reason is a weapon - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 06-14-2011, 09:16 AM

Quote:

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.

Mr. Mercier, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, contends that attempts to rid people of biases have failed because reasoning does exactly what it is supposed to do: help win an argument.

“People have been trying to reform something that works perfectly well,” he said, “as if they had decided that hands were made for walking and that everybody should be taught that.”

Think of the American judicial system, in which the prosecutors and defense lawyers each have a mission to construct the strongest possible argument. The belief is that this process will reveal the truth, just as the best idea will triumph in what John Stuart Mill called the “marketplace of ideas.”

Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber have skeptics as well as fans. Darcia Narvaez, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame and a contributor to the journal debate, said this theory “fits into evolutionary psychology mainstream thinking at the moment, that everything we do is motivated by selfishness and manipulating others, which is, in my view, crazy.”

To Ms. Narvaez, “reasoning is something that develops from experience; it’s a subset of what we really know.” And much of what we know cannot be put into words, she explained, pointing out that language evolved relatively late in human development.

“The way we use our minds to navigate the social and general worlds involves a lot of things that are implicit, not explainable,” she said.

On the other side of the divide, Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, said of Mr. Sperber and Mr. Mercier, “Their work is important and points to some ways that the limits of reason can be overcome by putting people together in the right way, in particular to challenge people’s confirmation biases.”

This “powerful idea,” he added, could have important real-world implications.

As some journal contributors noted, the theory would seem to predict constant deadlock. But Mr. Sperber and Mr. Mercier contend that as people became better at producing and picking apart arguments, their assessment skills evolved as well.

“At least in some cultural contexts, this results in a kind of arms race towards greater sophistication in the production and evaluation of arguments,” they write. “When people are motivated to reason, they do a better job at accepting only sound arguments, which is quite generally to their advantage.” Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to the best arguments.

Mr. Mercier is enthusiastic about the theory’s potential applications. He suggests, for example, that children may have an easier time learning abstract topics in mathematics or physics if they are put into a group and allowed to reason through a problem together.

He has also recently been at work applying the theory to politics. In a new paper, he and Hélène Landemore, an assistant professor of political science at Yale, propose that the arguing and assessment skills employed by groups make democratic debate the best form of government for evolutionary reasons, regardless of philosophical or moral rationales.

How, then, do the academics explain the endless stalemates in Congress? “It doesn’t seem to work in the U.S.,” Mr. Mercier conceded.

He and Ms. Landemore suggest that reasoned discussion works best in smaller, cooperative environments rather than in America’s high-decibel adversarial system, in which partisans seek to score political advantage rather than arrive at consensus.

Because “individual reasoning mechanisms work best when used to produce and evaluate arguments during a public deliberation,” Mr. Mercier and Ms. Landemore, as a practical matter, endorse the theory of deliberative democracy, an approach that arose in the 1980s, which envisions cooperative town-hall-style deliberations. Championed by the philosophers John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, this sort of collaborative forum can overcome the tendency of groups to polarize at the extremes and deadlock, Ms. Landemore and Mr. Mercier said.

Anyone who enjoys “spending endless hours debating ideas” should appreciate their views, Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber write, though, as even they note, “This, of course, is not an argument for (or against) the theory.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/ar...ef=global-home

the paper at the center of all this is available here:

Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN

i am reading through the papers published in the april The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences--the link takes you to both the main article and a series of shorter pieces debating, from various angles, aspects of the main contention.

i find the central claims to be interesting--->

1. there is no magical realm called "reason" the application of which will lead Heroic Individuals toward something called truth.

well, you'd have thought this one woulda gone out with scholasticism, yes? who actually believes the contrary?

2. reason is a technique/loose grouping of techniques that have been developed to serve a variety of social functions

--no kidding...

2a. one of which is to win arguments.

--this is not exactly a Big New Idea. plato talked about the problems of sophistry at some length--this is the kind of argumentation that is precisely this, aimed at using various appeals and techniques simply to win a particular argument. in a deliberative or direct democratic context, such forms of argumentation are actually quite dangerous because the well-being of the polity rests on the decisions of the demos and those decisions were (are---should be) made within the context of open deliberation, the rules of which kind of have to be explicit and known to all---what constitutes evidence, what constitutes a deduction, what inferences are, and what they are not. so it has to be possible to exclude entire types of argumentation because they do not conform to the basic rules of argumentation itself. sophists, in plato's view, were such people.

in the states what's been evacuated almost entirely is the space for deliberation. so the space we live in is monopolized by sophistry. pseudo-argument designed to simply advance the position of the speaker.

but that's obvious.

if you know the history of formal reasoning in the west, you also know the central role played by disputation, particular through the mideval period. so none of this stuff is a surprise.

3. the research question is linked in what i think is a bizarre-o way to evolutionary theory. "why has evolution not eliminated bad argument?"

what's the point of this move at all? why is it necessary? what point does it serve? who actually argues this way?

evolution seems an open-ended and continuous process that can ex-post-facto be narrated as seemingly linear---or not, as the case may be---but it's not a teleological process. it's simply a process that unfolds through collective interactions with environments stretched over time, through patterns of transmission of advantages and disadvantages which need not be biological and which need have no particular direction beyond adjustments to particular socially and historically specific constraints.

but what do you think of all this?

have a look at the paper/debate when the chance presents itself--it's far more interesting than the ny times potted summary would have you think.

lofhay · 06-16-2011, 07:31 AM

The skill of reason, like any use of words, may be manipulated, twisted, distorted and wielded like a weapon, and the only defense is keeping a clear mind and insisting on unequivacable evidence. Part of the evidence may be judged by the manner in which the argument is presented. For instance, in my obversation, those who are dogmatic and resort to ranting instead of listening to the opposition and respecting their right to express themselves are usually being manipulative and not being honest.

At least, this has been my experience thus far.

lofhay · 06-16-2011, 09:41 AM

Patricia Cohen's article was titled, "Reason Seen More As Weapon Than Path to Truth". Though reason is not a perfect path to truth, it is the best path we have--much better than pure emotion. What alternative is there? If reason can be used a weapon, then anything else can be a terror.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-18-2011, 05:49 PM

Any reasons to wield a weapon abandon themselves. It's no particular wonder we don't like to talk about our use of them. The magical realm of the reasons we use seems to elude us? I can blow you apart; I can blow you apart harder & faster. If arguments prove nothing except the point that we can, moving beyond them is probably a good idea.

filtherton · 06-18-2011, 06:20 PM

Roach,

I think the general idea of the paper totally makes sense. It is for these reasons that I've always questioned the notion that there are institutional obstacles (ie. theism) between humanity and some sort of golden age of reason.

Humans are emotional beings first, rational second. And even rational people need to learn how to think. And even people who know how to think need to understand the subjects they're thinking about well enough to make proper sense of them. And even then, there are often multiple schools of thought for most subjects of interest.

I've been in enough arguments and seen and made enough flawed arguments that it seems completely obvious to me that reason is just as likely to be used as a way of maintaining a fantasy-based status quo as it is to be used as a way to pull back the curtain of ignorance.

I share your feelings on the evolution angle. Kinda funny that attempts would be made to explain the phenomena in terms of evolution, given that the subject of the paper in part speaks to how reason works in conjunction with confirmation bias. Because of course evolution has played a decisive role in everything qualifiable about humanity, why, just look at how easily we can conjure up an untestable narrative which provides evolutionary justification for everything humans do.
I like your description of evolution.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-18-2011, 08:28 PM

What's "qualifiable about humanity"? I hope this doesn't mean we'll not have intercourse in an elevator someday. All I meant to say was that reason as a weapon isn't itself.

filtherton · 06-18-2011, 09:25 PM

It doesn't mean we might not won't maybe almost have intercourse in an elevator.

Willravel · 06-18-2011, 09:43 PM

Reason is a really broad concept. If we're talking about an organism thinking about, understanding, and forming logical judgments, we can see that in species that are not human and thus have little to no communication as we understand it. I can't imagine two lemurs having an argument wherein one's use of superior reasoning wins the argument and gets the girl, thus increasing the likelihood of passing on those reasonable genes.

I've always thought of reason, as an evolutionary concept, as something which leads to survival by virtue of outsmarting a predator or finding more or better food or being better at mating rituals. The way the article reads, I imagine a long debate on a forum, and at the end the owner of the better argument gets laid.

roachboy · 06-19-2011, 10:15 AM

filth---i basically agree with you now that i've had a chance to read the paper.

i see it more as an exploration of rationality in the sociological sense and of the ways in which people internalize and invest in socially specific ways of thinking. reason in this kind of context is simply a way to referencing how people assemble information within particular frames of reference. most rationalities are bounded---boundedness is what shapes things like confirmation bias.

i thought the paper much more interesting than the plot summary in the ny times made it out to be---and quite different from it. in the paper, it appeared that evolution was a term that gave what is basically an analysis of function the appearance of some historical depth. but really, it seemed like a restatement of function. it's likely a disciplinary quirk.

Ourcrazymodern? · 06-21-2011, 09:33 AM

You're funny. Are you reckoning reason CAN be used as a weapon?

Willravel · 06-21-2011, 10:50 AM

Reason can also be a delicious snack.

Skitto · 07-04-2011, 11:58 PM

Acronym: USA

---------- Post added at 12:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

FBI, CIA, OEM, I/O, AM/FM

Reason is the greatest asset to an intelligent user and
Logic is its counter, directed with the same force it balances and does nothing.

It can go from fluid, intangible but making pretty descriptions, to swift remolding of values, immediate enough to be acted on.

---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

... reason as a weapon isn't itself.

Ah, what is the essence of itself..?

filtherton · 07-05-2011, 04:12 AM

Also, if one were to start with the assumption that free markets are the answer to every problem and then either ignore or misinterpret any evidence otherwise, one would have the magazine called Reason.

Baraka_Guru · 07-05-2011, 04:52 AM

^ Zing! Nice one.

Ourcrazymodern? · 07-10-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skitto

Ah, what is the essence of itself..?

I'm not sure, now that you mention it. I'm sure folks have reasons for doing evil as good to them as do-gooders have for doing good. I guess I was thinking that reason tended that way. Thanks for the snack.

06-18-2011, 05:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Any reasons to wield a weapon abandon themselves. It's no particular wonder we don't like to talk about our use of them. The magical realm of the reasons we use seems to elude us? I can blow you apart; I can blow you apart harder & faster. If arguments prove nothing except the point that we can, moving beyond them is probably a good idea. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

06-18-2011, 08:28 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	What's "qualifiable about humanity"? I hope this doesn't mean we'll not have intercourse in an elevator someday. All I meant to say was that reason as a weapon isn't itself. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

06-19-2011, 10:15 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	filth---i basically agree with you now that i've had a chance to read the paper. i see it more as an exploration of rationality in the sociological sense and of the ways in which people internalize and invest in socially specific ways of thinking. reason in this kind of context is simply a way to referencing how people assemble information within particular frames of reference. most rationalities are bounded---boundedness is what shapes things like confirmation bias. i thought the paper much more interesting than the plot summary in the ny times made it out to be---and quite different from it. in the paper, it appeared that evolution was a term that gave what is basically an analysis of function the appearance of some historical depth. but really, it seemed like a restatement of function. it's likely a disciplinary quirk. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-21-2011, 09:33 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	You're funny. Are you reckoning reason CAN be used as a weapon? __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

07-05-2011, 04:52 AM	#14 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	^ Zing! Nice one. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-16-2011, 07:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
lofhay Tilted Location: Charleston, SC	The skill of reason, like any use of words, may be manipulated, twisted, distorted and wielded like a weapon, and the only defense is keeping a clear mind and insisting on unequivacable evidence. Part of the evidence may be judged by the manner in which the argument is presented. For instance, in my obversation, those who are dogmatic and resort to ranting instead of listening to the opposition and respecting their right to express themselves are usually being manipulative and not being honest. At least, this has been my experience thus far.

06-16-2011, 09:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
lofhay Tilted Location: Charleston, SC	Patricia Cohen's article was titled, "Reason Seen More As Weapon Than Path to Truth". Though reason is not a perfect path to truth, it is the best path we have--much better than pure emotion. What alternative is there? If reason can be used a weapon, then anything else can be a terror.

06-18-2011, 06:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Roach, I think the general idea of the paper totally makes sense. It is for these reasons that I've always questioned the notion that there are institutional obstacles (ie. theism) between humanity and some sort of golden age of reason. Humans are emotional beings first, rational second. And even rational people need to learn how to think. And even people who know how to think need to understand the subjects they're thinking about well enough to make proper sense of them. And even then, there are often multiple schools of thought for most subjects of interest. I've been in enough arguments and seen and made enough flawed arguments that it seems completely obvious to me that reason is just as likely to be used as a way of maintaining a fantasy-based status quo as it is to be used as a way to pull back the curtain of ignorance. I share your feelings on the evolution angle. Kinda funny that attempts would be made to explain the phenomena in terms of evolution, given that the subject of the paper in part speaks to how reason works in conjunction with confirmation bias. Because of course evolution has played a decisive role in everything qualifiable about humanity, why, just look at how easily we can conjure up an untestable narrative which provides evolutionary justification for everything humans do. I like your description of evolution.

06-18-2011, 09:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It doesn't mean we might not won't maybe almost have intercourse in an elevator.

06-18-2011, 09:43 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Reason is a really broad concept. If we're talking about an organism thinking about, understanding, and forming logical judgments, we can see that in species that are not human and thus have little to no communication as we understand it. I can't imagine two lemurs having an argument wherein one's use of superior reasoning wins the argument and gets the girl, thus increasing the likelihood of passing on those reasonable genes. I've always thought of reason, as an evolutionary concept, as something which leads to survival by virtue of outsmarting a predator or finding more or better food or being better at mating rituals. The way the article reads, I imagine a long debate on a forum, and at the end the owner of the better argument gets laid.

06-21-2011, 10:50 AM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Reason can also be a delicious snack.

07-05-2011, 04:12 AM	#13 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Also, if one were to start with the assumption that free markets are the answer to every problem and then either ignore or misinterpret any evidence otherwise, one would have the magazine called Reason.