New York Times on Arguments and Evolution [link]

Evidence, at the level of a single argument in any field that isn't subject to unambiguous experimental tests, is "what seems convincing". That's almost tautological. Careers in these fields -- which make up the vast majority of talky fields out there, incidentally, and thus include the vast majority of arguments that a randomly selected member of the public will ever get into -- aren't made by being right in an abstract sense, but by convincing bosses, investors, and/or members of the public that you're right. Avoiding being manipulated by your opponents is also important, but that has a lot less to do with formal logic and a lot more to do with social dynamics.

Out in the wild, I don't see a whole lot of passion for the mathematical rules of logic and evidence in the practice of people whose job it is to argue with other strong debaters, i.e. lawyers and politicians. Same goes -- in an admittedly more sophisticated way -- for many branches of academia, which is theoretically a reference class made up entirely of people who're well-informed about the rules of logic and evidence, so we're not just dealing with a need to pander here.

What I do see is a lot of complex signaling behavior, a lot of sophistication around the selection and presentation of evidence that favors your side, and a lot of techniques for seeming, or for actually being, sincere in the presentation of your argument. Which is exactly what I'd expect. We're not dealing with predator/prey dynamics here, where the criteria for fit and unfit are unambiguous and large chunks of fitness ultimately come down to physics; we're dealing with a nasty incestuous free-for-all, where fitness is usually socially determined, using brains that're built not for formal logic but for managing personal alliances. What do you think the cheapest route to winning an argument is going to be, most of the time?

Spending a lot of time arguing is very different from optimizing for being persuasive, or for only being persuaded by true arguments. Curi evidently spends a lot more time in argument than most members of this board, but I certainly wouldn't say that it's been helpful for him.

A gazelle that gets caught by a cheetah will die. A person who makes less sound points in a debate and refuses to change their mind can not only insist that they won the argument, they may even preserve more social status by doing so than acknowledging that they were wrong.

...arguments must ultimately be backed by greater correctness...

I'd certainly like to think so! I'm just suspicious of that intuition, especially in myself. The subjective impression that reasoning is for truth-seeking could be because it is. However, if it's not, as the lead article suggests, then we'd still be under the impression that our reasoning is in pursuit of truth and that those who disagree with us are willfully ignoring the truth. So we can't use that intuition as a guide to tell us about what's the case in this situation.

It's also worth noting that people generally aren't convinced by true arguments. They're usually convinced instead by peer pressure and repetition. Presenting a really crushing (!) argument that leaves no logical wiggle room left over can actually make the person who initially disagreed become more certain of their initial position and become resentful toward you. That really makes no sense if reason is supposed to be for truth-pursuit - but it makes a lot of sense if arguments are more about dominance than determining what's real.