Emma doesn’t have much practically at stake in how this question turns out, but she wants to win the argument about the minimum wage. There’s heated back-and-forth in an economics journal in which Emma, an economics professor, argues that the minimum wage should be increased against others who believe that it should remain the same. He doesn’t feel the need or desire to defend the belief, seek out further evidence for it, or avoid evidence against it.Įmma’s economics beliefs (combative ⇏ motivated) When pressed on whether he thinks it actually works, he just says “well, we all have our opinions”. Here are two initial cases to illustrate why I think combative reasoning isn’t the same as motivated reasoning:Īlan’s astrological beliefs (non-combative ⇏ non-motivated)Īlan believes in astrology because he gets comfort from the belief. Seek out evidence to fortify and defend your beliefsĪssume for now that if you have each of these properties, you’re engaging in what I’ll call combative reasoning.
In other words, people for whom the following are true:įinding out you’re wrong means suffering a defeat I’m going to focus on the first, third, and fourth of these properties.
0 kommentar(er)
