Hi TOK Society,

 

  I have a question for you. It has to do with how much one should insist on being cited. On the one hand, one does not want to be a whiner, and many, many people have the experience that their ideas don’t get the citations or attention that they deserve. I certainly have felt that and have tried to CALM MO it and be careful as to not to be egotistical.

 

  At the same time, it is not appropriate, I don’t think, to be completely ignored and that is what I feel has occurred. So here is the story:

 

  In 2013, I saw an article in a prominent journal, Brain and Behavior Sciences that offered a new theory on the evolution of reasoning that framed it in terms of argumentation and persuasion. Namely, the authors argued that we humans were evolved reasoners so that we could persuade others in arguments. As soon as I saw the article, I contacted the first author, Hugo Mercier, and shared with him my frame. We had a few exchanges (see below).

 

  Well, I just picked up a 2017 book, The Enigma of Reason, that offers an “original, new” theory on why and how humans reason. The central thesis is an evolutionary psychology framework where “reason has two main functions, that of producing reasons for justifying oneself and that of producing arguments to convince others. These two functions rely on the same kind of reasons and are closely related.” (p. 8). The focus is on how reason giving is crucial in social arrangements and for social influence. I am cited nowhere in the book.

 

  I am curious as to what the authors’ justification is for not citing my work. It is one thing to not be aware; I can grant that. But to be contacted by me and to be given the justification framework which has been in print since 2003 and to move one’s theory from a focus on argumentation to a more central focus on justification and not cite existing work just seems to violate basic rules of academic knowledge production.

 

Would welcome thoughts.

 

Best,

Gregg