Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory¶
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57-111.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Confirmation Bias
- .
This sourceArgues reasoning is for producing/evaluating arguments, making myside (confirmation) bias adaptive for argument-winning but maladaptive for solo truth-seeking, and predicting amplification among like-minded reasoners (Target article pp. 57–74; 57–111 includes open peer commentary.) Live-verified.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract backs the argumentative theory's account of myside/confirmation bias, but it says nothing about group amplification, selective exposure, group polarization, echo chambers, social media, or sorted communities.
“This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist.”
- .
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:4cdbd5d07ebd · see in the full table