Have you heard of The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning? It is a recent breakthrough in the study of cognition, and a theory we can really get behind. Essentially an attempt to answer the question, why are human beings so good at reasoning in some areas and so bad at it in others? The researchers, who somehow appear to have transcended the very theory they’re propounding, have decided to challenge the most basic assumptions about the role and function of reason. What they’ve come up with is that reason, rather than being some objective, truth-oriented pursuit, is instead a social phenomenon. Moreover, and more importantly, the goal of all reasoning is actually argumentative – i.e. convincing others of your point of view. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s an extension of “confirmation bias,” in which we evaluate data (or experience, or bible verses, or NY Times articles…) with the goal of confirming what we already believe. And while it doesn’t quite take into account the emotional aspect of decision-making (Herr Brooks has that covered), there’s a lot here to chew on. A recent article on Edge relates an interview with researcher Hugo Mercier, who spells out the theory at some length and touches on some of the political and scientific implications, ht JD:
“Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That’s why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, “The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things.”
Fully aware of the irony of what I’m about to say, it’s tough not to see Argumentative Theory as confirmation that the Bible is on to something in its understanding of human beings. Namely, that the need or urge or desire to justify ourselves – to prove and establish our value, to “make our mark”, to contend for our existence – is at the very core of who we are. Indeed, any attempt to explain human behavior, whether it be theological or psychological or artistic, that doesn’t locate the whirlpool of self-justification at its center is bound to fall flat. Or worse, it is consigned to being simply a nice idea with little to no bearing in reality.
We don’t go on and on about justification on this site (by faith, by works, by faith in works, by works of faith, by good taste, etc) because we’re arbitrarily smitten with some historical movement (the Reformation, for example) or because we have a denominational axe to grind, we go on and on about it because we see it as the issue in both human life and, thankfully, Christianity. Like it or not, we are all lawyers, constantly collecting evidence and arguments for and against ourselves – just ask those who are closest to you. And rather than being some reductive scheme, the Gospel tells of us a God who is not oblivious to the oppressive legalities of how we function, and even deigns to address/absolve them (in the most profound and loving way possible). That, to me, is argument enough.
In the meantime, be sure to watch the video of Hugo Mercier talking at more length about these discoveries. Or just listen to Rod the Mod:
Read more on and from 
7 comments
Mr. T says:
May 13, 2011
Great post Dave. When I became a Lutheran (Big L) – and went through the Small Catechism with my pastor explained how the First Commandment was the foundation of all the others – basically our desire to be God – whether consciously or subconsciously we’re in active rebellion against the fact that we are not God.
From p.62 of the AA Big Book – Good Insight on this Human Condition:
” Selfishness-self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles. Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking, and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows and they retaliate. Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we invariably find that at some time in the past we have made decisions based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt.
So our troubles, we think, are basically of our own making. They arise out of ourselves, and the alcoholic is an extreme example of self-will run riot, though he usually doesn’t think so. Above everything, we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kills us! God makes that possible. And there often seems no way of entirely getting rid of self without His aid. Many of us had moral and philosophical convictions galore, but we could not live up to them even though we would have liked to. Neither could we reduce our self-centeredness much by wishing or trying on our own power. We had to have God’s help.
This is the how and the why of it. First of all, we had to quit playing God. It didn’t work. Next, we decided that hereafter in this drama of life, God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal; we are His agents. He is the Father, and we are His children. Most Good ideas are simple, and this concept was the keystone of the new and triumphant arch through which we passed to freedom.”
WenatcheeTheHatchet says:
May 14, 2011
Ironically this suggests that some scientists have decided to back the idea that reason serves the affections rather than the other way around, a fairly old trope in Protestant Christian thought.
Peter Leavitt says:
May 15, 2011
Well, confirmation of one’s own ideas is an important, though not the only function of reason. Some people are capable of relatively dispassionate thinking and expression. This sounds suspiciously like yet another breathless idea from academia that will in due course pass.
WenatcheeTheHatchet says:
May 15, 2011
C. S. Lewis did warn us decades ago that within certain constraints each generation gets the kind of science that it wants. The argumentative theory of reason seems to have traction with those who would like to explain that social conservatives can’t come to reasonable conclusions about certain issues.
In this case it’s possible there’s an unusually “meta” application of the theory involved. A comparable idea with respect to rationality/irrationality and debates about theism is that theory of mind (i.e. our capacity to imagine the thoughts and feelings of other minds) has been over-extended into a belief in deities that do not really exist. THAT proposal has been interesting because of how atheists have differed over what to make of that proposal. The split is between those who say that for better as well as worse humans will always tend to be religious because of the constraints of brain function and that science can be used to explore this impulse but not necessarily reduce it to nothing, while more traditional atheists and “new” atheists argue that religion is a wholly irrational and terrible thing–any attempt to say that religious belief is the side effect of an adaptive trait too important to lose is coddling the idea that religious beliefs are not positively harmful
I doubt that attempting to uncover the balance between reason and emotions will be easily settled. Coming at this as I do from a basically Reformed approach I admit that I think reason tends to serve the affections rather than the other way around and that this a fairly old-school Protestant idea. A great deal of scientific research on brain function and biology has shifted further and further away from the idea that there’s any thing such as free will, certainly nothing like libertarian free will.
Anyone have any ideas about whether this “argumentative” theory for the use of reason plays directly into Alvin Plantinga’s proposal that materialistic naturalism does not give us a world or an evolutionary process in which it is necessary for evolved beings to believe things that are true about the world?
Jameson says:
May 16, 2011
“We don’t go on and on about justification on this site (by faith, by works, by faith in works, by works of faith, by good taste, etc) because we’re arbitrarily smitten with some historical movement (the Reformation, for example) or because we have a denominational axe to grind, we go on and on about it because we see it as the issue in both human life and, thankfully, Christianity.”
Ironically enough, this is one of the clearest examples of confirmation bias that I have ever seen.
John Zahl says:
May 16, 2011
“…any attempt to explain human behavior, whether it be theological or psychological or artistic, that doesn’t locate the whirlpool of self-justification at its center is bound to fall flat. Or worse, it is consigned to being simply a nice idea with little to no bearing in reality.”
Great quote Dave!
Todd says:
May 18, 2011
In many ways, the confirmation bias is a reframing of Hegel’s dialectical understanding of experience. Since, according to Hegel, the birth knowledge from experience is essentially a death of self and one’s understanding, it would make sense that misunderstanding is so prevalent. Parallels between misunderstanding and sin seem natural, as does understanding and justification.