Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 513–524 | Cite as

Scientists’ Argumentative Reasoning

  • Hugo Mercier
  • Christophe Heintz
Article

Abstract

Reasoning, defined as the production and evaluation of reasons, is a central process in science. The dominant view of reasoning, both in the psychology of reasoning and in the psychology of science, is of a mechanism with an asocial function: bettering the beliefs of the lone reasoner. Many observations, however, are difficult to reconcile with this view of reasoning; in particular, reasoning systematically searches for reasons that support the reasoner’s initial beliefs, and it only evaluates these reasons cursorily. By contrast, reasoners are well able to evaluate others’ reasons: accepting strong arguments and rejecting weak ones. The argumentative theory of reasoning accounts for these traits of reasoning by postulating that the evolved function of reasoning is to argue: to find arguments to convince others and to change one’s mind when confronted with good arguments. Scientific reasoning, however, is often described as being at odds with such an argumentative mechanisms: scientists are supposed to reason objectively on their own, and to be pigheaded when their theories are challenged, even by good arguments. In this article, we review evidence showing that scientists, when reasoning, are subject to the same biases as are lay people while being able to change their mind when confronted with good arguments. We conclude that the argumentative theory of reasoning explains well key features of scientists’ reasoning and that differences in the way scientists and laypeople reason result from the institutional framework of science.

Keywords

Science Reasoning Argumentation 

References

  1. Azzouni J (2007) How and why mathematics is unique as a social practice. In: Perspectives on mathematical practices. Springer, pp 3–23. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-5034-8_1
  2. Barnes B, Bloor D, Henry J (1996) Scientific knowledge: a sociological analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloor D (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloor D (1997) Remember the strong program? Sci Technol Hum Values 22(3):373–385Google Scholar
  5. Boudon R (1995) Le juste et le vrai. Fayard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen IB (1985) Revolution in science. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole S (1995) Voodoo sociology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 775(1):274–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins H, Pinch T (2005) Dr. Golem: how to think about medicine. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunbar K (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In: Sternberg RJ, Davidson JE (eds) The nature of insight. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 365–395Google Scholar
  10. Dunbar K (1997) How scientists think: online creativity and conceptual change in science. In: Ward TB, Smith SM, Vaid S (eds) Conceptual structures and processes: emergence discovery and change. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 461–493Google Scholar
  11. Evans JSBT (2003) In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci 7(10):454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fugelsang JA, Stein CB, Green AE, Dunbar KN (2004) Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. Can J Exp Psychol (Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale) 58(2):86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giere RN (2002) Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In: Carruthers P, Stitch S, Siegal M (eds) Cognitive basis of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  14. Hahn U, Oaksford M (2007) The rationality of informal argumentation: a bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychol Rev 114(3):704–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall AR (1996) Isaac Newton: adventurer in thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heintz C (2013) Scaffolding on core cognition. In: Caporael L, Wimsatt WC, Griesemer J (eds) Developing scaffolds in evolution, culture, and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holton GJ (1978) The scientific imagination: case studies. CUP ArchiveGoogle Scholar
  18. Horwich P (1982) Probability and evidence. CUP ArchiveGoogle Scholar
  19. Howson C, Urbach P (2005) Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach. Open Court, Peru, ILLGoogle Scholar
  20. Hull DL, Tessner PD, Diamond AM (1978) Planck’s principle. Science 202(4369):717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klayman J, Ha Y (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychol Rev 94:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knorr Cetina K (1991) Epistemic cultures: forms of reason in science. Hist Polit Econ 23(1):105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koehler JJ (1993) The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 56(1):28–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions, 50th anniversary edn. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn D (1991) The skills of arguments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn D, Crowell A (2011) Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychol Sci 22(4):545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lakatos I (1970). History of science and its rational reconstructions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1970, 91–136. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/495757
  29. Latour B (1993) The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin SG, Stephan PE, Walker MB (1995) Planck’s principle revisited: a note. Soc Stud Sci 25(2):275–283Google Scholar
  31. Magnani L, Nersessian NJ (2002) Model-based reasoning: science, technology, values. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mahoney MJ (1977) Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cogn Therapy Res 1(2):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahoney MJ, DeMonbreun BG (1977) Psychology of the scientist: an analysis of problem-solving bias. Cogn Therapy Res 1(3):229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mancosu P (1999) Between Vienna and Berlin: the immediate reception of Godel’s incompleteness theorems. Hist Philos Log 20(1):33–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mercier H (2013) Using evolutionary thinking to cut across disciplines: the example of the argumentative theory of reasoning. In: Zentall T, Crowley P (eds) Comparative decision making. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Mercier H, Heintz C (2013) The place of evolved cognition in scientific thinking. Religion Brain Behav 3(2):128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mercier H, Sperber D (2011a) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav Brain Sci 34(2):57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mercier H, Sperber D (2011b) Argumentation: its adaptiveness and efficacy. Behav Brain Sci 34(2):94–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nersessian N (2008) Creating scientific concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  40. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomena in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2:175–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nitecki MH, Lemke JL, Pullman HW, Johnson ME (1978) Acceptance of plate tectonic theory by geologists. Geology 6(11):661–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Okada T, Simon HA (1997) Collaboration discovery in a scientific domain. Cogn Sci 21(2):109–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oreskes N (1988) The rejection of continental drift. Hist Stud Phys Biol Sci 18(2):311–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osbeck LM, Nersessian NJ, Malone KR, Newstetter WC (2013) Science as psychology: sense-making and identity in science practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Pauling L, Herman ZS (1989) Criteria for the validity of clinical trials of treatments of cohorts of cancer patients based on the Hardin Jones principle. Proc Natl Acad Sci 86(18):6835–6837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Perkins DN (1985) Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. J Educ Psychol 77:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petty RE, Wegener DT (1998) Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Gilbert D, Fiske S, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp 323–390Google Scholar
  48. Pickering A (1980) The role of interests in high-energy physics. In: Knorr K, Krohn R, Whitley R (eds) The social process of scientific investigation. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Planck M (1968) Scientific autobiography and other papers. Citadel Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Principe L (2004) Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy in light of the new historiography of Alchemy. In: Force JE, Hutton S (eds) Newton and Newtonianism: new studies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 205–219Google Scholar
  51. Resnick LB, Salmon M, Zeitz CM, Wathen SH, Holowchak M (1993) Reasoning in conversation. Cognit Instr 11(3/4):347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shapin S (1991) “The mind is its own place”: science and solitude in seventeenth-century England. Sci Context 4(01):191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119(1):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sperber D (1997) Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind Lang 12(1):67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sperber D (2001) An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philos Top 29:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sperber D, Mercier H (2012) Reasoning as a social competence. In: Landemore H, Elster J (eds) Collective wisdom. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Stanovich KE (2004) The Robot’s rebellion. Chicago University Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thagard P, Nowak G (1990) The conceptual structure of the geological revolution. In: Shrager J, Langley P (eds) Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, pp 27–72Google Scholar
  59. Wray KB (2011) Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Sciences CognitivesUniversité de NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive ScienceCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations