Slashdot Mirror
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."
So now that we have the internet and the evolutionary push for reasoning and rationality is gone - what do you think will happen?
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.
No, it isn't.
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".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"Such is the weakness of our reason; most often it serves only to justify our own beliefs." [from La Gloire de mon Père, my translation]
Having read that from Pagnol (and it's now my favourite quote), I'm not surprised that it was a French team who came up with this theory -- Pagnol was one of the most important figures in French literature of his era.
Pagnol's original context is no less relevant today than it was at the time: he was referring to how the local teacher and the local priest where he grew up were both very well educated, very intelligent people, yet their conclusions were almost diametrically opposed. I think the parallel to modern life is clear....
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
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.
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.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Disclaimer: tipping her until she stumbles into a wall can be a substitute.
Disclaimer 2: no unwanted violence in this actions should be implied.
"you're right" = "tu as raison". "This is not right" = "c'est pas juste". I don't know if it's a leftover from the Lumieres, but where English uses terms of right and wrong, French uses reason and justice. Back when I was in the US, I was indeed surprised by how objective reality (or the quest the establish it) seemed to very often take a back seat to feelings and moral / religious aspects.
Turns out both are just "my way" vs "your way" then ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Precisely. But the fact that the ability to reason *evolved* as a way of winning arguments does not mean we cannot use it for more socially useful purposes today. Actually, I would interpret the evolutionary mechanism as being a lot broader than just winning arguments (although technically that is a sufficient description). For instance, winning an argument over whether X will mate with Y rather than Z. Winning an argument over who should be the leader. Or just winning the ongoing popularity contest to be seen as an interesting, attractive person for whom others would like to do favours.
Alexander Pope summed it up accurately, concisely and poetically in his "Essay on Man", nearly 300 years ago (the 'card' being the compass that shows direction at sea):
"On life’s vast ocean diversely we sail,
Reason the card, but passion is the gale".
We can use logic to reach reliable conclusions only when we agree on the premises and the conditions of argument. In everyday life - which includes business - different people argue from different premises, seeking to persuade other people of the validity of their own conclusions instead of listening to the other people's arguments, which may be just as important if not more so. That's largely because life in our society rewards the selfish individualist far, far more than the unselfish team player. (Although selfish individualists often successfully disguise themselves as unselfish team players).
That's why geeks, nerds, and suchlike types (a) tend to invent useful stuff and get practical things done reliably; (b) are despised and abused by non-geeks. The geek prefers to use language and logic to accomplish concrete tasks, in cooperation with others of like mind (even if only through the media of books, the Internet, etc.) Whereas non-geeks can only use language in the way they instinctively do: to try and get their own way. They are astonished that geeks are so unselfish, but don't (on the whole) admire them for that.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This is all leading to the eventual inclusion of "rationality" as a diagnosable disorder in the DSM. We'll have to diagnose it and treat it with drugs, because being rational and thinking critically and having the capacity to think and see the world in abstracts rather than a narrow and often blissfully naive limited scope that makes the success of your local professional sports team the most pressing concern in your life makes you generally less happy than someone who just worries about sticking their dick in something occasionally and having a six pack while watching Dane Cooke give you the superfinger.
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.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
However, the extrapolation one can and likely will make to serve their greater purpose is that we created guns as a way to help us defend ourselves as well as attack others. A weapon that serves a purpose, but has to be controlled, limited, regulated. Like rational thinking. Rational thinking is the enemy of government, religion, media, and advertising. We already see society treating people who appreciate rationality and critical thinking, to a degree, the way society treats "gun nuts". A certain discomfort, uneasiness, and disdain.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
Rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given situation all available means of persuasion. (Aristotle)
This theory (and you) seem to be suffering from a failure to understand what rhetoric is vs what reason is. Reason is the application of knowledge/experience to current or future actions or thoughts - it's cause->effect relationship awareness. You don't reach into the oven and grab a pot because you know it's hot - that's reasoning. Higher-level reasoning would be the use of a pot-holder or other tool to grab the aforementioned pot to prevent burning yourself. (The failure to be aware of and properly apply knowledge/experience and cause->effect is stupidity)
Reason is not related to communication, nor does reason require any type of social construction (except when reason deals with a social construction - such as religion) to exist - burning your hand in fire did not take a committee. They are independent and separate. That's why this "Argumentative Theory of Reasoning" falls flat on its face.
(Plato's Republic, Book VII 539b)
How new is this notion again?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
This makes me think back to an old discussion on "Car Talk", where they came to the amazing conclusion that two can be more stupid than one. In their line of reasoning, one person might see something obviously absurd and label it as such. With two, both might see the absurdity, one might see a less absurd corner and start nibbling at it, with the other joining in, until together they've talked each other into swallowing the whole thing.
In political terms it's called the "echo chamber" where something repeated often enough, loudly enough, and with dissent ridiculed enough, it begins to take on the appearance of truth, regardless of actual merit.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
What you are referring to is "ethos" or character. It also refers to "experts" and how we are more accepting of the opinions of those who are considered "experts" in their field. For some reason you may think that I have a less valid opinion because you do not know what type or number of degrees I hold. You could be right - my opinion may not have any validity - but using ethos and a socially-constructed definition of the education level required for an "expert" is a questionable basis for decision-making, as Rhetoric is not a replacement for Reason. Which is again why the article falls flat.
And FWIW, Rhetoric and Critical Analysis is my field.
If you assume that there is no teleology, no higher design, in evolutionary processes, you are left with a blind process building up the human mind. Furthermore, you have to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. Why do you believe anything is true? The atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way. Why does evolution proceed the way it does? It is neutral about truth so the only answer that can be given is to pass on genes.
Evolution is most certainly not neutral about truth. If you regularly believe in falsehoods - such as the idea that tigers make a very good meal for primitive humans (as opposed to of primitive humans) - your genes will exit the pool tout suite.
Your brain is an inference engine, tuned by evolution to model the physical world and make you something other than a predator's brunch. It's quite good at this, as witness the seven billion other human brains inhabiting this world.
Where is your courage man? Grab that pot! Was the hope drunk, Wherein you dress'd yourself? hath it slept since, And wakes it now, to look so green and pale At what it did so freely? From this time Such I account thy honor.
Which is exactly the point. If we forget our assumptions(in this case the nature of time and space), we are doing bad science. A PhD is not a "Doctorate of Philosophy" for nothing. Otherwise, if there was an incorrect assumption holding back science it would never be questioned or discovered. Neither can you escape philosophy if you can acknowledge your assumptions.
Basically what Einstein is saying as far as I can see, is acknowledge the assumption, and then proceed. Otherwise you get stuck in philosophy and never proceed to any of the interesting stuff. But if you find a way to test the assumption, do so.
Put it this way, when in the lab you start getting "impossible" results, question your equipment, method and math before you question your philosophical assumptions. But don't stop until you have an answer.
But this is not the point. Empirical evidence like everything in human experience is subject to interpretation. All human beings pass all the data through their assumptions whether acknowledged or not. Understanding this is critical in a completely different area of life to physics: Understanding and interacting with people. This is slashdot I know, so theoretically noone has any social skills, but if we understood that people starting from different assumptions reach different conclusions and are not necessarily irrational fools, we all might get along better and perhaps be happier people. We might get over our base need to win an argument no matter what - because the personified force of Reason is on our side. Maybe sometimes we can agree(with respect) to disagree. Or maybe I am that naive?
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Narrator: "It was at this point the crowd of bumbling idiots decided Nikkos' argument sounded pompous and faggy and began taunting him with barely intelligible grunts and attacks on his heterosexuality. The crowd then beat Nikkos to death with several comically large, rubber dildos."
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
That's pathos. You're doing well, keep working at it.
That's why geeks, nerds, and suchlike types (a) tend to invent useful stuff and get practical things done reliably; (b) are despised and abused by non-geeks. The geek prefers to use language and logic to accomplish concrete tasks, in cooperation with others of like mind (even if only through the media of books, the Internet, etc.) Whereas non-geeks can only use language in the way they instinctively do: to try and get their own way. They are astonished that geeks are so unselfish, but don't (on the whole) admire them for that.
- sounds too contrived to pass the smell test.
First: who is 'despised' and 'abused' by non-geeks? Are you talking about school children? I don't believe the school children are doing most of 'tend to invent useful stuff and practical things done reliably', and I don't believe that the reason that non-geeks in schools hate geeks for reason, that geeks are unselfish.
I also don't believe that geeks are unselfish (or at least that all or a large majority of them are).
There are quite a number of huge assumptions there, not backed up by anything.
You can't handle the truth.