Comments on: My Next Point of Inquiry Guest: Hugo Mercier on the Argumentative Theory of Reason http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: The function of reason : Dangerous Intersection http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110958 The function of reason : Dangerous Intersection Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:01:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110958 [...] 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.” [...] [...] 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.” [...]

]]> By: Incredulous http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110870 Incredulous Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:51:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110870 "They argued, in a paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, that the human capacity for reasoning evolved not so much to get at truth, as to facilitate argumentation" This is much like the argument about the development of wings for flight. It is easy to see that they work quite well for flying but when you examine the argument, it fails. With wings, it comes down to what would a wing be that doesn't provide enough lift even to glide? Steven J. Gould had quite a few essays on this type of reasoning. If you look from the other perspective and say that the development comes from getting a more and more complete picture of their environment it makes a lot more sense. Then, when communication developed, the transfer of knowledge and providing proof for it's acceptance by others created argumentation. Argumentation without communication is pointless. “They argued, in a paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, that the human capacity for reasoning evolved not so much to get at truth, as to facilitate argumentation”

This is much like the argument about the development of wings for flight. It is easy to see that they work quite well for flying but when you examine the argument, it fails. With wings, it comes down to what would a wing be that doesn’t provide enough lift even to glide? Steven J. Gould had quite a few essays on this type of reasoning. If you look from the other perspective and say that the development comes from getting a more and more complete picture of their environment it makes a lot more sense. Then, when communication developed, the transfer of knowledge and providing proof for it’s acceptance by others created argumentation. Argumentation without communication is pointless.

]]> By: Don http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110860 Don Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:50:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110860 The venues of some arguments are simpler than others. In science, arguments are the simplest of all. In science the basic rules of argumentation are objectivity, rationality, testing (falsification), and transparency. The most complex venues of argumentation are found in religion, politics, and ideology where the rules are highly subjective and changing. The rules in these unconstrained venues are basically, "what works." They are based upon appeal to emotion (evil other) rather than to reason, they can virtually ignore objectivity (cherry picking, straw men, invidious comparison), they absolutely ignore falsification (fill in your favorite example), and transparency is beyond the question. The most interesting areas of argumentation are those in between, in social science, where science is highly valued but works within a profoundly subjective matrix. Economics is a good example; different people have widely different economic models based upon the subjective space within which they find themselves. Line up the Nobel Prize winners to illustrate this. The subjective orientation of the winners describes a vast subjective space. Compare Amartya Sen with the Chicago School for one axis, then throw in Elinor Ostrom for another. The venues of some arguments are simpler than others. In science, arguments are the simplest of all. In science the basic rules of argumentation are objectivity, rationality, testing (falsification), and transparency. The most complex venues of argumentation are found in religion, politics, and ideology where the rules are highly subjective and changing. The rules in these unconstrained venues are basically, “what works.” They are based upon appeal to emotion (evil other) rather than to reason, they can virtually ignore objectivity (cherry picking, straw men, invidious comparison), they absolutely ignore falsification (fill in your favorite example), and transparency is beyond the question. The most interesting areas of argumentation are those in between, in social science, where science is highly valued but works within a profoundly subjective matrix. Economics is a good example; different people have widely different economic models based upon the subjective space within which they find themselves. Line up the Nobel Prize winners to illustrate this. The subjective orientation of the winners describes a vast subjective space. Compare Amartya Sen with the Chicago School for one axis, then throw in Elinor Ostrom for another.

]]> By: anon http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110849 anon Sat, 13 Aug 2011 01:28:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110849 ObXkcd: http://xkcd.com/386/ Are you coming to bed? I can't, this is important. What? Someone is wrong on the Internet ObXkcd: http://xkcd.com/386/

Are you coming to bed?

I can’t, this is important.

What?

Someone is wrong on the Internet

]]> By: Gorbin Wafflemunch http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110830 Gorbin Wafflemunch Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:09:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110830 Crapenfest - Oh well, I'll have to quicker on the draw next time :) Crapenfest – Oh well, I’ll have to quicker on the draw next time :)

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110820 Chris Mooney Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:29:19 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110820 Damn. I missed these in time for the show.... Damn. I missed these in time for the show….

]]> By: Gorbin Wafflemunch http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110815 Gorbin Wafflemunch Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:59:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110815 Is there a spectrum of responses & rationales that people go through in the course of an argument? For example, assuming both people start from the perspective that they are correct and their side of a argument best resembles the truth - is there a pattern or sequence to the way they respond as the argument progresses? Are there consistencies in the way behaviours and standpoints change while a person is attacking someones viewpoint and/or defending their own? If they exist, are these changes conscious, unconscious or a mix? Apologies for the poor structuring of these questions - I'm scrambling to try and get them submitted, hopefully they make sense and aren't redundant. Is there a spectrum of responses & rationales that people go through in the course of an argument? For example, assuming both people start from the perspective that they are correct and their side of a argument best resembles the truth – is there a pattern or sequence to the way they respond as the argument progresses? Are there consistencies in the way behaviours and standpoints change while a person is attacking someones viewpoint and/or defending their own? If they exist, are these changes conscious, unconscious or a mix?

Apologies for the poor structuring of these questions – I’m scrambling to try and get them submitted, hopefully they make sense and aren’t redundant.

]]> By: Michelle Colder Carras http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/12/my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-hugo-mercier-on-the-argumentative-theory-of-reason/#comment-110810 Michelle Colder Carras Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:24:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=20325#comment-110810 Seems to fit in well with a topic my neuroscientist brother is very interested in, emulations. (See his paper Emulation as an Integrating Principle for Cognition at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107447/). Might be worth it to ask how our preconceived positions tie into an emulation-based framework for cognition and reasoning. Seems to fit in well with a topic my neuroscientist brother is very interested in, emulations. (See his paper Emulation as an Integrating Principle for Cognition at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107447/). Might be worth it to ask how our preconceived positions tie into an emulation-based framework for cognition and reasoning.

]]>