Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:32:36.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When reasoning is persuasive but wrong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Robert J. Sternberg
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Provost and Senior Vice President, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078. Robert.sternberg@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mercier and Sperber (M&S) are correct that reasoning and argumentation are closely related. But they are wrong in arguing that this relationship is one of evolutionary adaptation. In fact, persuasive reasoning that is not veridical can be fatal to the individual and to the propagation of his or her genes, as well as to the human species as a whole.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 88 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Janis, I. L. (1972) Victims of groupthink. Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969) The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12:125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1993) Dysrationalia: A new specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26(8):501–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanovich, K. E. (2009) What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., ed. (2002) Why smart people can be so stupid. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Reznitskaya, A. & Jarvin, L. (2007) Teaching for wisdom: What matters is not just what students know, but how they use it. London Review of Education 5(2):143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar