> We claim that reasoning did not evolve to allow the lone reasoner to find the truth. We think it evolved to argue. Argue over what? One can easily argue (np

> We claim that reasoning did not evolve to allow the lone reasoner to find the truth. We think it evolved to argue. Argue over what? One can easily argue (npi, and I will) that reasoning evolved in the individual to aid understanding, to comprehend. You first need to hold a point of view before you can argue that position and collectively reason about an object. You seem to give legs to your position by substituting "truth" for "understanding". A reminder that we humans collectively have "understood", "communicated", and wrote tomes on all sorts of falsehoolds. Reasoning has nothing to do with "truth" in principle.