). The reason why there is a change in the usage of rational argumentation is, I think, because we choose at some point to build societies that value rationality. As I've said before, I believe that rationality is a good thing, so, sure, societies that value rationality will develop better. Yet, it does not prove that 100% of the population are convinced by rational arguments. You are saying that they were not in the past (how can a "rise of rational argument" even happen if people were all naturally trying to be rational by nature? why were there religious wars if humans were valuing rationality without needing guidance of the social organization?), so, I think it's legitimate to think they may sometimes not be in the present.

Let me illustrate what I mean.

A society S1 where people are all convinced by rational argument will grow with a speed of, let's say, 20.

A society S2 where there is no value in rationality will grow with a speed of 2.

A society S3 where rationality is valued, but some people are still not sway with rationality alone, and there is not much intervention to stop irrational theories to spread, will grow with a speed of 10.

A society S4 where rationality is valued, but some people are still not sway with rationality alone, but there is some interventions (not a dictatorship, just some interventions) to stop irrational theories to spread, will grow with a speed of 14.

Your previous argument was, I think, "see, there is a speed of 10 growth in S3 (which is much better than S2), so it's the proof it works and some intervention is not needed". Well, no, S4 shows that intervention is needed if we want to get an even better society.