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."
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"
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.
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
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.
(Plato's Republic, Book VII 539b)
How new is this notion again?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.