|Abstract||Short abstract (98 words). 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 humans’ exceptional dependence on communication and 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.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Hugo Mercier (2011). What Good is Moral Reasoning? Mind and Society 10 (2):131-148.
Hugo Mercier (2010). The Social Origins of Folk Epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (4):499-514.
Hugo Mercier (2011). When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning. Argumentation 25 (3):313-327.
Laurence Fiddick (2006). Adaptive Domains of Deontic Reasoning. Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):105 – 116.
Barbara Winters (1983). Inferring. Philosophical Studies 44 (2):201 - 220.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
John Shand (2000). Arguing Well. Routledge.
Henry Prakken (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
F. Atria (1999). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited. Law and Philosophy 18 (5):537-577.
Maxime Morge (2005). Collective Decision-Making Process to Compose Divergent Interests and Perspectives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):75-92.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads23 ( #53,853 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?