I have been reading a great deal about conceptual change and reasoning lately. After reading, oh say about 200 papers on the subject, I became frustrated as the research is disjointed and not very conclusive.
Then I decided to try the Paleo/evolutionary route and see if anyone had written about human reasoning from that angle. Low and behold, a new, ground-breaking paper has been published that looks at human reasoning from an evolutionary perspective. The main ideas is that reasoning developed for argumentation.
Here is the link, though I'm not sure how many people are into reading 55-page academic papers. But even parts of the abstract are very interesting:
"Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers."
And:
"Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions."
To this I would say Exhibit A is the internet, where people are making wild conclusions while only looking for evidence to support their hypotheses.
Anyways, the paper is a very interesting read.
Have you read “How We Decide” by Jonah Lehrer?
If not I highly recommend it.
I have not, thanks for the suggestion.
Isn’t the whole point of the scientific method to keep us from fooling ourselves, and we are the easiest ones to fool, as Feynman said.
I think there’s an evolutionary advantage to being good at arguing, much as there is one for having a sense of humor. It’s a way of showing off, cognitive preening. To say argumentation is the *source* of reasoning rather than a way of displaying reasoning is putting the cart before the horse IMO.
Skilled arguers aren’t after the truth, but intelligent reasoners have already come to the argument more likely armed with a closer version of the truth than their stupider opponents.
Yes, I agree with what you’re saying. Part of the article states something along the lines of “truth eventually wins” or something like that. So an intelligent arguer will eventually overcome opponents with weaker arguments, especially in a social setting.