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."
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.
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.
The Problem with Evolution and Rationality (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
If believing a lie and being convinced of it will give you an advantage, evolution will favor that outcome.
That is no basis for trusting your own rationality.
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - J.B.S. Haldane
"For centuries"? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Plato's Republic, Book VII 539b)
How new is this notion again?