The scholastic definition of written argument according to Purdue University is a "genre of writing that requires the student to investigate a topic; collect, generate, and evaluate evidence; and establish a position on the topic in a concise manner." In light of this definition, it arguing almost seems completely benign, and yet, those of us that have been in violent disagreements with our peers know that it can be quite destructive to one's inner peace. So the question is, why do we argue?
The history of the human species is fraught with disagreement. Ever since we were our most primitive selves, before the onset of language or structured reasoning, violence, jealousy, irrationality, and want for survival have all ruled the human psyche. The very definition of arguing supports this idea: "Primarily, argument has two purposes: argument is used to change people's points of view or persuade them to accept new points of view; and argument is used to persuade people to a particular action or new behavior." - UMOC. So, it stands to reason that arguing would become part of our everyday social structure even in a world of intelligent debate. But is it possible that intelligence in fact arose to support arguing?
An article in the NY Times covers the topic of the "Argumentative Theory of Reasoning". As it turns out, a lot of researchers are arguing over this. The gist of the theory is, what if reasoning and intelligence arose as a toolset for settling disagreements? i.e. 'I want this mate, you want it too, but I can tell you why I deserve it more.' or somesuch. This idea that reasoning arose is supported by many social phenomenon, one most apparently being 'Confirmation Bias', or the tendency to search out and find constructs and evidence that support your beliefs rather than ultimately searching for truth. It's easy to see why it would be so hard for us to give up our beliefs if reasoning was ultimately developed to support this very action.
But, some researchers are skeptical. If you consider all of the skills that humans have developed over the our span of existence, while it is a useful visual aid to think of everything as a 'tool' that humankind has developed to overcome some obstacle, it's also prudent to remember that not everything reaches its intended goal on the course of its evolutionary process. So, while it's nice to think that intelligence is a function of argument, intelligence can also be considered the product of many other, even more useful, needs. As John Horgan, a blogger for Scientific American, states, the very reason that we might be attracted to this theory is "less because of its intrinsic merits than because it appeals to their intellectual biases, just as the theory might predict." Which, in itself, is an increasingly complex paradox, simultaneously critiquing acceptance of the theory, while seemingly supporting the idea.
All of these revelations shed only a little bit of light on our propensity for debate. While some theories might claim to know exactly what it is that your co-worker is up to when he or she is fighting with you, it's safe to say, there's some room left for argument.
To read the NY Times article on the Argumentative Theory of Reason, click here.
Check back for more next week, I'll be trying to keep these posts on a regular weekly schedule, as well as providing updates on my upcoming YouTube channel! Thanks for reading, and be sure to share!
No comments:
Post a Comment