Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Top Cited Papers
- 29 March 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Vol. 34 (2), 57-74
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x10000968
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 134 references indexed in Scilit:
- Variety, Vice, and Virtue: How Assortment Size Influences Option ChoiceJournal of Consumer Research, 2009
- Evaluating science arguments: Evidence, uncertainty, and argument strength.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2009
- Information distortion in the evaluation of a single optionOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007
- Thinking about personal theories: individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidencePersonality and Individual Differences, 2005
- A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 2004
- Biased predecision processing.Psychological Bulletin, 2003
- The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgmentPsychological Review, 2001
- Collaborative Reasoning: Evidence for Collective RationalityThinking & Reasoning, 1998
- How language helps us thinkSex, Death & Politics, 1996
- Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review systemCognitive Therapy and Research, 1977