I don’t think the only evolutionary purpose of reason is to win arguments, part of the purpose must have been to decide on the best course of action, otherwise we would have evolved to not listen to what anyone else says.
… otherwise we would have evolved to not listen to what anyone else says.
That’s a death sentence for a great ape. All the great apes form tribes as one of their primary survival strategies. It could simply be that evolution didn’t make ignoring others’ arguments an option any more than simply ignoring dominance contests could retain one’s status in the pecking order.
Just as dominance contests are ultimately backed by greater physical force, so arguments must ultimately be backed by greater correctness (on average, with a lot of variance). This is made more complicated by the fact that in some cases, “correctness” may have elements of “social truth” or self-fulfilling prophecy.
...arguments must ultimately be backed by greater correctness...
I’d certainly like to think so! I’m just suspicious of that intuition, especially in myself. The subjective impression that reasoning is for truth-seeking could be because it is. However, if it’s not, as the lead article suggests, then we’d still be under the impression that our reasoning is in pursuit of truth and that those who disagree with us are willfully ignoring the truth. So we can’t use that intuition as a guide to tell us about what’s the case in this situation.
It’s also worth noting that people generally aren’t convinced by true arguments. They’re usually convinced instead by peer pressure and repetition. Presenting a really crushing (!) argument that leaves no logical wiggle room left over can actually make the person who initially disagreed become more certain of their initial position and become resentful toward you. That really makes no sense if reason is supposed to be for truth-pursuit—but it makes a lot of sense if arguments are more about dominance than determining what’s real.
I’m not saying I feel like reasoning is for truth-seeking, I’m saying that to some significant extent it has to be—like Eugene_Nier says, even if there’s a lot of noise and social posturing involved, on average it has to bottom out in truth somewhere, else why would we evolve to put effort into something worthless? If it was purely about social dominance, why talk at all instead of sticking to fighting/physical displays?
edit: Although I’m not sure how much purely social content can be built on top of a little physical truth—maybe a lot.
I don’t think the only evolutionary purpose of reason is to win arguments, part of the purpose must have been to decide on the best course of action, otherwise we would have evolved to not listen to what anyone else says.
That’s a death sentence for a great ape. All the great apes form tribes as one of their primary survival strategies. It could simply be that evolution didn’t make ignoring others’ arguments an option any more than simply ignoring dominance contests could retain one’s status in the pecking order.
Just as dominance contests are ultimately backed by greater physical force, so arguments must ultimately be backed by greater correctness (on average, with a lot of variance). This is made more complicated by the fact that in some cases, “correctness” may have elements of “social truth” or self-fulfilling prophecy.
I’d certainly like to think so! I’m just suspicious of that intuition, especially in myself. The subjective impression that reasoning is for truth-seeking could be because it is. However, if it’s not, as the lead article suggests, then we’d still be under the impression that our reasoning is in pursuit of truth and that those who disagree with us are willfully ignoring the truth. So we can’t use that intuition as a guide to tell us about what’s the case in this situation.
It’s also worth noting that people generally aren’t convinced by true arguments. They’re usually convinced instead by peer pressure and repetition. Presenting a really crushing (!) argument that leaves no logical wiggle room left over can actually make the person who initially disagreed become more certain of their initial position and become resentful toward you. That really makes no sense if reason is supposed to be for truth-pursuit—but it makes a lot of sense if arguments are more about dominance than determining what’s real.
I’m not saying I feel like reasoning is for truth-seeking, I’m saying that to some significant extent it has to be—like Eugene_Nier says, even if there’s a lot of noise and social posturing involved, on average it has to bottom out in truth somewhere, else why would we evolve to put effort into something worthless? If it was purely about social dominance, why talk at all instead of sticking to fighting/physical displays?
edit: Although I’m not sure how much purely social content can be built on top of a little physical truth—maybe a lot.