Use good reasoning to make your own good
decisions or arguments
What is
a good thinker? Look up The Mind's Best Work by D. N. Perkins (1981)
for outstanding examples, but for ordinary, everyday thinkers Ruggiero (1975)
says:
- He/she has good ability--a
vivid imagination and accurate intuition.
- He/she tries to understand
the issue, including noting and questioning
his/her own reaction to the issue before accepting his/her first
impressions.
- He/she carefully decides
what evidence is needed to solve the problem and gathers the data
accurately.
- He/she draws a tentative
conclusion based on the facts, avoiding "pat" and emotionally
appealing answers. 11511n136l
In the
simplest sense, one might say that the best way to win an argument is to be
right (see chapter 13). Being "on the side of truth" gives you
enormous advantage. But we can never know the truth for sure. That is why
scientists speak a special language, such as "the data suggests...,"
"the difference is significant at the .05 level" and so on. A
scientist is never certain; only true believers (basing their opinions on
faith) are certain.
If a man's actions are
not guided by thoughtful conclusions, then they are guided by inconsiderate
impulse, unbalanced appetite, caprice, or the circumstances of the moment.
-John Dewey
In
contrast to the poor arguments discussed in step 1, Missimer (1986) says Good
Arguments have these characteristics:
- Define your terms and the
issue clearly, then state your claim--what you believe to be true or
should be done--and give your reasons. This is the essence of an argument, it consists of an issue, conclusions, and
reasons.
- A critical thinker,
listening to an argument, will look for alternative arguments and try to
improve the reasoning. Try arguing for the opposite conclusion. Try
opposing the reasons given by the other person. Try acknowledging the
validity of the opponent's reasons, but argue that your reasons for a
different conclusion are stronger than his/her reasons. If that isn't
possible, look for exceptions, places where his/her reasoning doesn't hold
up, e.g. you say school/work is boring, but Jane/John loves school/work.
Look for big factors that have been overlooked or for the strongest-case
kind of argument. Finally, maybe it is clear that more evidence is needed
before a conclusion can be reached, in which case suggest some
fact-finding experimentation.
- Ask, "How good is the
evidence?" Evidence may be based on scientific experimentation,
after-the-fact correlations (smoking and cancer), case studies (the
effects of divorce on children), or an appeal to the most convincing
situation (torture is justified to save hundreds of lives). Doubt any
claim that something has been "proven;" scientists say, "the evidence to date suggests...." Search for and
collect evidence for a different conclusion. Evaluate the data, the
supporting facts, and the reasoning; ask yourself repeatedly how strongly
the conclusion is supported by the evidence.
When
reasoning deductively, you start with a statement about "all,"
"every" or "only," and the conclusion logically follows:
(1) Everyone in my group of friends likes rock music.
(2) Bill is in my group. (3) Therefore, Bill likes rock. The real question is
if (1), the generalization, is accurate.
When
using another form of reasoning called inductive, you start with some specific
observations and draw generalizations: (1) I noticed that many students in my
school like rock music. (2) Therefore, "most" students like rock
music. The question here is: Have you made enough accurate observations to
warrant making the "inductive leap" to most students in your
school? to students in the state? to
students everywhere in the world? Statisticians use careful sampling techniques
and statistics to make accurate predictions, such as what people will buy or
how they will vote.
- Look for the assumptions
being made. If someone says, "Abortion is murder," one has to
question the term murder. The dictionary says murder is the killing of one
human being by another. When is a fetus a human being? When its heart
beats (15 days)? When it has brain waves (4th month)? When it has a 50-50
chance of surviving on its own without massive medical assistance? When
he/she is born at full-term? These are unprovable personal opinions,
individual beliefs, but they are critical to the idea of murder.
Unfortunately, emotional issues, like "Abortion is murder," get
infused with dogmatic religious beliefs which the believers would like to
force on others.
If
someone says, "Students are either serious or party animals," the
assumption is being made that students can not be both serious and party-lovers
and that students can not be disinterested in both studies and parties.
In most
arguments, there are many assumptions about both values and facts. Many are
subtle, e.g. that hiring the "best person" is better than affirmative
action, that personal gain is of more value than serving others, that
expressing anger reduces future anger, and so on. Uncover the assumptions being
made and decide if you agree with them.
Rather than being a hostile debater and trying to win, try
to think constructively, i.e. by thinking together perhaps you and the other
person can come closer to the truth.
