David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57 (2011)
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||argumentation confirmation bias decision making dual process theory evolutionary psychology motivated reasoning reason-based choice reasoning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Colin Allen, Marc Bekoff & George V. Lauder (eds.) (1998). Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology. The Mit Press.
Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides & John Tooby (eds.) (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press.
Sarah K. Brem & Lance J. Rips (2000). Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument. Cognitive Science 24 (4):573-604.
R. W. Byrne & Andrew Whiten (1988). Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans. Oxford University Press.
Fabrice Clément (2010). To Trust or Not to Trust? Children's Social Epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (4):531-549.
Citations of this work BETA
Gloria Origgi (2012). Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Trust. Social Epistemology 26 (2):221-235.
Richard H. Zander (2010). Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biological Theory 5 (4):383.
Cristina Bicchieri & Alex K. Chavez (2013). Norm Manipulation, Norm Evasion: Experimental Evidence. Economics and Philosophy 29 (2):175-198.
Kourken Michaelian (2013). The Evolution of Testimony: Receiver Vigilance, Speaker Honesty, and the Reliability of Communication. Episteme 10 (1):37-59.
Dan Sperber (2013). Speakers Are Honest Because Hearers Are Vigilant Reply to Kourken Michaelian. Episteme 10 (1):61-71.
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.
Julia Staffel (2013). Can There Be Reasoning with Degrees of Belief? Synthese 190 (16):3535-3551.
Hugo Mercier (2011). When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning. [REVIEW] 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.
Markos Valaris (2014). Reasoning and Regress. Mind 123 (489):101-127.
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 downloads29 ( #71,968 of 1,692,617 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #57,656 of 1,692,617 )
How can I increase my downloads?