Rationality, once revered, has had a bad press. It is increasingly derided as the rhetorical bluster of an educated elite, most typically white and male, and as the prejudiced claim of those who are sure they are right. Yet in the absence of reason public debate risks becoming ever more rancorous and tribal.

Do we need less emotion, more calm, and more rational conversation and debate? Should we see rationality as a method for positive change and a mechanism for good decision making? Or is rationality a rhetorical delusion, a means of dressing up privilege and power, which should be seen for what it is, a defence of the vested interests it seeks to hide.

Philosopher of mind and psychology Sophie Archer, Oxford logician Timothy Williamson and cultural critic Nina Power put reason and emotion to the test.