Rhetoric. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> New York TIMES / June 14, 2011 > > Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth > > By PATRICIA COHEN > > For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity > for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception > and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary > thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific > enlightenment. > > Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a > completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this > yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing > more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in > the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and > other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead > social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) > another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the > truth. > > The idea, labeled the argumentative theory of reasoning, is the > brainchild of French cognitive social scientists, and it has stirred > excited discussion (and appalled dissent) among philosophers, > political scientists, educators and psychologists, some of whom say it > offers profound insight into the way people think and behave. The > Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences devoted its April issue to > debates over the theory, with participants challenging everything from > the definition of reason to the origins of verbal communication. > > “Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better > beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a > co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely > social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be > careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were > beside the point. > > Indeed, Mr. Sperber, a member of the Jean-Nicod research institute in > Paris, first developed a version of the theory in 2000 to explain why > evolution did not make the manifold flaws in reasoning go the way of > the prehensile tail and the four-legged stride. Looking at a large > body of psychological research, Mr. Sperber wanted to figure out why > people persisted in picking out evidence that supported their views > and ignored the rest — what is known as confirmation bias — leading > them to hold on to a belief doggedly in the face of overwhelming > contrary evidence. > > Other scholars have previously argued that reasoning and > irrationality are both products of evolution. But they usually assume > that the purpose of reasoning is to help an individual arrive at the > truth, and that irrationality is a kink in that process, a sort of > mental myopia. Gary F. Marcus, for example, a psychology professor at > New York University and the author of “Kluge: The Haphazard > Construction of the Human Mind,” says distortions in reasoning are > unintended side effects of blind evolution. They are a result of the > way that the brain, a Rube Goldberg mental contraption, processes > memory. People are more likely to remember items they are familiar > with, like their own beliefs, rather than those of others. > > What is revolutionary about argumentative theory is that it presumes > that since reason has a different purpose — to win over an opposing > group — flawed reasoning is an adaptation in itself, useful for > bolstering debating skills. > > [more at: > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
