Argument, Truth and the Social Side of Reasoning - 4 views

• 
  #1 Mikaela Solberg on 10 Feb 13

   

  We reason to win arguments rather than attaining the truth.
  
  * We have difficulty following the rules of deductive reasoning.
  * We make basic errors in statistical reasoning.
  * We are biased and focus only on data supporting our views and ignore any data going against it.
  
  These are not very competent reasons to draw the true conclusions. However, this is effective for the purpose of winning arguments.
  
  An evolutionary point of human reasoning is to win arguments, rather than reaching the truth.
  
  However, the dilemma of the article is that one can't necessarily believe what the article says, as they are doing just what they are arguing. We don't know if they are reasoning to attain truth or just to win an argument.
  
  Solving the Dilemma
  
  Either we don't care about the truth and only want to convince someone.
  
  Otherwise, justification is a matter of being able to convince others that a claim is correct, because knowing the truth not only requires the belief but also the justification for the belief.
  
  We justify our beliefs by developing arguments that defeat all contrary arguments rather than your argument. It comes to an answer which almost anyone will accept. And this is 'winning an argument' by achieving agreement through honest arguments rather than tricking people into agreement.
  
  Justifying an argument is best done in a social process, because argumentation is most effective when developed in groups, as the belief is looked at from many different views.

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">We reason to win arguments rather than attaining the truth. <br /> <br /> * We have difficulty following the rules of deductive reasoning. <br /> * We make basic errors in statistical reasoning. <br /> * We are biased and focus only on data supporting our views and ignore any data going against it. <br /> <br /> These are not very competent reasons to draw the true conclusions. However, this is effective for the purpose of winning arguments. <br /> <br /> An evolutionary point of human reasoning is to win arguments, rather than reaching the truth. <br /> <br /> However, the dilemma of the article is that one can't necessarily believe what the article says, as they are doing just what they are arguing. We don't know if they are reasoning to attain truth or just to win an argument. <br /> <br /> Solving the Dilemma <br /> <br /> Either we don't care about the truth and only want to convince someone. <br /> <br /> Otherwise, justification is a matter of being able to convince others that a claim is correct, because knowing the truth not only requires the belief but also the justification for the belief. <br /> <br /> We justify our beliefs by developing arguments that defeat all contrary arguments rather than your argument. It comes to an answer which almost anyone will accept. And this is 'winning an argument' by achieving agreement through honest arguments rather than tricking people into agreement. <br /> <br /> Justifying an argument is best done in a social process, because argumentation is most effective when developed in groups, as the belief is looked at from many different views.</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top