According to deliberative theory reasoning revolves around the formulation of well-structured arguments and an open-minded reflection on alternative points of view. However, the cognitive sciences have identified a number of flaws in human reasoning that could be problematic for deliberation as a problem-solving instrument.
Subjective perspectives often bias our reasoning. We tend to unquestioningly endorse information that confirms our initial intuitions, while we contest or disregard views challenging that standpoint. Moreover, evidence from the cognitive sciences suggest that individual capacity for developing well-reasoned arguments, may be disconnected from the ability to understand arguments presented by others. If we are to use different deliberative practices as problem solving tools we need to gain a better understanding of how different flaws in human reasoning affect the deliberative process. By contrasting the expectations of deliberative theory with empirical evidence on people’s capacity for deliberative reasoning this paper aims to contribute to this discussion.
