Blook Post: The Argumentative Theory of Human Reason @DavidGurteen
Posted on
CHAPTER: The Knowledge Delusion

The Argumentative Theory of Human Reason We did not evolve to reason individually but to reason socially

Scroll down to see more content
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The argumentative theory of reasoning proposes that reason did not evolve to help us to reason individually but to reason together – in other words, socially.

Reasoning is generally seen as the process of thinking about something to help us come to better beliefs and decisions.

However, there is substantial evidence that our reasoning process, although shaped over tens of thousands of years of evolution, is not particularly good.

Wikipedia, for example, lists well over 100 cognitive biases — ways in which we make sense of things that are not reasonable or accurate, and these biases also have a profound impact on our conversations.

On the other hand, the argumentative theory of reasoning proposes that the primary function of reason is not to improve our knowledge but to exchange arguments with others.

This short, entertaining video explains the basic theory:

The Argumentative Theory of Human Reason | THUNK (source)

And this equally entertaining video goes into more detail and considers some of the implications:

video player (source)
The Future of Reasoning | Michael Stevens


Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber are the creators of the argumentative theory of human reason described in their book  The Enigma of Reason, published in 2018.

How and why we reason | Hugo Mercier (source)

Clarifying the meaning of the word argument
The word argument has three meanings, but in this context, we are only concerned with two of them:

1) An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

2) A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action, or theory.

Credit: Lexico

“The Argumentative Theory of Human Reason” employs the second meaning.

In other words, “argumentative reasoning” is not about having “heated or angry arguments” but engaging in conversation (mainly dialogue but also polite debate) to critique the merits, flaws, and deficiencies of different ideas, actions, or theories.

To avoid misunderstanding, I prefer to use the term “theory of social reasoning” or simply “social reasoning” rather than the “Argumentative Theory of Human Reason”.

Regardless of whether reasoning evolved to benefit the individual or socially — “social reasoning” has been demonstrated to be a more effective way of making sense of the world and improving decision-making.




This theory reinforces the idea that cognition is distributed and that knowledge is communal.

Furthermore, it bolsters the view that small group conversations help us make better sense of the world and should be at the heart of deliberative democracy.

But remember, it is only a theory; some researchers disagree.

Detailed Resources

Posts that link to this post

POST NAVIGATION

Knowledge and Information **
The Knowledge Delusion

CHAPTER NAVIGATION




Tags: 4E cognition (4) | argument (36) | brain (12) | cognition (11) | cognitive bias (25) | collective intelligence (6) | collective sensemaking (8) | Dan Sperber (5) | deliberative democracy (12) | democracy (33) | extended mind (9) | Hugo Mercier (6) | mind (34) | reasoning (51) | sense-making (41) | social reasoning (19) | wisdom of crowds (4)

SEARCH

Blook Search
Google Web Search


Photo Credits: DALL-E (Public Domain)

This page is part of a blook on Conversational Leadership. Parts of this book have restricted access. You can learn more about the book and how to obtain full access on the home page.

Gurteen Knowledge Letter
The Gurteen Knowledge Letter is a free monthly newsletter with over 20,000 subscribers that I have been publishing by email for over 20 years.
Learn more about the newsletter and register here.

Leave a Reply