I. Introduction
The enigma of reason has long been a topic of philosophical debate and scientific inquiry. From the earliest days of human civilization, people have sought to understand the nature and purpose of reason, and how it shapes our understanding of the world and our place in it. In recent years, a growing body of research has challenged traditional notions of reason as a cognitive faculty, and has suggested instead that it may be better understood as a communicative or persuasive tool. This essay will explore the enigma of reason by examining the arguments presented in recent research on the topic, and by offering my thoughts and insights on the subject.
The central argument of this essay is that reason is not a cognitive faculty in the traditional sense, but rather a communicative tool that is used to persuade others. This is a controversial claim that runs counter to many long-held beliefs about the nature of reason, and it is likely to generate much discussion and debate. However, the evidence presented in recent research on the topic is persuasive, and it suggests that a new understanding of reason is needed if we are to fully grasp its nature and purpose.
Throughout the essay, I will draw on a wide range of research, including studies of human cognition, decision-making, and communication. I will also explore the implications of these findings for our understanding of the human mind and the role of reason in shaping our perceptions and beliefs. Ultimately, I hope to shed new light on the enigma of reason and to provoke further thought and discussion on this important and fascinating topic.
II. The argument against reason as a cognitive faculty
The traditional understanding of reason as a cognitive faculty is based on the belief that it is a tool for understanding the world and making rational decisions. This belief is rooted in the idea that reason is a logical, unbiased, and objective process that helps people to reach the truth. However, recent research has challenged this belief by showing that reason is not as logical, unbiased, and objective as previously thought.
One of the main arguments against reason as a cognitive faculty is the lack of correlation between reasoning ability and intelligence. Intelligence is often thought to be a general cognitive ability that is closely tied to reasoning, however, studies have shown that individuals with high intelligence scores do not necessarily perform better on reasoning tasks than those with lower scores. This lack of correlation suggests that reason is not a cognitive faculty that is closely tied to intelligence, but rather a separate tool that evolved for a different purpose.
Another argument against reason as a cognitive faculty is the prevalence of bias and motivated reasoning. People tend to be more likely to accept arguments that align with their beliefs and to reject arguments that challenge their beliefs. This suggests that reason is not a tool for discovering truth, but rather a tool for confirming existing beliefs. Studies have shown that people are more likely to be swayed by emotionally charged arguments, and that emotional appeals can lead to more biased and irrational decisions. Furthermore, people tend to seek out information that confirms their preexisting beliefs, and avoid or dismiss information that contradicts them.
Moreover, human cognitive system is prone to fallacies and errors in reasoning, which undermines the idea of reason as a cognitive faculty that helps people to reach the truth. People tend to engage in confirmation bias, the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. Additionally, people tend to commit logical fallacies, such as the bandwagon effect, false dilemma, and ad hominem attacks, which can lead to irrational and biased decisions.
Taken together, these arguments suggest that reason is not a cognitive faculty in the traditional sense, but rather a separate tool that evolved for a different purpose. Rather than being a logical, unbiased, and objective process that helps people to reach the truth, reason is a tool that is often subject to biases and motivated by self-interest. This is a challenging idea that contradicts long-held beliefs about the nature of reason, but the evidence presented in recent research is convincing and it suggests that a new understanding of reason is needed if we are to fully grasp its nature and purpose.
III. The argument for reason as a communicative tool
The traditional understanding of reason as a cognitive faculty has been challenged by recent research, but it has also led to new insights into the nature and purpose of reason. One of the most prominent new arguments is that reason should be understood as a communicative tool. This argument suggests that reason evolved not to help individuals understand the world or make rational decisions, but rather to help them persuade others.
One of the key pieces of evidence supporting the argument that reason is a communicative tool is the finding that reasoning ability is positively correlated with the ability to persuade others. Studies have shown that individuals who perform well on reasoning tasks are also more likely to be successful at convincing others of their point of view. Another piece of evidence supporting the argument that reason is a communicative tool is the finding that reason is most effective when it is used in a social context. Studies have shown that people are more likely to be convinced by arguments that are presented in a social setting, such as a group discussion, than when they are presented in a solitary setting, such as reading a written argument. This suggests that reason is most effective when it is used to persuade others, rather than when it is used to understand the world or make decisions.
Moreover, the human mind is wired to learn and process information in a social context, this is known as social learning. People tend to learn more efficiently when they are in a social context, and when they are exposed to different perspectives and arguments. This supports the idea that reason evolved to help individuals persuade others and to learn through social interactions.
In conclusion, the argument for reason as a communicative tool suggests that reason is not a cognitive faculty in the traditional sense, but rather a tool that evolved for the purpose of persuasion. This idea challenges traditional notions of reason as a logical, unbiased, and objective process, but it is supported by evidence from recent research. Reasoning ability is positively correlated with the ability to persuade others and people tend to be more convinced by arguments presented in a social context. Additionally, the human mind is wired for social learning, and people tend to learn more efficiently when they are in a social context and exposed to different perspectives and arguments. This supports the idea that reason evolved as a tool for persuasion and social interaction rather than as a tool for understanding the world or making rational decisions.
Furthermore, the communicative function of reason is also supported by the fact that humans are capable of language, and language is a powerful tool for persuasion. The ability to use language to express thoughts and ideas clearly and persuasively is a key aspect of human reasoning, and it has played a crucial role in the development of human societies.
Overall, the argument that reason should be understood as a communicative tool is a compelling one that offers a new perspective on the nature and purpose of reason. It suggests that reason evolved to serve a social function, rather than an individual one, and that it is most effective when used in a social context to persuade others. This idea challenges traditional notions of reason, but it is supported by evidence from recent research and it is a valuable contribution to our understanding of reason and its role in human cognition.
IV. Conclusion
In this essay, we have examined the enigma of reason as presented in the book by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. We have seen that the traditional understanding of reason as a cognitive faculty, as a logical, unbiased, and objective process that helps people to understand the world and make rational decisions, has been challenged by recent research.
In the first section, we discussed the argument against reason as a cognitive faculty, highlighting the lack of correlation between reasoning ability and intelligence, the prevalence of bias and motivated reasoning, and the tendency of humans to engage in fallacies and errors in reasoning. These findings suggest that reason is not a tool for discovering truth, but rather a tool for confirming existing beliefs and serving self-interest.
In the second section, we explored the argument for reason as a communicative tool. This argument suggests that reason evolved not to help individuals understand the world or make rational decisions, but rather to help them persuade others. We discussed the evidence supporting this idea, such as the positive correlation between reasoning ability and the ability to persuade others, the finding that reason is most effective when used in a social context, and the human mind’s inclination towards social learning.
Finally, we can conclude that the enigma of reason is a complex and multifaceted concept that challenges traditional notions of reason as a logical, unbiased, and objective process. The evidence presented in recent research suggests that reason is a tool that evolved for different purposes and it is subject to biases and motivated by self-interest. It is a communicative tool that is most effective when used in a social context to persuade others. Understanding the nature and purpose of reason is a crucial step towards a deeper understanding of human cognition and behavior.
If you want to know more check out
“The Enigma of Reason, by Mercier. H & Sperber. D, 2017” The ideas from which the article was based.
