5 Logical Fallacies

Why do we ignore evidence, play the lottery, distrust people, argue endlessly, and think we have all the answers? Because we are human, and usually not all that logical. Cracked looks at five logical fallacies that make us think we are right when we're not. For example, we often think we are seeking knowledge when what we really want is to bolster the viewpoints we already hold.
It's called the argumentative theory of reasoning, and it says that humans didn't learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That's right -- they think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want. Here's how a proponent puts it:

"'Reasoning doesn't have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,' said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. 'It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.' Truth and accuracy were beside the point."

And as evidence, the researchers point out that after thousands of years of humans sitting around campfires and arguing about issues, these glaring flaws in our logic still exist.

Apparently, being dominant is more adaptive for evolutionary purposes than being open-minded. Link -via Buzzfeed

That article on Cracked has 1627 Comments (at the time of writing this). Are there people who read all of those? And did Cracked get to that point by censuring all "negativity"? ;) They do allow to sort by number of votes, which makes the up/down voting thing somewhat useful. :)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I don't believe this just applies to everyone else, I think it's just a load of philosophical garbage standing on thin stilts on psychological research. Reasoning is most definitely not an artifact of social structure because animals use it all the time to find food. It's an extension of pathfinding (I see food over there and need to figure out how to get there). In fact, its appropriated use in social situations is why it doesn't function well there. In pathfinding, you start with a target goal and work backwards to find the chain that leads there. When co-opted for social interaction, that becomes rationalization.

You could make the argument that the "goal" in social interaction is to win the argument, but reasoning didn't come about specifically to fulfill that goal, it just is used for that purpose.

And because I've been correcting for my own personal bias while writing this, I'll note that they could be referring to "reasoning" as specifically the act of verbally communicating with someone (as opposed to the more abstract concept of "figuring something out"). I would agree then that its true, but only to the extent that you're dealing with someone whose goal is to convince the other person of something. That's probably a default action, but not a unavoidable one.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Sad that in the early days of the Information Age, with all the information at one's finger tips, people tend to search for information that backs up what they believe, rather than search for the truth first.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
As always, I'm the wet blanket pointing out the ridiculous leaps in logic required to pretend that any of this is scientific, has evidence backing it up, has anything to do with empirical fact, etc etc etc.... :P
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 8 comments
Email This Post to a Friend
"5 Logical Fallacies"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More