Mercier and Sperber argue that, when you look at research that studies people in the appropriate settings, we turn out to be in fact quite good at reasoning when we are in the process of arguing; specifically, we demonstrate skill at producing arguments and at evaluating others’ arguments.
I observed some time ago that Roger Penrose seemed to be a much better explainer of physics when he was using it to argue something (even though the conclusion was completely bogus) than people who graciously write textbooks that will be required reading for the students who have to buy it.
If you want good textbooks, make sure the author is trying to persuade the students of something, I’d say. I usually am.
If you want good textbooks, make sure the author is trying to persuade the students of something, I’d say. I usually am.
Perhaps the process of writing should be separated from the product of writing (i.e. the textbook). The best of both worlds surely is a textbook that doesn’t try to persuade at all (since persuasion is tangential to providing an explanation), but which was written with a process involving a lot of arguing (to help stimulate the best reasoning). My brother and I sometimes had heated arguments when we wrote C# 3.0 in a Nutshell, with numerous “red ink revisions” before finally settling on the NPOVish text the reader sees.
The group success is due first and foremost to the filtering of a variety of solutions achieved through evaluation. When none of the answers initially proposed is correct, then all of them are likely to be rejected, wholly or partly new hypotheses are likely to be proposed, and again filtered, thus explaining how groups may even do better than any of their individual members.
I’ve purchased two of biology-related books by creationist-leaning authors based on this logic. They are still on the stack, so I can’t say how the experiment worked out.
I observed some time ago that Roger Penrose seemed to be a much better explainer of physics when he was using it to argue something (even though the conclusion was completely bogus) than people who graciously write textbooks that will be required reading for the students who have to buy it.
If you want good textbooks, make sure the author is trying to persuade the students of something, I’d say. I usually am.
Perhaps the process of writing should be separated from the product of writing (i.e. the textbook). The best of both worlds surely is a textbook that doesn’t try to persuade at all (since persuasion is tangential to providing an explanation), but which was written with a process involving a lot of arguing (to help stimulate the best reasoning). My brother and I sometimes had heated arguments when we wrote C# 3.0 in a Nutshell, with numerous “red ink revisions” before finally settling on the NPOVish text the reader sees.
Maybe that explains why Wikipedia is usually much clearer to read (IMO) than professionally produced encyclopedias.
From the Why do humans reason paper:
I’ve purchased two of biology-related books by creationist-leaning authors based on this logic. They are still on the stack, so I can’t say how the experiment worked out.
4.7 years later… Did you ever read them?