The Problem with the Way Scientists Study Reason

There's a recent work that does a great job explaining why humans have a difficult time reasoning.

Humans don't have "Reason". They have "Reasons", and it is difficult to construct reason on top of this.

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2019/02/01/reason/

this makes sense. One more to add : typical discussions tend to ignore kinaesthetic reasoning, as most forms of it are ill adapted to university and thus tend not to be present in initial samples.

I might be using terms wrong. But the kind of thinking useful in fixing cars is not a kind of reasoning that is common in first year university - or at least not discussions at that level. It's entirely probable I'm missing a whole layer, but I find that there's a hole in discussions about reason and perspective that misses a lot of people that are family. Oh and me, largely. I spent enough time wrangling wrenches, spinning spanners and driving forklifts....

Btw : I suspect more of the discussion along the lines of the attached article would remedy said hole. It's asking the right questions for a change that people like I knew a lot of my life could better answer.

reason works best when people argue with each other rather than reason alone, and that we evaluate arguments more objectively than we make them -> mind blown

I have that feeling that I've already read this article some time ago.

Not enough in examples of ethology aware tests for animals