• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Be Reasonable, Do It My Way

June 22, 2011 by Daniel Horne 7 Comments

MercierAll reasoning is in service of winning arguments? I knew it all along! It's hard for me to express any skepticism of the study cited in this New York Times article without going all meta, so I'll just let the article speak for itself:

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality. . . 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 Times ran a follow up blog post from one of the researchers cited in the piece, Hugo Mercier, who defends his thesis here:

We do not claim that reasoning has nothing to do with the truth. We claim that reasoning did not evolve to allow the lone reasoner to find the truth. We think it evolved to argue. But arguing is not only about trying to convince other people; it’s also about listening to their arguments. So reasoning is two-sided. On the one hand, it is used to produce arguments. Here its goal is to convince people. Accordingly, it displays a strong confirmation bias — what people see as the “rhetoric” side of reasoning. On the other hand, reasoning is also used to evaluate arguments. Here its goal is to tease out good arguments from bad ones so as to accept warranted conclusions and, if things go well, get better beliefs and make better decisions in the end.

If you'd rather, you can click here to read the study itself, or see a summary located at Hugo Mercier's own website, or listen to Edge.org's interview with him. Viewing the video below is optional; in fact, you probably shouldn't.

Watch on YouTube

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Things to Watch, Web Detritus Tagged With: cognitive science, philosophy blog, rationality

Comments

  1. Wes Alwan says

    June 22, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Ha, you beat me to this one — although I probably would never have gotten to it; it infuriated me too much.

    Two problems.

    First, a genetic account of the development of some trait is not an account of its “function,” as the author seems to think. It doesn’t matter if reasoning developed in the service of talking Woolly Mammoths into voluntarily becoming food: its function depends on how it is fact used today in today’s environment — and the cultural environment is especially important here. Likewise, I might say the real function of computers is doing math — not email — because the function of performing mathematical calculations was highly implicated in their original development. Biological functions frequently change function during evolution, and in fact evolution wouldn’t be possible without such function-hopping. And the result might be multiple functions: knives may be for cutting, but they butter my bread very well. So this study would have to show not only that a) reasoning developed because the function of “winning arguments” was selected for in some ancestral environment and b) reasoning still has this function in today’s environment, but c) reasoning does not have other functions in today’s environment. And the author of this study is, in fact, making this idiotic claim: “Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions.” Mercier simply doesn’t understand the concept of “function.”

    Second, this study is itself unverifiable schlock. It is complete garbage. It cannot possible even meet the burden of showing (a). There’s a nice brief podcast (http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs18-evolutionary-psychology.html) by Massimo Pigliucci that goes over why much evolutionary psychology is, like this study, so bad. He points out that “the main problem is that evolutionary psychologists typically … tend to focus on precisely the worst examples from the standpoint of testability”; they focus on uniquely human traits and speculate about ancestral environments about which we know virtually nothing (especially given the fact that the social/cultural environment itself applies its own evolutionary pressures — and fossils and tree rings simply don’t tell us what this environment was). If we’re talking about traits that are common to other species, these are testable (e.g. fear responses to danger); if we’re talking about, e.g., why human beings have an exceptionally large brain among primates, there are plenty of competing theories among which we can’t choose; we can’t devise a test to say what selective pressure led to a larger brain. And not all traits are the results of natural selection: conceivably they might not have been subject to selective pressures at all; or are a by-product of other selected traits.

    The study itself doesn’t even meet the standards of the philosophical speculation it is meant to improve upon (the ridiculously named “Cartesian” view that the function of reasoning is to create more reliable beliefs). The list of “predictions” that are meant to serve as confirmations of the theory could be accounted for by any number of other theories, including the theory the authors oppose; “confirmation bias” itself could be the result of some other faculty with some other function. Whatever the case, the theory is completely un-testable. And the idea that it has any bearing upon a philosophical theory of reasoning is a conceit: to claim that reasoning can be used to improve beliefs is not a genetic theory, and is not incompatible with any genetic theory you choose, even the theory that reasoning developed for the purpose of creating less reliable beliefs! (Some tools can be used for opposite purposes).

    This infuriating garbage is not science.

    So this is yet another example of the influence of scientism: in this case, pseudo-scientific nonsense that gets top billing in the New York Times as a scientific discovery overturning of some classical philosophical hypothesis. And smart people will take this dumb idea — which ultimately is just a dressing up of shallow, emotive schaudenfreude over the limits of reason — and repeat it to each other; it will be another block in the “it’s all relative, man” pyramid. Over cocktails: “But I read in the New York Times the other day that reasoning doesn’t help lead us to the truth! It’s just to win arguments.” And this all fits with my claim that scientism is in fact not scientific or rational in spirit, but bottom a form of anti-intellectualism.

    Reply
  2. Wes Alwan says

    June 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    By the way, I’m not arguing against the idea that reasoning doesn’t have social functions (that we can’t detect by looking at how we in fact use it socially) or the idea that it developed in part because of social pressures. I’m saying the latter is un-verifiable (although general enough to be plausible) and the former does not preclude other functions and does not tell us what the primary function of reasoning is, or what it’s most useful for. Further, the specific claims about social function — that reasoning errors are themselves adaptive for the purposes of winning over others (as opposed to the unfortunate side-effects of other functions, e.g. the appetites) — are rank, unverifiable speculation.

    And I should make clear that I’m responding to Mercier’s summary of his study, especially the absurd list of predictions, not the study itself (which conceivably

    Reply
  3. Daniel Horne says

    June 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Hi Wes,

    Great response — more rants, please! But are you thoroughly opposed to all aspects of evolutionary psychology? I have no dog in the fight – I simply haven’t take the time to take the theory (“theory”?) seriously, citing to myself dumbed-down versions of your objections above. But I have a lot of respect for Robert Wright, and I know his “The Moral Animal” was very well received.

    FWIW, Wright recorded a smart discussion on the subject here, with Stanford biology prof Joan Roughgarden:
    http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/19126

    Also a good exchange on E.P. between Robert Wright and John Horgan here:
    http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/391?&in=01:11:19&out=01:17:29

    Reply
    • Wes Alwan says

      June 22, 2011 at 2:34 pm

      Thanks — I’ll check out the links; I always feel vaguely guilty after these rants, and I’m not opposed to all aspects (see the Pigliucci podcast for a good discussion — it’s not all low quality; a lot of it happens to be).

      Reply
  4. burl says

    June 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    It seems wise to maintain the dated distinction between hard and soft science, following Karl Popper. Behavioral science is seldom falsifiable, hence it ain’t science.

    If the definition of scientism is faulty observations arising from misapplication of the scientific method yet accepted owing to valid credentials, or application of the method to subject matter that is beyond falsifiability, then I condemn scientism wholeheartedly.

    Reply
  5. Ace says

    June 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Isn’t there reasoning that has nothing to do with arguments, though? Like reasoning how to get home if you got lost, reasoning certain causes to certain effects, building tools and machines, and so forth and so on? Or am I confusing multiple definitions for “reasoning” here? I just think it’s strange that they said “all reasoning”.

    Very interesting rant by Wes, that was a good read.

    Reply
  6. Ace says

    June 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Another thing, is how do you win arguments prior to language? Isn’t reason required to invent a system of symbols for communication?
    Or does the study consider war and violence to fall under “arguments and debate”?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in