Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 29:1 (2022) ► pp.111–134

Modular vs. diagrammatic reasoning

The pragmatist side of human understanding

| Russian State University for the Humanities, | National Research University Higher School of Economics,
| Hong Kong Baptist University, | Tallinn University of Technology, | National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Mercier and Sperber (MS) have ventured to undermine an age-old assumption in logic, namely the presence of premise-conclusion structures, in favor of two novel claims: that reasoning is an evolutionary product of a reason-intuiting module in the mind, and that theories of logic teach next to nothing about the mechanisms of how inferences are drawn in that module. The present paper begs to differ: logic is indispensable in formulating conceptions of cognitive elements of reasoning, and MS is no less exempt from taking notice of premise-conclusion structures than the commonplace theories of reasoning are. Our counterclaim is realized in terms of diagrammatic reasoning dating back to Charles Peirce’s pragmaticism. The upshot is that pragmatist logic restores the premise-conclusion structures in argumentation, supplants reason-intuition module with logical content, and validates good reasoning as an indispensable resource evident to all rational minds that claim ownership of reason and understanding.
Keywords: reasoning, inference, modular mind, Mercier & Sperber, Peirce, pragmaticism, logical diagrams, logical graphs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sperber and Mercier: What human reasoning is
  • 3.Peirce’s habits: The schemata and skeleta of reasoning
  • 4.Graphical representation of reasoning
  • 5.Discussion on MS and diagrammatic reasoning
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Declaration
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21002.pie
References (55)
References
Bellucci, Francesco & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2016. Existential graphs as an instrument of logical analysis: Part I. Alpha. The Review of Symbolic Logic 9(2). 209–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Two dogmas of diagrammatic reasoning: A view from existential graphs. In Kathleen A. Hull & Richard K. Atkins (eds.), Peirce on perception and reasoning: From icons to logic, 174–196. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2021. An analysis of existential graphs: Part II. Beta. Synthese 1991. 7705–7726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Existential graphs: History and interpretation. In Cornelis De Waal (ed.), Oxford handbook for Charles S. Peirce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beni, Majid & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2021. Aligning the free-energy principle with Peirce’s logic of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 111. 94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobrova, Angelina & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2019. Thoughts, things and logical guidance. In Mohammad Shafiei & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (eds.), Peirce and Husserl: Mutual insights on logic, mathematics and cognition, 43–58. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020a. Two cognitive systems, two implications, and selection tasks. In Javier Camara & Martin Steffen (eds.), Software engineering and formal methods (Lecture notes in computer science 12226), 195–205. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Two implications and dual-process theories of reasoning. In Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen, Peter Chapman, Leonie Bosveld-de Smet, Valeria Giardino, James Corter & Sven Linker (eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Lecture notes in computer science 12169), 404–407. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. 1895. What the Tortoise said to Achilles. Mind 4(14). 278–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Champagne, Marc & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2020. Why images cannot be arguments, but moving ones might. Argumentation 34(2). 207–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chater, Nick & Oaksford, Mike. 2018. The enigma is not entirely dispelled: A review of Mercier and Sperber’s “The enigma of reason”. Mind & Language 33(5). 525–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruz, Nicole, Jean Baratgin, Mike Oaksford & David E. Over. 2015. Bayesian reasoning with ifs and ands and ors . Frontiers in Psychology 61. 192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2018. The enduring enigma of reason. Mind & Language 33(5). 513–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friston, Karl. 2010. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 111. 127–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haydon, Nathan & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2021. Residuation in Peirce’s existential graphs. In Amrita Basu, Gem Stapleton, Sven Linker, Catherine Legg, Emmanuel Manalo & Petrucio Viana (eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Lecture notes in computer science 12909), 229–237. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hull, Kathleen A. 2017. The iconic Peirce: Geometry, spatial intuition, and visual imagination. In Kathleen A. Hull & Richard Kenneth Atkins (eds.), Peirce on perception and reasoning: From icons to logic, 147–173. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Paul N. 2002. Peirce, logic diagrams, and the elementary operations of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 8(1). 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 2015. From natural logic to natural reasoning. In Alexander Gelbukh (ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (Lecture notes in computer science 9041), 295–309. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, Peter & Sašo Živanović. 2022. Language, form, and logic: In pursuit of natural logic’s Holy Grail. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ma, Minghui & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. 2016. Proof analysis of Peirce’s alpha system of graphs. Studia Logica 105(3). 625–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Gamma graph calculi for modal logics. Synthese 195(8). 3621–3650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. A weakening of alpha graphs: Quasi-boolean algebras. In Peter Chapman, Gem Stapleton, Amirouche Moktefi, Sarah PerezKriz & Francesco Bellucci (eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 10871), 549–564. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Peirce’s calculi for classical propositional logic. The Review of Symbolic Logic 13(3). 509–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2). 57–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The enigma of reason: A new theory of human understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Øhrstrøm, Peter. 1997. Peirce and the quest for gamma graphs. In Dickson Lukose, Harry Delugach, Mary Keeler, Leroy Searle & John Sowa (eds.), Conceptual structures: fulfilling Peirce’s dream (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 1257), 357–370. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1958. Collected papers of Charles S. Peirce (vols. 1–81). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cited by volume and paragraph number.Google Scholar
1967. Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin. Annotated catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst. Cited by manuscript number.Google Scholar
1982. Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A chronological edition. Peirce Edition Project, vol. 1 (1857–1866). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1993. Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A chronological edition. Peirce Edition Project, vol. 5 (1884–1886). Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1993. The essential Peirce 1. Ed. by the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1998. The essential Peirce 2. Ed. by the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2019–2022. Logic of the future: Writings on existential graphs (vol. 21), edited by Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko. 2003. Games as formal tools versus games as explanations in logic and science. Foundations of Science 8(4). 317–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Signs of logic. Peircean themes on the philosophy of language, games, and communication. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2011. Existential graphs: What the diagrammatic logic of cognition might look like. History and Philosophy of Logic 32(3). 265–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Pragmaticism revisited: Co-evolution and the methodology of social sciences. Cognitio 14(1). 123–136.Google Scholar
. 2014. Logical and linguistic games from Peirce to Grice to Hintikka. Teorema 331. 121–136.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Exploring the beta quadrant. Synthese 1921. 941–970. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Two papers on existential graphs by Charles S. Peirce. Synthese 1921. 881–922. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Is there a general diagram concept? In Sybille Krämer & Christina Ljundberg (eds.), Thinking in diagrams: The semiotic basis of human cognition, 121–138. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2018. Conjectures and abductive reasoning in games. Journal of Applied Logics 5(5). 1121–1143.Google Scholar
. 2021. Abduction and diagrams. Logic Journal of the IGPL 29(4). 447–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko & Francesco Bellucci. 2016. H. Paul Grice’s lecture notes on Charles S. Peirce’s theory of signs. International Review of Pragmatics 81. 82–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Habits of reasoning. On the grammar and critics of logical habits. In Donna E. West & Myrene Anderson (eds.), Habit: Before and beyond consciousness, 265–282. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko, Francesco Bellucci, Angelina Bobrova, Mohammad Shafiei & Nathan Haydon. 2020. The blot. In Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen, Peter Chapman, Leonie Bosveld-de Smet, Valeria Giardino, James Corter & Sven Linker (eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Lecture notes in computer science 12169), 225–238. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko & Majid Beni. 2021. Active inference and abduction. Biosemiotics 141. 499–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, Stephen. 1995. Thinking about logic: An introduction to the philosophy of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Don D. 1973. The existential graphs of Charles S. Peirce. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Daniel & Hugo Mercier. 2018. Why a modular approach to reason? Mind & Language 33(5). 533–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenning, Keith & Michael Van Lambalgen. 2008. Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, Kim. 2018. Why reason? Hugo Mercier’s and Dan Sperber’s “The enigma of reason: A new theory of human understanding”. Mind & Language 33(5). 502–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugden, Roger. 2003. The logic of team reasoning. Philosophical Explorations 61. 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman. 1983. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychology Review 901. 293–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeman, Jay. 1964. The graphical logic of C. S. Peirce. Chicago: University of Chicago PhD dissertation.