Reason Seen More As a Weapon Than a Path To Truth 289
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."
The internet (Score:2)
Reason is not a weapon? (Score:2)
I dare you to tell Hiro that Reason [wikipedia.org] is not a weapon... :)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be a great over-simplification. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rhetoric vrs Reason (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This theory (and you) seem to be suffering from a failure to understand what rhetoric is vs what reason is. Reason is the application of knowledge/experience to current or future actions or thoughts - it's cause->effect relationship awareness. You don't reach into the oven and grab a pot because you know it's hot - that's reasoning. Higher-level reasoning would be the use of a pot-holder or other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This seems to be a great over-simplification. (Score:5, Insightful)
Philosophy and rhetoric, as the Greeks would have argued. There's rational discourse appealing to facts and sound logic, and irrational discourse appealing to emotions and logic, sound and otherwise. An amazing example of this is the recent John Stewart appearance on the O'Reilly Factor (really, it happened and the universe did not explode). O'Reilly blusters, argues, pontificates loudly, professes outrage, sets up straw men; Stewart calmly cites precedents and takes apart O'Reily's arguments piece by piece. It's hard to really say who won, they're playing such different games. Rhetorically O'Reilly is sort of like a Canadian brutally clubbing a helpless baby harp seal, but logically Stewart is like King Arthur, taking apart the Black Knight piece by piece.
As for these social scientists, I don't know if I buy their explanation for why rationality evolved but I would agree with these guys about one thing: humans aren't evolved to assess problems rationally. The stuff they teach us in school about the Scientific Method, how we gather evidence, formulate hypotheses and then test them... it's bullshit. The process works; it's amazingly powerful. But in practice that's the opposite of how humans typically arrive at the answer. Humans start with an answer they've arrived at through some quasi-rational means and then collect facts and generate rational arguments to support the answer they've already decided on. Even scientists, most of them, don't really think according to the scientific method, most of the time. I mean, these social scientists, did they actually conduct any science; did they actually test an hypothesis? From the Times article doesn't sound like these "scientists" made any testable predictions or gathered any data, they just started with a thesis ("human rationality evolved to win arguments") and then marshalled evidence and arguments in favor of it. They're debating, not discovering. If that's not an argument against rationality, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3)
Jon Stewart doesn't use emotion to try to 'prove' a point. He uses it to underscore facts.
O'Reilly makes stuff up, and then use emotion and logical fallacies to back them.
"..notion of centralized rational administration"
I don't see that theme. I see he goes from the premise that most people can be rational, and points out stupid and hypocritical things in the media or politics.
This thread is based on a false comparison. as if pointing out one lie, means you over look bias in a other, or to deflect from the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He goes where the funny is. Fox simply has more ridiculousness than CNN. You act as though the 3 networks are all equivalent, and thus only partisan bias could possibly cause someone to criticize one more harshly than the other. Not so. CNN is a news network (or tries to be, they have really gone downhill in recent years) that has a bit of a political bias, as is inevitable. Fox is a propaganda networ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In general anything that has to do with people, is not possible to do in a strict scientific way, and are therefore not a natural science.
I'm curious as to how you define this "strict scientific way," and how it automatically excludes any study of human beings. Humans are part of nature, so there's no reason that "natural science" shouldn't include us.
I kind of suspect that what you're getting at is the idea that if you're not doing controlled lab experiments, you're not really doing science -- in which case you must also exclude all of astronomy, most of geology, and large portions of physics and biology from the scientific realm. If you c
Re: (Score:2)
I find that explicit reasoning (premises, arguments, conclusions, etc.) constitutes very little of my actual thought process. Much more of it is behavioral conditioned response (mammoths fall of cliff->man that was good eaten') and pattern recognition based inference, both of which are tied into our emotional thinking.
I find that I tend to react to things at a gut level and that reason is what I use to support (or rationalize) these gut decisions and communicate them to others.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
What is this nonsense about "seeking truth" or winning arguments?
Reason is tool that allows a person to make decisions that lead to effective action.
Effective action leads to surviving and thriving.
Or to put it another way: Reason evolved to get shit done.
Reason does not need to be articulated and frankly rarely is articulated well.
"Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment"
dwahahaha
wow. just. wow.
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to fabricate an imaginary adversary on which to practice one's line of reasoning until you have made all the points as sharp as your command of language allows appears to invalidate the argument in parent post. To what extent do apparently solitatry practices like deductive reasoning depend on the mind's ability to role play an adversary and attempt to pick apart its own logic? To put this in a concrete context, games of chess are not won by dint of reasoning alone; they are won by the ability
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory.. (Score:4)
No, it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory.. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh look, this isn't an argument.
Re:Obligatory.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't five minutes!
People who can't resist argument are prey (Score:2)
You know, I wonder if this is also driving internet trolling, since trolls can vacate a logical "win" at will. Trolls can additionally create false arenas in which people can rack up meaningless "wins".
Perhaps trolling is just the system balancing itself. There is an overabundance of people who cannot resist the urge to correct another person, which creates a natural predator-prey relationship for trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Why is this so strange? This reasoning is an idea I've been playing with for a while that man's large brain evolved not to use tools, but to attract the opposite sex. Larger brains meant you could please the opposite sex better in bed and flirting as part of courtship and seduction were all things that were encouraged by a group of beach/river apes that liked to live in caves where tight communities would have been inevitable. Prowess at sex would surely be a great evolutionary driver once you have
Re: (Score:2)
This is unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:This is unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
Researchers are blinded by their above average intelligence into thinking that other people respond to "reason".
Methinks thou hast missed the point.
The article is going against the idea that "human reason" is an imperfect realisation of pure logic, but that human reason is flawed by nature. When people are conned into buying things they don't need, it's not lack of reason, it's use of reason.
I once heard Richard Dawkins decrying alternative medicine. Most alternative medicine is out-and-out quackery, and I would be happy to see an end to it. But Dawkins claimed that people were turning to it do to a lack of critical reasoning (and he incidentally blamed this on organised religion). However, most supporters of alternative therapies do indeed follow a path of reasoning. This path of reasoning includes some valid data (including failure rates of surgical and pharmacological medicine), some invalid data (unreviewed, unproven figures for the success rates of alternative therapies) and a big dose of conspiracy theory ("big pharma is trying to ban the use of splogweed in the treatment of ungweldbiterbal cancer because they can't profit from it" etc), and they reach a conclusion that follows from the premises.
People do respond to reason, but as the article points out, not in an entirely expected way....
Re: (Score:2)
However, most supporters of alternative therapies do indeed follow a path of reasoning
Is that so?
a big dose of conspiracy theory,
Oh, no it's not. Making things up is not Reason. Richard Dawkins is right to claim there is a lack of critical thinking there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People will reason why they need the junk that they really don't need. Humans naturally seek evidence that support their reasoning while they ignore contradictory evidence. People are looking for reasons why they made the correct decision rather than admitting that they could be wrong.
The study of behavioral economics shows that even very intelligent people behave in a way that defies logic in predictable ways. You give someone a gift of $100 bottle of wine and ask them if they would want to sell it, and
Re: (Score:3)
What you're describing isn't reason, it has a name of its own: rationalization. [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you fully believed that, you wouldn't have gone through the effort of making a rational argument for in your posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Researchers are blinded by their above average intelligence into thinking they respond to reason.
Researchers and academics are just as much victims of our need to win arguments and ideology instead of using reason to seek truth as anyone else.
Of course you need to trump up one profession as being the true truth seekers who have reason while most people are dimwitted fools is the ultimate non-truth seeking argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguments are won by the person(s) with the loudest voices, and failing that - the biggest sticks. This is called "politics" [...]
According to an article we saw here recently, arguments are often won by the person(s) with the lowest voice. Anything that James Earl Jones says I need, I'll buy. :)
[Politics] 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.
Actually we are seeing plenty of reasoning there. All humans want exactly four things: Pride, Power (money/land), Play (amusement/novelty), and Partner (sex/reproduction). All involved parties are seeking these things during the Libyan upheaval, and most are being rational about their quest for those things. Don't confuse reason with "the d
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that's pretty interesting (and telling) itself.
Yes, if anything it proves my point. Powerful arguments have absolutely no basis in "reason". If we say that history was written by people who make powerful arguments, and reason has nothing to do with powerful arguments, then there is no evolutionary selection for "reason" at all, which flies into the face if this research.
As for my intelligence, well I took a supervised Mensa test and scored 160, I have a doctorate and a few other degrees, and am highly skilled in several fields. Not quite the Sheldon C
To quote Marcel Pagnol... (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Duh. (Score:2)
Well, actually, this is kind of obvious. When you realise that all our petty little philosophical differences arise from the fact that we start with different assumptions which we have little or no proof for, you generally come to the conclusion that "reason" is just a tool for us to beat each other over the head with and ignore the fundamental issues in favour of a feeling of elitist superiority.
But to realise this and agree to disagree is contrary to our evolutionary programming... So, let the games beg
Re:Duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Duh. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Religion is equally valid with atheism/naturalism because the only difference it has with (strong)atheism/naturalism lies in its fundamental assumptions. Both rely on unproven or unprovable assumptions.
How is that a troll? I think any reasonable person can agree that gnostic atheism is indefensible.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, actually. Clearly I'm not very good at trolling.... Thus ends my brief sojourn into the art. Probably better this way anyhow.
Einstein sees a difference (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is exactly the point. If we forget our assumptions(in this case the nature of time and space), we are doing bad science. A PhD is not a "Doctorate of Philosophy" for nothing. Otherwise, if there was an incorrect assumption holding back science it would never be questioned or discovered. Neither can you escape philosophy if you can acknowledge your assumptions.
Basically what Einstein is saying as far as I can see, is acknowledge the assumption, and then proceed. Otherwise you get stuck in philosophy a
I have to go along with this theory (Score:2)
There is nothing divine about humanity. We came from animals and maintain our animal nature in everything we do. There is no reason it should exclude "reasoning." And we have known for quite some time that belief trumps fact. [motherjones.com]
It shows in nearly everything we do. In fact, "reasoning" has been used to support disinformation, misinformation, lies and misunderstanding for as far back as humans go. Religion and religious organizations are a wonderful example of this. Even the practice of saying "bless you"
Re: (Score:2)
We came from animals and maintain our animal nature in everything we do. There is no reason it should exclude "reasoning." And we have known for quite some time that belief trumps fact. [motherjones.com]
But animals don't have beliefs in the first place. Behavior that we recognize as primitive can be still specific to humans, just developed early enough in human history.
Not actual reason (Score:2)
“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.
As such, this model also allows for emotional reasoning ('truthiness') and the acceptance of logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick to winning the argument is to get the person to think along the same lines you do... We really cannot break our emotional and logical thinking up into distinct areas. Some people tend to be more logical, others will be more emotional. But there will be elements of both in it. But if you need to win an argument if you can effect their emotional side you gain and advantage, as agreeing with you will feel good. If you effect their logical side, you may still win but they are not feeling good abou
Re: (Score:2)
recursive instincts (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But of course, in my mind, I thought by trying to deviate from the knee-jerk reactions everybody else seems victim to, all I've accomplished is adding another layer of abstraction between my actions and my happiness, causing me to be just as much a victim to the chemicals in my head. There's no escaping it. Altruism is false! We all just want happines
Re: (Score:2)
See "Zen".
Re: (Score:2)
The zen that can be seen is not the true zen.
Is the paper as bad as the summary? (Score:2)
"Reasoning doesnâ(TM)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.
That is a fairly damning quote on its own, but I will assume that Dr. Mercier is being misrepresented by omission of context.
It is not the case that all strategies have the same value. If reason were no more accurate than random choices, then there would be no evolutionary value whatsoever to evaluating the suggestions of others on the basis of reason.
The "purpose" of claws (if we are ascribing intentionality to natural selection, which is a mistake) may be to help climbing or to grip onto prey, not to be
Evolution (Score:2)
Are we talking here about the evolution of a meme instead of the mankind? The word evolution seem to be used in both contexts in the article, but complex enough language, and probably reasoning as a social weapon came a bit later than the point were we became homo sapiens.
For some things the reasoning hypotesis is not needed, figuring out a pattern could be more expensive or slower than deciding if something fits on it or that could be something random that should be ignored, so could had been an human (o
Funny factoid: right = reason... in French (Score:3)
"you're right" = "tu as raison". "This is not right" = "c'est pas juste". I don't know if it's a leftover from the Lumieres, but where English uses terms of right and wrong, French uses reason and justice. Back when I was in the US, I was indeed surprised by how objective reality (or the quest the establish it) seemed to very often take a back seat to feelings and moral / religious aspects.
Turns out both are just "my way" vs "your way" then ?
Circular, broken argument (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Another NYT advertisment (Score:2)
I am not even going to click on the TFA's link.
Was it a scientific article behind subscription I would consider it, yet I would still complain about it not being on an open-access journal.
I have read enough 'scientific breakthroughs' from clueless journalists to be sufficiently annoyed. Seriously, Slashdot, stop supporting this paywall already.
Article is as deceptive as it describes (Score:2)
No surprise from the paper that brought us Judith Miller's Iraq reporting [nymag.com], but in this article the New York Times utilizes the same irrationality and deception that the article claims to be describing as controversial.
The article claims to draw a distinction between rationality (or reasoning) and irrationality in the first paragraph and then proceeds to conflate the two, calling argumentation "reason":
subjectivist nonsense (Score:2)
Survival value (Score:2)
Uniquely Human? (Score:2)
Look at /. and you'll see how many arguments go (Score:2)
Atheism... (Score:2)
... FTW!
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787)
Snow Crash (Score:2)
Having read "Snow Crash", my first reaction was, of course REASON [wikipedia.org] is a weapon.
The word you're looking for is "sophistry" (Score:2)
And the complaint is NOT new. [wikipedia.org]
Sophists are lying sacks of shit and should be fed slowly feet-first into a ham slicer.
With a pause every ten slices and washdown with vinegar that they may better enjoy the next ten slices.
Altruism and logical argument: (Score:2)
I assure you all my arguments are based in altruism and truly wanting the best for others. Unlike yours which are based in crass self interest.
Now, be reasonable and do it my way!
Oblig. Monty Python (Score:2)
Oh, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
You want room 12A, Just along the corridor (Stupid git!).
HA. Religion (Score:2)
You could say the same thing, or make a more powerful argument for Religion over Reason.
What single purpose has pitted groups of people to dominate, absorb, convert, other groups in the entire world. Nations perhaps. One could simply look at "government" or nations as the biological extension of the individual will to dominate its neighbors and protect like advantages.
"For centuries"? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Plato's Republic, Book VII 539b)
How new is this notion again?
Rationality (Score:2)
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.
No it isn't!
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. Oh and if you don't agree with me I'll call Teddy R. back to quietly walk up behind you and hit you with something ;)
.
.
.
Of course I'm a fan of the somewhat less predictable "funny" tag for busting up a flame war and getting a discussion back on track
Re:Slashdot modding (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slashdot modding (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Being the most effective persuader often has no correlation to being the most correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't there been a number of articles on group think and how people will select the wrong answer while in a group?
Re: (Score:3)
This makes me think back to an old discussion on "Car Talk", where they came to the amazing conclusion that two can be more stupid than one. In their line of reasoning, one person might see something obviously absurd and label it as such. With two, both might see the absurdity, one might see a less absurd corner and start nibbling at it, with the other joining in, until together they've talked each other into swallowing the whole thing.
In political terms it's called the "echo chamber" where something repe
Re:Slashdot modding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(I kid, I kid, of course.
...It's really 1/4 tau radians.)
Re:So now they attack reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I did understand the article and the fact that it is a social science analysis.. That was not what I was commenting on (oh shock-horror, I was attacking the messenger; not the message).
This is being promoted by those who are good at 'one sided argument' to say that reason is somehow invalid as a form of argument. This is due to them lacking intelligence (reason) and only having weasel cunning and control of the media to fall back on.
ie: the article might well be right; but it will be used by the media mupp
Re: (Score:2)
However, the extrapolation one can and likely will make to serve their greater purpose is that we created guns as a way to help us defend ourselves as well as attack others. A weapon that serves a purpose, but has to be controlled, limited, regulated. Like rational thinking. Rational thinking is the enemy of government, religion, media, and advertising. We already see society treating people who appreciate rationality and critical thinking, to a degree, the way society treats "gun nuts". A certain discomfor
Re: (Score:2)
Well; they can shove their tiny little minds and mouths up their copious arseholes...
See? Just like the article was talking about!
Re: (Score:2)
This is all leading to the eventual inclusion of "rationality" as a diagnosable disorder in the DSM. We'll have to diagnose it and treat it with drugs, because being rational and thinking critically and having the capacity to think and see the world in abstracts rather than a narrow and often blissfully naive limited scope that makes the success of your local professional sports team the most pressing concern in your life makes you generally less happy than someone who just worries about sticking their dick
Re: (Score:2)
You tell 'em! Those damned idiots and their emotion-filled arguments!!!! Screw em! They can shove their heads up their asses! Those bunches of morons!
Wait, what were we talking about again? Oh yeah, the superiority of making reasoned arguments. The rest are just bastards!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Disclaimer: tipping her until she stumbles into a wall can be a substitute.
Disclaimer 2: no unwanted violence in this actions should be implied.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're using Pat Benatar as a troll.
It's official... civilization is done with.
Arts Section (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reason was originally for figuring out how to make sharp sticks and poke them into animals. After that stopped being such a problem, it was for poking sharp sticks into your neighbors.
Or for deluding oneself into thinking that one's neighbors are equivalent to animals, removing the guilt from the act of poking them with sharp sticks.
Re: (Score:3)
If you assume that there is no teleology, no higher design, in evolutionary processes, you are left with a blind process building up the human mind. Furthermore, you have to reduce everything to physics and chemistry. Why do you believe anything is true? The atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way. Why does evolution proceed the way it does? It is neutral about truth so the only answer that can be given is to pass on genes.
Evolution is most certainly not neutral about truth. If you regularly believe in falsehoods - such as the idea that tigers make a very good meal for primitive humans (as opposed to of primitive humans) - your genes will exit the pool tout suite.
Your brain is an inference engine, tuned by evolution to model the physical world and make you something other than a predator's brunch. It's quite good at this, as witness the seven billion other human brains inhabiting this world.