"Mercier and Sperber (in their book Enigma of Reason) proposed a novel theory of human reason-giving, grounded in human evolution. Their proposal is that as human societies grew larger, problems of trust became more prevalent. In a groupwhere everyone knows everyone, and everyone encounters everyone on a regular basis, trust is maintained because an untrustworthy person would be identified and excluded quickly. But in larger groups this is difficult, so individuals had to start practicing “epistemic vigilance”—that is, being careful about what to believe. In this kind of social context, one could not expect others to accept a perspective or argument on trust. Individuals therefore started giving others reasons for why they should believe what they were telling them, typically pointing out facts that supported their view.
"Giving reasons in this way is a normative enterprise because it does not involve one individual attempting to overpower or coerce another into believing something, but rather, it invokes a third element—an impartial fact that does not depend on one’s point of view—to adjudicate: 'you do not have to take my word for it, just consider for yourself this reason.'
"While we humans can engage in some kinds of thinking on our own, the types that we consider rational and reasonable—the types that make sense—come out of our dialogic, perspective-shifting interactions with others.
Such rational dialogue is fundamentally cooperative in nature because, at bottom, being reasonable means precisely being cooperative in one’s epistemic interactions with others. All participants basically agree to yield to reason as impersonal arbiter, as it were, when that is appropriate."
(From: Michael Tomasello: "Becoming human")
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.True, in popular myth, and it may be a myth with a content of truth this time, modern thinking in the west begins in the classical world of Greece; at just the time when the populations of Greek cities were just beginning to grow beyond the small town where everyone knew everyone.
Fernapple
Level 9
Mar 29, 2019
0
I've been reading journal articles by Mercier these days, and I've read quite a bit of Tomasello in the past. It's hard to provide an adequate synopsis in a few brief paragraphs. I would guess, however, that Mercier would not condone the idea that individuals are capable of "critical thinking." Individual epistemology isn't to be trusted. An individual is too blind to his/her own biases to be able to think critically. It's only through social interactions and argumentation that we have been able to intellectually evolve and create culture, particularly a culture based on science. I'm not certain why we continue to espouse individual Cartesian reasoning as the solution to all of our problems. We've evolved these big brains, not to think critically, but for group survival via social interactions. As anyone can tell you, getting along with our fellow human beings through joint communicative intentions is the most difficult task we face. That's why Trump is such a failure as a president. He fails miserably at joint communicative tasks! He falsely believes in his own ability to think critically and refuses to engage in meaningful joint dialogue with anyone. It's his narcissism that makes him stupid!
Gmak
Level 7
Mar 28, 2019
0
Nowadays the argument would be you're hurting my feelings if you disagree with me.
brentan
Level 8
Mar 28, 2019
0
You touched upon another problem which is most people respond emotionally to issues instead of deliberatively or intellectually. When I ask people what they think, they usually tell me what they feel. If one is emotionally attached to a point of view, they cannot think critically.
It doesn't augur well for a society polarised with opposite ideologies.
Interesting. This make sense.
Unfortunately, today we now have "alternate facts". I argue with facts and they have their own facts to the contrary. 
dare2dream
Level 7
Mar 28, 2019
0
This is really interesting. I never considered it, but it makes a lot of sense that the capacity for reason can only exist after complex speech develops in a social group that requires cooperation. Just out of curiosity, does the book discuss fear/empathy/anger as a means of suggestion?
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Mar 28, 2019
0
Gmak:
Neuropsychologists (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009) have demonstrated that there are two neurological systems for empathy: emotional and cognitive. Emotional empathy has presumably evolved to protect ones tribe, whereas cognitive empathy has evolved so that we can engage in dialectic dialogue and use a variety of perspectives in a group-mediated consensus-building process. Trump is an expert at evoking emotional, tribal empathy; scientists use cognitive empathy to argue and reach consensus on the true nature of nature.
@Gmak It seems like no one realizes or wants to talk about the role emotion plays in elections. Do you think it could be possible to compile some metric to rate candidates based on emotional resonance with the public? Does it already exist? Something like that could be invaluable to the prediction of campaign success.
The same system could be used to counter extremist viewpoints by giving the public a reason to mistrust political ideas, candidates, or media coverage that is based purely in emotional reason rather than logical reason.
The rise to power of Trump, Hitler, AOC, likely so many others I shouldn't even try to name seem to have obtained their status almost entirely though emotional manipulation. Extremism should be minimized in politics.
The problem of course is that one can appeal to faulty reasoning or even quasi- or false-reasoning. And many forms of religion are ripe for such fallacious appeals (as are politics and various claims of superior reasoning by peoples, clans, families, races or tribes). More generically, we are less willing to accept reasoning that challenges the thinking of our "tribe" (literal or metaphorical) or reasoning that has worked for us personally and that we are comfortable with.
This means that for such appeals to reason to be a sustainable "glue" for holding society together, explanatory frameworks that transcend tribal shibboleths must be agreed to.
Sadly, I do not see this happening enough to give me confidence that civil society will not at least enter soon a box canyon of dysfunction and suffering for a time, if not devolve entirely.
mordant
Level 8
Mar 28, 2019
2
You are right. One can use faulty logic. This is why we must all be aware of what false logic looks like. [en.wikipedia.org]
@dare2dream Yes that's part of the explanatory framework I spoke of -- an understanding of what constitutes valid logic and reasoning and evidential standards (aka "critical thinking" ), coupled with the scientific method and other things like basic statistics / math.
Sadly, critical thinking isn't explicitly taught to children and most people seem to consider it some PhD-level specialty that is beyond common folk.
Gmak:
@mordant Sorry pal. But the myth of "the scientific method" had been debunked over and over again. Yet textbooks and science teachers have a penchant for keeping the myth alive. And if you think a trust in basic statistics will get you very far, you need to read Deborah Mayo's thoughts on severe statistical testing!
@Gmak The scientific method exists. It is not a myth.
Perhaps you mean the validity of the method has been "debunked". I am not sure how you are even on the internet then unless you are asserting that the internet is not a product of applied science. I mean, it couldn't be, because it's been repeatedly debunked, right?
Run along now.
Gmak:
@mordant
The appeals to civility in your above comment apparently don't apply to yourself! Read some Latour and Woolgar (sociology of science) Try some basic philosophy of science books (I recommend Chalmer's What's This Thing Called Science?). And do try to suppress your arrogant male chauvinism.
@Gmak It's pretty hard to exhibit male chauvinism to a smoky the bear avatar. I didn't even know you were a woman and wanted special considerations because of it.
I don't get dismissive easily but putting it out there that the scientific method "doesn't exist" speaks for itself, no matter whose books you cite.
@Fernapple Yes and I certainly am not into scientism and recognize that the scientific method is an imperfectly realized ideal given that it necessarily involves people. But her contention was not that the the scientific method is flawed or has limitations but that it doesn't exist. Which even if not meant literally, suggests there's a better epistemological approach to understanding reality, which, invariably, such folks don't bother to put forward.
In this terrifying presuppositionalist hegemony we increasingly find ourselves in, I have little tolerance for the denigration of the only demonstrable alternative to presuppositionalism and authoritarianism that we even have.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.