Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:09:07.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Argumentation: Its adaptiveness and efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Hugo Mercier  and
Dan Sperber
Hugo Mercier
Affiliation:
Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. [email protected]://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/
Dan Sperber
Affiliation:
Jean Nicod Institute (EHESS-ENS-CNRS), 75005 Paris, France; and Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary. [email protected]://www.dan.sperber.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Having defended the usefulness of our definition of reasoning, we stress that reasoning is not only for convincing but also for evaluating arguments, and that as such it has an epistemic function. We defend the evidence supporting the theory against several challenges: People are good informal arguers, they reason better in groups, and they have a confirmation bias. Finally, we consider possible extensions, first in terms of process-level theories of reasoning, and second in the effects of reasoning outside the lab.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 94 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailenson, J. N. & Rips, L. J. (1996) Informal reasoning and burden of proof. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(7):S3–16.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (2010) How do morals change? Nature 464(7288):490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carruthers, P. (1996) Language, thought and consciousness: An essay in philosophical psychology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1986) An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics 97(1):26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1995) How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: The nature of insight, ed. Steinberg, R. J. & Davidson, J., pp. 365–95. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. (2007) Democratic authority. A philosophical framework. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M., Crowell, A. & Kuhn, D. (2009) What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic 29(4):379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. & Bjorklund, F. (2007) Social intuitionists reason, in conversation. In: Moral Psychology, vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity, ed. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., pp. 241–54. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. & Norenzayan, A. (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2–3):61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006) How we reason. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K. & Shaenfield, D. (2008) Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development 79(5):1310–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H. (2007) Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. |jHarvard University.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. & Mercier, H. (submitted) “Talking it out”: Deliberation with others versus deliberation within.Google Scholar
Langer, E. J., Blank, A. & Chanowitz, B. (1978) The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(6):635–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, M., Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. A. (2004) Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology 25:205–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I. & Druyan, S. (1993) When sociocognitive transaction among peers fails: The case of misconceptions in science. Child Development 64(5):1571–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, O. & Sperber, D. (2009) The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition 112(3):367–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H. (submitted a) Looking for arguments.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (in press a) On the universality of argumentative reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Culture.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (in press b) Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (in press c) What good is moral reasoning? Mind & Society.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. (submitted b) When experts argue: Explaining the best and the worst of reasoning.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Landemore, H. (in press) Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2009) Intuitive and reflective inferences. In: In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, ed. Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., pp. 149–70. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, Y., Weinstock, M. P. & Glasner, A. (2006) The effect of contextual factors on the judgment of informal reasoning fallacies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 59:411–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J. & Nisbett, R. E. (2002) Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science 26(5):653–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(10):1915–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. & Goldman, R. (1981) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5):847–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4):707–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L. J. (1994) The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rips, L. J. (2002) Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science 26(6):767–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sá, W. C., Kelley, C. N., Ho, C. & Stanovich, K. E. (2005) Thinking about personal theories: Individual differences in the coordination of theory and evidence. Personality and Individual Differences 38(5):1149–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, A. (2006) Regulating welfare tradeoff ratios: Three tests of an evolutionary-computational model of human anger. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 66 (8-B):4516.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2009) L'effet gourou. L'autre côté 1:17–23.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4):359–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. St. B. T. & Handley, S. J. (2005b) Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2):238–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. & Britt, M. A. (2008) Locus of the my-side bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning 14(1):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar