The function of reason

Chris Mooney reports on the work of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, who have argued that (in Mooney's words): "the human capacity for reasoning evolved not so much to get at truth, as to facilitate argumentation." I haven't yet heard Mooney's interview of Mercier, which will soon be posted at Point of Inquiry. I do look forward to this interview, because the conclusions of Mercier and Sperber (which I scanned in their recent journal article, "Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory") make much sense in light of the ubiquitous failings of human reason-in-action. Here is an excerpt from the abstract from their article:

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. 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. 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. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found. Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought.Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.
These ideas resonate strongly with me. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe function of reason

More on Neanderthals

Earlier this year, I posted on a comprehensive article regarding Neanderthals published by National Geographic. In the August, 2009 edition of Scientific American, you can find considerably more information on our Neanderthal cousins. One of the most interesting things about Neanderthals is that they survived for nearly 15,000 years after modern humans moved into Europe (modern humans entered Europe about 40,000 years ago). Some scientists suggest that modern humans did not necessarily kill the Neanderthals directly, but that "the Neanderthals ended up competing with the incoming moderns for food and gradually lost ground." The reason they might've lost ground is that modern humans were more flexible about what they could eat--they were able to survive off of smaller animals and plant foods. Anthropological evidence suggests that Neanderthals focused mainly on large game, which often became scarce, and which prevented a division of labor among Neanderthal men, women and children. Neanderthals also needed a lot more calories than modern humans. Paleoanthropologist Leslie Aiello described them as follows: "Neanderthals were the SUVs of the hominid world." Evidence also suggests that Neanderthals were intellectually active. Neanderthals probably had language (based upon the fact that they decorated their bodies with jewelry and pigment, which were often used as a proxy for language). Further, recent analysis of Neanderthal DNA shows that they carried "the same version of the speech enabling gene FOXP2 that modern humans carry." The article indicates that a full analysis of Neanderthal DNA is likely out this year, and that it is expected to shed far more light on what it meant to be a Neanderthal

Continue ReadingMore on Neanderthals

What if there were animals that were genetically close to modern humans, but startlingly different?

What if there were animals that looked very much like modern human animals and almost identical genetically, yet they differed from us in notable ways? Would their discovery shock and horrify people? Quite likely. Wouldn't it also make many people start thinking deeply about the fact that modern humans themselves are animals? You'd hope so. Wouldn't this discovery make us intensely curious about our own origins? Remains to be seen. What follows is a true story. The evidence is overwhelming that large numbers of Neanderthals roamed Eurasia for 200,000 years. The evidence is also clear that Neanderthals differed from the modern humans in genetically small but socially and physiologically significant ways. This incredible story can be found in the October 2008 edition of National Geographic, in an article entitled "Last of the Neanderthals." This article is a must read article for anybody who wants to peer into the not-so-distant past in order to learn about his or her bipedal cousins. The article is filled with incredibly lifelike modeling of the Neanderthals. It is also filled with detailed information about Neanderthal physiology, as well as clues to Neanderthal lifestyle.

Continue ReadingWhat if there were animals that were genetically close to modern humans, but startlingly different?

What is a human “body”?

In his 2008 book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding, philosopher Mark Johnson makes a strong argument that "meaning is grounded in the body" (p. 274). That assertion, however, invites the question: "What is a human "body"? Johnson implores us to not slip into mind/body dualism. He…

Continue ReadingWhat is a human “body”?

Scivee: for those who want to view science videos

I just finished watching a video on how to dissect a human corpse in order to learn about skin, cutaneous nerves and lymph nodes (warning to the squeamish:  There's no sugar-coating here--it's a highly graphic lesson on how to do a human dissection).   I thought to myself:  "This is incredible. …

Continue ReadingScivee: for those who want to view science videos