Reason is not Rational

[Wiseacre]

The idea of The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning may have some legs to it, but reasoning has to arrive at conclusions that lead to positive outcomes, or at least non-fatal or non-serious negative ones. So, while winning the argument is great, your line of reasoning better work out more times than not or there will be consequences. Like people stop listening to your pov.

Not sure I'd dismiss the notion that rational thought and decisions are out of the purvue of reasoning. IOW, If all you're doing is confirming your own biased conclusions then maybe you are not exactly employing "reason" but something else.

 

[midcan5]

Mea culpa, when posting there are a few basic expected 'rwlclcrtpfmw' replies, for instance the race card, or a Nazi reference, if you only post the links you get accused of unoriginality, if you post the link and your thoughts, ad hominem follows. If you post secondary links or quotations you get accused of all sorts of things, none relevant to the topic or even contradictory of the OP's premise. Many/most threads go this way.

Why would the above be true? Quite simply the point of the OP, arguments or so called reasoning starts from a conclusion and defends it. If you do not believe the OP or you find the thread poster has different views than you then he/she must be wrong, and the reason they are wrong is because they do not fit your worldview. The authors start with the hypothesis that reasoning is argument and set out to prove that point of view. Read the pieces and make your own decision. Mea culpa.

The Argumentative Theory | Conversation | Edge
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN
The Reason We Reason | Wired Science | Wired.com

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine

 

[editec]

When people cannot keep up with the flow of conversation about a topic, they often attack their fellow posters' characters.

And those of us interested in the topic have to read past this nonsense to find the thoughts of those who can keep up and who are interested in the tipic itself.

It's like a grand prix race that has formula one cars on the same tract with V class vehicles.

Collisions are bound to happen and as a result the race is constantly being slowed as the remaining cars have to avoid the pile-ups.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When people cannot keep up with the flow of conversation about a topic, they often attack their fellow posters' characters.

And those of us interested in the topic have to read past this nonsense to find the thoughts of those who can keep up and who are interested in the tipic itself.

It's like a grand prix race that has formula one cars on the same tract with V class vehicles.

Collisions are bound to happen and as a result the race is constantly being slowed as the remaining cars have to avoid the pile-ups.

If this thread was actually about what you think it is, why did the OP need to mention his marriage and his wife's self serving comment that he is not self centered? Why do you defend someone who starts off the thread with a statement that is nothing more than an attempt to inject his superior version of himself into the topic, and complain when people point out that is not the way to actually discuss anything?

If you actually think the topic of argumentative theory is worthwhile I suggest you actually start a topic about it because midcan5 is incapable of discussing anything without attacking anyone who disagrees with him. You, on the other hand, have often demonstrated both the ability to talk about subjects without getting personal, and to both take, and give, personal attacks. What you seem to fail at is seeing that some people actually bring any attacks they get upon themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mea culpa, when posting there are a few basic expected 'rwlclcrtpfmw' replies, for instance the race card, or a Nazi reference, if you only post the links you get accused of unoriginality, if you post the link and your thoughts, ad hominem follows. If you post secondary links or quotations you get accused of all sorts of things, none relevant to the topic or even contradictory of the OP's premise. Many/most threads go this way.

Why would the above be true? Quite simply the point of the OP, arguments or so called reasoning starts from a conclusion and defends it. If you do not believe the OP or you find the thread poster has different views than you then he/she must be wrong, and the reason they are wrong is because they do not fit your worldview. The authors start with the hypothesis that reasoning is argument and set out to prove that point of view. Read the pieces and make your own decision. Mea culpa.

The Argumentative Theory | Conversation | Edge
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN
The Reason We Reason | Wired Science*| Wired.com

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine

Can you answer my questions, or are you simply going to try and sell the idea that you are above the fray while resorting to attacking the character of everyone who does not agree with your agenda?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine

Paine didn't think the barbaric slaughters and killings of the French revolution were wrong. He thought they were fabulous.

 

[ding]

Long ago reading Derek Parfit's 'Reasons And Persons' I became fascinated with all the reasons we give for our actions. Parfit was interested in the various ways we rationalize our behavior and our justifications in a secular world. One item that fascinated me was the debate on self interest and actual behavior. I had had a long debate arguing 'self interest' is not the only motivating factor in our decision making. My wife told me just recently, that I am never self centered. I liked that thought. Finding this piece adds to the complexity of reasons and persons.

"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it,"The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things."

The Argumentative Theory | Conversation | Edge

'Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory'

"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 the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." SSRN-Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber

Discovering truth is far more valuable than winning arguments and no amount of argumentative “reasoning” can defeat the truth.