Reasoning serves argumentation in children ( reasoning biases (4.1…
Reasoning serves argumentation in children
4.1 confiramation bias
An evolved feature of reasoning. Children have that too. Due to lack of motivation to argue. One always like to falsify opposite view.
Confirmation bias can serve discussion/critical thinking, as long as we are willing to evaluate different views and change ours.
4.2 motivated reasoning
rationalization: we find reasons to be prepared for arguing (anticipating a dialogic context, and mostly to find arguments that support their opinion)
4.3 reasoning and decision-making
dual process theory believes thinking about pros and cons helps make a better decision; the author believes reasoning prefers a justifiable decision to a good one
Children reason less before making decisions, therefore explains why they make better and unbiased decisions than adults.
Reasoning is not a mere cognitive/intelligence activity; it is fundamentally a social ability
the argumentative theory of reasoning
1.1 intuitive and reflective inference
1.2 the argumentative function of reasoning
dual process claims reasoning is for epistemic advance; but reasoning is slow and costly; often leads to poor decision
Sperber (2001) epistemic vigilance: evolved out of evolutionary purpose (sender and receiver)
Predictions: 1. we should know how to argue with reasoning 2. reasoning is better when in discussion than on one's own 3. we argue in favor of our own side 4. we reason for what we already believe or decide 5. reasoning leads to the easiest-to-justify not the best decision
1.3 the role of developmental evidence
evidence in children is needed to support the evolutionary theory of argumentation
children's argumentative skills
Children can understand and evaluate and produce arguments at early ages.
children's argumentative skills are often observed to be poor because: 1. reasoning is satisficing 2. need context/motivation to argue
collaborative learning and reasoning
3.1 the benefit: research on cooperative learning is robust
3.2 arguing as a natural source of motivation: Why group reasoning is helpful? Refute 1. groups are no special motivators than others 2. groups improve performance in general 3. groups allow children to use pedagogical ability
The defended view: group setting improves performance because it provides the motivation and context needed for reasoning (people reason the best when they disagree)
The main function of reasoning is to produce arguments to convince others rather than to find the best decision. Thus, reasoning will drive people towards decisions for which they can argue/justify, not decisions that are rational, accurate, moral.
Confirmation bias is natural. Reasoning itself is a potential source of new mistakes; it tends to rationalize intuition rather than to correct them
Reasoning works best in group setting. Such a theory explains a lot of observation ( poor performance on reasoning tasks)