Can evolution prove the virtues of deliberation over debate?

Recent research from the US has sparked controversy about the role of reason in deliberation and debate. The traditional view is that human capacity for reasoning has evolved to let people reach beyond mere perception in search of truths that help them survive. This researcher suggests, however, that reason evolved instead to help humans win arguments and defeat opponents.

The research team investigated the question as a way to explain human tendencies which those involved in science debates may recognise: people’s determination to pick out evidence which supports their arguments and ignore the rest, in a so-called ‘confirmation bias’. In a political application of their theory, they argue that the skills and assessments used in democratic decision-making will produce the best form of government, as people learn to pick out the soundest arguments most likely to win.

Crucially, however, they also suggest that reasoned discussion is most likely in smaller, cooperative environments rather than in traditional adversarial debates where opponents are expected to score points rather than seek consensus and explore options.

This theory suggests that dialogues, such as those run by Sciencewise, can produce better reasoning and superior results to political debate. However, this poses questions: Would it be possible or desirable for dialogue to replace traditional political debates? If not, how could some of the characteristics and benefits of deliberative dialogue be applied in the political arena?
Contribute to the Sciencewise Forum.