Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth
 

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.

The idea, labeled the argumentative theory of reasoning, is the brainchild of French cognitive social scientists, and it has stirred excited discussion (and appalled dissent) among philosophers, political scientists, educators and psychologists, some of whom say it offers profound insight into the way people think and behave. The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences devoted its April issue to debates over the theory, with participants challenging everything from the definition of reason to the origins of verbal communication.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/ar...me&ref=general


Note: Published: June 14, 2011

A very apt article for the posters of the GT section.

....and :hmmm: What do you expect from GT!

I don't see it. But then, I consider reason and memory both to be a curse.

A wise man once said, if you can't dazzle them, with brillance, baffle them with bull sh-t .

Reason ideally is path to truth and understanding and revelation AND STILL IS(So I disagree with the article conclusion).

However that only applies to honest and sincere and rational people.


Many people and I believe it's human nature that mankind are irrational beings, especially unpolished people(unpolished in spirit and soul). They seek justifications even when there's none. They seek to blame and find excuses and when none is actually there then proceeded to MAKE excuses using their own perverted reasoning and lying.

To some people this has grown even so sophisticated that they don't even realize it any longer that they are lying to themselves. :damn:

In short they lie and even convinced themselves that's true. :o

To argue with such people to make them see true reason is POINTLESS, FRUSTRATING and USELESS. These are fools no matter what their credentials are or how much money they have in their bank account.

In the end the prerequisite in any communication (as all communication essence is to see reason and gain understanding) are HONESTY, SINCERITY and OBJECTIVITY.

When none is present it might be as well called PROPAGANDA, POLITICKING, OUTRIGHT LYING or DECEIT

To be honest socially perhaps the average people(at least here) may be politicking more than being genuine. Those people who change their disposition in public or in private aren't they just keeping their manner and hospitality out of fear of being disliked? To Asians maintaining your face(honor) is considered so important that so often these people forget that it is their OWN ACTION and CONDUCT that they must guard instead anybody or anything else. I call these people the little children. Always unpolished people. They want to steal without being called a thief, they want to kill without being called a murderer, they want to lie without being called a liar, they want to live without adhering to honorable code of conduct yet they want to be respected and even praised for their [non existent] honor.

Reason is adaptive for a number of reasons. It's certainly plausible that interpersonal interactions were a primary factor. Look at Gorillas. They are intelligent, but are in fact primate "cows." They sit around and eat. They have zero need of intelligence. The evolved intelligence because they live in social groups with complex interpersonal politics, and the ability to "plot" was clearly adaptive.

Yes, but how is it that it doesn't arrive there? How do we know anything? Have we actually learned 'truth and understanding' by means of reason, or are we simply stuck in endless cycles of received wisdom and categories of reason/understanding whose origins we can't trace, but which we nevertheless repeat uncritically?

I would disagree with the article, but perhaps on somewhat different grounds. At some point maybe that is why reason developed, but we can't know when and by who it was developed. However modern reason isn't so much something that we shape, but something that shapes us. It's wired into language and society to an extent where it's difficult to get away from thinking about things in terms of reason or lack thereof, in terms that are not our own.

Otherwise the argument can certainly be made about any traditional endeavor of the mind and creativity. By the same token, 2500 years ago Plato attacked poetry for being primarily aimed at persuading and misleading people. But Plato is also much responsible for the spread of this faith in reason as an eternal, immutable form, all the while acknowledging its inacessibility and inexpressibility. And that's a fundamental problem. People easily resort to reason and claims of certain knowledge, while up to this day there's still no incontrovertible epistemology of reason that really addresses how we know anything. There is faith in reason, which isn't 'wrong' by any means, but it does invite uncritical reliance and open it to be used as a weapon indeed.

My reason tells me that we don't. We can know facts, but the reality behind those facts remains unknown, and can only be guessed at. Even the facts themselves are taken on faith.

I think putting faith in reason is just like putting faith in anything else: trusting in something you can't be sure of. Reason allows us to work out problems, but it also, if used honestly, exposes the fact that anything we think we know may possibly be wrong. Reason used to justify a belief isn't reason at all, but willful ignorance of what we still don't know. This means that reason can't be used to 'win' an argument, but only to expose the flaws in an argument, and this is true of all sides of a question. Reason can be used to attempt to reach a concensus, but, like logic, it can only show what's wrong with an argument, not everything that's right about it.

This is why I consider it a curse. For me, reason only shows me where I'm wrong, never where I'm right. This means I spend a lot of time seeing where I'm wrong.

Faith is not in reason. Faith is in fact the antithesis of reason.

Faith is thinking something is true with no, or even contrary evidence. Reason is thinking something is true based on rational evidence, or simply "not knowing" based on lack of evidence.

Reason, like logic, is subject to the GIGO principle, and the outcome is only as valid as the input. I'm not sure what CCIP's full meaning was, but mine was the simple truth that it's possible to trust that you have reasoned properly when you have not. Some people do indeed place their faith in their ability to reason, and often they are wrong.

That is an ancient argument often brought up by people who feel that reason (science) is undemining their faith (religion). The obvious flaw is to suggest that reason and faith are two approaches to the same problem, this is simply not the case. Reason attempts to uncover truth through scientific methodology (hypothesis, experimentation and evidence) whereas faith claims to know the truth through divine messages. The less obvious flaw is a misnomer, the art of argument i.e using clever language to bolster your chosen position is called rhetoric, not reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

Thank you for that, Sammi79. I call my memory a curse, then turn around and forget the obvious. Ah, the wonders of getting old...

I'd rather say there's understanding in reason and though it is true that trust may be needed it is all because we can't possibly know everything. But this faith or trust is not to be misunderstood as blind faith or blind trust.

There's even reasons behind faith or trust. be it certain knowledge or past experience that could back up that trust and whether it should be given.

But people don't always communicate to gain understanding as we are in my view all are beings of politics. When we are politicking instead of communicating then by all means the purpose of the communication is no longer to lead other to gain understanding but to deceive, mislead, trick, sway or convince.

Ideally every person must be an independent person and capable of critical thinking and reasoning and having a conscience.
But this is not the case in real life. The degree which every person thinks critically varies. Naive people tend to agree and believe whatever they are told for example. And in real life not a single of us are truly independent as a human being. True that we are born as human being equal and endowed with universal values but that stops there.

In real life there are hierarchies. President, CEO, Army general, employee, labor, customers, staff, manager. This power hierarchy have the power to change the objectivity of people whose lives are dependent on their relationship in it.

Ultimately whatever comes out from the mouth comes from the heart(intentions). When people have twisted intentions then whatever they say will be twisted accordingly to suit their needs.

But if you think to the fundamental level of communication you can clearly see what would happen if communication is used to win arguments alone.
CHAOS. That's right. And this would hamper the essence of communicating itself and render it nothing more than accessory. Just imagine the extreme that nothing that's being said by ANY people are wholly truthful. How would you perceive every word that's said to you? With a pinch of salt for sure. Would this hamper the essence of communicating. Hell yes. People would turn into actions and really on actions alone. Killing, rampaging, stealing, going to war and put civilized ways of friendship and diplomacy to the darkest corner of the earth. Put simply we talk because we are civilized. But when uncivilized people talk just to win arguments they are doing that because they are childish people. They require a smack on their face. If the people who talk just to win argument alone increase to substantial number you can be sure civilization itself will crumble. It will because no one will trust any single person any more. The police will use torture to gain confession. Witnesses will no longer be trusted. The judge will not be fair, etc.

Just when you thought it would'nt get any darker,
the light of all reason goes out,
and there in your mind is a shadow,
as deep and dark as your doubt.