Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth

The Smokester

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2010
347
1
925
N. California
An interesting article from today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?ref=global-home

The article starts out...

"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. 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.

..."

and the article ends

"...Anyone who enjoys “spending endless hours debating ideas” should appreciate their views, Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber write, though, as even they note, “This, of course, is not an argument for (or against) the theory.”

Surely this is preposterous as I am sure forum members will agree. What possible evidence would substantiate such a heretical theory?

Just asking. :D
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Maybe it is too early in the morning as I can't integrate all the views in that article from the proponents :). Here is an interesting quote:

"At least in some cultural contexts, this results in a kind of arms race towards greater sophistication in the production and evaluation of arguments,” they write. “When people are motivated to reason, they do a better job at accepting only sound arguments, which is quite generally to their advantage.” Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to the best arguments."

Bolding mine. That part, is an accepted logic and taught in any management training class (i.e. why group ideas are batter than individual). I can't figure out why they agree with that, but then in the next breath say that arguing is a tool to win a personal fight and hence, it has no value. They kind of repeat that after the above quote by saying the American political system debating doesn't work. Is it their view that small groups that tend to agree with each other is better than ones that have devil's advocate in them?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing