

The reason we reason - To win arguments, not for the pursuit of truth. - nikhilgk
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/the-sad-reason-we-reason/

======
corin_

      We are social animals all the way down.
    

Presumably now (and for quite some years, though how far back this extends I
wouldn't personally be able to say) winning arguments is something that we're
meant to do. It helps get your way in life, whether it's when negotiating the
price of a car or part of your job. And 2000 years ago I'm sure there were
plenty of other reasons for being able to win an argument, even if they
weren't buying cars.

Maybe it's too recent in history to be classified as evolution, but certainly
socially we can evolve that quickly, and presumably something like this does
fall under the classification of things that can be influenced by how you are
raised and the society around you?

 _(I'm absolutely no expert on evolution, or how social changes have
influenced our developements, or on pretty much anything I just wrote about.
But from a non-scientific point of view it seems to make sense to me, and I
can say with absolutely confidence than confirmation bias probably didn't
influence my thoughts.)_

------
dmfdmf
So if you are stranded on an island with no one else, reason is pointless? I
don't think so.... I think the so called confirmation "bias" comes from the
fact that the primary mode of reasoning is induction not deduction. The
implicit goal of the confirmation bias is to identify the causal connections
that will convert a probable conclusion to a certain conclusion. For the
Humean skeptics in the audience, yes, the sun will rise tomorrow and we know
it. The authors of this study should learn a little epistemology before
spouting epistemological theories.

