Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:41:39.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is the Function of Reasoning? On Mercier and Sperber's Argumentative and Justificatory Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

Sinan Dogramaci
Sinan Dogramaci*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA
*
Email: sinan.dogramaci@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper aims to accessibly present, and then critique, Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber's recent proposals for the evolutionary function of human reasoning. I take a critical look at the main source of experimental evidence that they claim as support for their view, namely the confirmation or “myside” bias in reasoning. I object that Mercier and Sperber did not adequately argue for a claim that their case rests on, namely that it is evolutionarily advantageous for you to get other people to believe whatever you antecedently believe. And I give my own argument that this claim is false. I also critically look at their suggestion that reasoning has a justificatory function, functioning as a kind of reputation management tool. I argue this suggestion does not amount to a plausible evolutionary function.

Keywords

evolutionary functionhuman reasoningMercier and Sperbermyside bias
Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Special Issue 3: Epistemic Norms as Social Norms Conference , September 2020 , pp. 316 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Alvarez, M. (2017). ‘Reasons for Action : Justification, Motivation, Explanation.’ In Zalta, E.N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/>.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2009). ‘Disagreement as Evidence: The Disagreement of Controversy.’ Philosophy Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00237.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogramaci, S. (2012). ‘Reverse Engineering Epistemic Evaluations.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84, 513–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogramaci, S. (2015 a). ‘Communist Conventions for Deductive Reasoning’, Noûs 49, 776–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogramaci, S. (2015 b). ‘Forget and Forgive: A Practical Approach to Forgotten Evidence.’ Ergo. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0002.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogramaci, S. and Horowitz, S. (2016). ‘An Argument for Uniqueness about Evidential Support.’ Philosophical Issues 26, 130–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, R. (2001). ‘The Evolution of the Eyes.’ Karger Gazette, No. 64.Google Scholar
Greco, D. and Hedden, B. (2016). ‘Uniqueness and Metaepistemology.’ Journal of Philosophy 113, 365–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. (1986). Change in View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2011). ‘Why Do Humans Reason: Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.’ Brain and Behavioral Sciences 34, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R.G. (1984). Language Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neander, K. (1991). ‘Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense.’ Philosophy of Science 58, 168–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar