This post succinctly encapsulates an entire category of reasoning error. It is one of the most eloquent refutations (via reductio) of rationalism I’ve seen. So let’s address it.
Presumably (and I think this is safe given the source) this implicit criticism would also apply to other premodern religious societies, or even conservative subcultures today. So the real question is “what tools of thought would you need to know that traditional cultures are insane?”
What do we mean by “insane”? Is it that these traditions make false factual claims? Granted. So what rules of thought would have enabled you to figure this out? If the answer is “this specific form of rationalism” then you would have also needed the meta-rules that would have enabled you to recognize that as the correct epistemology. As far as I can tell, the only way to build confidence in a theory of knowledge like that is to see it work better than its competitors. Had anyone seen this in 1500? Had bayesian rationalism had a lot of successes then? Did the language even exist in which it could have been articulated? If it had, what would you have been able to do with it? Give probability estimates as to whether a coin is biased after having seen n flips? Even then, it’ll depend on your prior for a biased vs unbiased coin. The fact is that formal reasoning doesn’t have a ton of utility outside of technologically advanced societies. You would have had no examples of people crushing it by thinking this way. If you wanted to be a blacksmith, just memorizing the rules of thumb would have been more effective than first principles reasoning.
If, as I suspect, she means the *values* of these societies were/are insane, the prospect of thinking your way out of them is even more dubious. What would it mean for statements like “women should obey their husbands” to be false? If the claim is justified based on a holy text, you could perhaps reason your way out of believing the holy text is infallible, but these cultural norms generally exist for a long time before being codified in scripture. Religions document them more than they invent them. I don’t think that being really careful about deriving conclusions from your premises would automatically produce modern egalitarian morality even if you became an atheist, because your results will depend on your premises (or your priors).
The basic problem is that new knowledge is not derived from first principles. It evolves. Aella is mistaking a state for a process. The kind of person who today becomes a bay area rationalist typically ended up believing very different things in the past, and will end up believing very different things in the future. Her question is equivalent to asking “what mutations would you have needed to grow a brain as an archaic slime mold?” Slime molds didn’t have the biological infrastructure to support brains, and wouldn’t have had much use for them.
You should think "if I were born in conservative Muslim culture in the 1500s, what type of cognitive rules would I need to have to realize my culture was insane", and then apply those exact rules to this current culture.