Reason Seen More As a Weapon Than a Path To Truth

mdsolar writes with this excerpt from the NY Times: "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."

Comments

This seems to be a great over-simplification.

[Chrisq]

Certainly one of the evolutionary benefits of reasoning could be to win debates. On the other hand problem solving certainly plays part. I can picture a cave-man saying "remember when we hunted those mammoths near the cliffs and one fell down. It was an easy kill, and nobody got hurt. Lets drive the mammoths towards the cliff again"! As the article says, the "winning debate" comes to the fore more in larger groups - and people started off in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Also there are two types of debate - the academic debate where people knowledgable in the field evaluate arguments and the sort of debate that two politicians have on TV. In the first case reason is very important. In the second case dissembling - not answering questions - and implying things that they know are wrong are more important. A slick presentation of a lie would easily convince most of the viewing population over a rigorous, boring argument for the truth.

Re:This seems to be a great over-simplification.

[flyingsquid]

Also there are two types of debate - the academic debate where people knowledgable in the field evaluate arguments and the sort of debate that two politicians have on TV.

Philosophy and rhetoric, as the Greeks would have argued. There's rational discourse appealing to facts and sound logic, and irrational discourse appealing to emotions and logic, sound and otherwise. An amazing example of this is the recent John Stewart appearance on the O'Reilly Factor (really, it happened and the universe did not explode). O'Reilly blusters, argues, pontificates loudly, professes outrage, sets up straw men; Stewart calmly cites precedents and takes apart O'Reily's arguments piece by piece. It's hard to really say who won, they're playing such different games. Rhetorically O'Reilly is sort of like a Canadian brutally clubbing a helpless baby harp seal, but logically Stewart is like King Arthur, taking apart the Black Knight piece by piece.

As for these social scientists, I don't know if I buy their explanation for why rationality evolved but I would agree with these guys about one thing: humans aren't evolved to assess problems rationally. The stuff they teach us in school about the Scientific Method, how we gather evidence, formulate hypotheses and then test them... it's bullshit. The process works; it's amazingly powerful. But in practice that's the opposite of how humans typically arrive at the answer. Humans start with an answer they've arrived at through some quasi-rational means and then collect facts and generate rational arguments to support the answer they've already decided on. Even scientists, most of them, don't really think according to the scientific method, most of the time. I mean, these social scientists, did they actually conduct any science; did they actually test an hypothesis? From the Times article doesn't sound like these "scientists" made any testable predictions or gathered any data, they just started with a thesis ("human rationality evolved to win arguments") and then marshalled evidence and arguments in favor of it. They're debating, not discovering. If that's not an argument against rationality, I don't know what is.

Re:This seems to be a great over-simplification.

[jahudabudy]

while ignoring MSNBC and CNN's opinion programs and winking while hosting his own "fake news" show?

He goes where the funny is. Fox simply has more ridiculousness than CNN. You act as though the 3 networks are all equivalent, and thus only partisan bias could possibly cause someone to criticize one more harshly than the other. Not so. CNN is a news network (or tries to be, they have really gone downhill in recent years) that has a bit of a political bias, as is inevitable. Fox is a propaganda network that reports some news. I don't watch MSNBC. Oh, and he does call out CNN quite a bit. Especially their reliance on Twitter and user submitted "news". He used to rag on Keith Olberman, but ever since he quit, I don't recall hearing anything about MSNBC.

"fake news": the Daily Show doesn't report on the news. It reports on the news media, which perforce gives viewers a passing familiarity with what the news media is reporting. They blur the line somewhat, but the focus is clearly on media, not current events.

I don't know about the O'Reilly interview, but the Daily Show consistently uses video clips of people's actual words to point out the shit they are decrying. Video footage strikes me as rather strong fact based evidence (assuming it isn't doctored, which I imagine would quickly be called out if it ever happened). Yes, TDS political leanings are apparent, but they don't let that drive the show. The funny drives the show (why else would they have covered in such detail not only a Democrat's scandal, but one who happens to be a personal friend of John?)

This is unfortunate

[Dunbal]

Researchers are blinded by their above average intelligence into thinking that other people respond to "reason".

Arguments are won by the person(s) with the loudest voices, and failing that - the biggest sticks. This is called "politics", but it also travels under other guises like "religion", "nationalism", "sports fanaticism", etc. If you want evidence you merely have to look at human history, or even current events in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. A lot of "reasoning" is going on there.

If you want a good insight into how the human brain works and responds to arguments, I suggest reading the first few chapters of Mein Kampf. No, not all the stupid babble about the superior German race and the Jew Hate, but the first few chapters take a powerful, honest and insightful exploration as to what we humans really are and how we "reason".

Re:This is unfortunate

[Half-pint HAL]

Researchers are blinded by their above average intelligence into thinking that other people respond to "reason".

Methinks thou hast missed the point.

The article is going against the idea that "human reason" is an imperfect realisation of pure logic, but that human reason is flawed by nature. When people are conned into buying things they don't need, it's not lack of reason, it's use of reason.

I once heard Richard Dawkins decrying alternative medicine. Most alternative medicine is out-and-out quackery, and I would be happy to see an end to it. But Dawkins claimed that people were turning to it do to a lack of critical reasoning (and he incidentally blamed this on organised religion). However, most supporters of alternative therapies do indeed follow a path of reasoning. This path of reasoning includes some valid data (including failure rates of surgical and pharmacological medicine), some invalid data (unreviewed, unproven figures for the success rates of alternative therapies) and a big dose of conspiracy theory ("big pharma is trying to ban the use of splogweed in the treatment of ungweldbiterbal cancer because they can't profit from it" etc), and they reach a conclusion that follows from the premises.

People do respond to reason, but as the article points out, not in an entirely expected way....

Re:So now they attack reason...

[VendingMenace]

So now "The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences" qualifies as "the media"?

I think the rant that you just went through is a good demonstration that you may not have the reasoning skills that you think you do. Perhaps, instead of an uniformed knee-jerk reaction, you could actually think about what is being said and (more to the point for your argument) who is saying it.

It seems to me that the article is reporting on a series of papers from cognitive and social scientists who are asking some questions concerning the evolution of consciousness and rationality. Interesting questions, at that.

Moreover, either you didn't actually read the article, OR you have terrible reading comprehension. One of the points in the article is that reasoning evolved as a way to "help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us." Thus, they are saying that reasoning is a useful tool.

In short, the article states that reasoning is a good tool and is important. However, they are wondering why it came into existence. An interesting question. I would suggest you read and reason through the article next time, rather than post something that demonstrates that you have done neither.

recursive instincts

[Danny Rathjens]

I used to think I was clever for being aware of how often an argument can be seen as instinctive urges of people to position themselves higher in the primate dominance hierarchy. e.g. I am better than you; the software I use is better than what you use; ad hominem attacks; speaking louder and longer.
Then I noticed that by pointing out these dominance hierarchy games that I was really just playing the same instinctual game to show that I am more clever than those people "just" following their instincts. This paper seems to back up my theory that I'm just as much a slave to those instincts as the "me > *" flamebait types. :)

Re:Slashdot modding

[MRe_nl]

How unreasonable of you.

Back to the subject, from the article
"Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to the best arguments".
I don't think that it is a given at all.
In fact this common over-simplification is at the root of some of our basic problems. The composition of the group, the size, the amount and quality of the arguments discussed, to name but a few of the more obvious factors, are all to be considered in this equation.

Circular, broken argument

[wytcld]

If the purpose of reason is to win arguments, what faculty is in charge of deciding the winner? We can't reason who the winner is, because reason in this account is about arguing for one side, not weighing the arguments fairly and evenly.

Put it the other way around: This whole argument is presupposing that people can come to reasoned conclusions and by that change their course. But then it is saying the purpose of reason isn't to allow us to come to reasoned conclusions, but rather to undermine the capability of others to come to reasoned conclusions, by allowing us to construct unbalanced and perhaps unfair arguments to virtually force them to come to some conclusion that we, by whatever means, have come to favor.

This is an argument for being a sociopathic predator, a parasite on reasoning society, and the riches which reason has enabled us to amass. It's sanctioning this predator's attitude by saying "Evolution wants us to be this way." It's making the standard form of argument in "evolutionary psychology," in which "evolution" plays the role formerly played by "God" in constructing an argument along the lines of, "Your maker says: behave thus." They're both arguments against using our own reason. That is to say, they are both perversions of reason, turned against reason itself.

Re:Slashdot modding

[TheRaven64]

Well, there we have it. The trolls don't like moderation, so we should get rid of it. Maybe eventually it will occur to you that the reason that you don't like moderation, and the reason you need to keep creating new accounts to get around the bad karma that you collect, is that you keep trolling.

Re:Slashdot modding

[sorak]

How unreasonable of you.

Back to the subject, from the article
"Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to the best arguments".
I don't think that it is a given at all.

Agreed.

It may be true in in a Darwinian sense. I.E., I would say the "best argument" is the one that most closely represents the truth, and that advocates a course of action that is in the best interests of those the argument is appealing to, but this is like assuming that evolution's ultimate goal is to make us completely honest, hardworking superheroes who never die.

But in the US, the biggest argument arenas seem to be politics, advertising, and academia. How often does the most truthful political argument or advertisement end up being the most effective? The norm is emotionally charged arguments based on irrational fears and dubious assertions.

Academia is the exception, specifically because they try to take measures to elevate the discourse. They try to overcome their nature.