This article regards the essence of reasoning and its most common types.
Keywords: critical thinking, induction, deduction, argumentation.
В этой статье говорится об аргументации и его распространенных видах.
Ключевые слова: критическое мышление, индукция, дедукция, аргументация.
It is crucial to define what term thinking is when talking about reasoning. Generally, thinking is described as 'think about the issues', to 'analyze in more depth', to 'use reasoning', or to 'be rational' and no less as to have a good 'argument' or that to 'explain in detail' when composing a report or an essay. But can you switch your thinking to smart mode? The answer is, fortunately, yes.
Thinking smart is all about reasoning. Reasoning is the ground of much of our thinking. It is best defined as a process of comprehending and exploring the connections between the numerous events, objects, and ideas in our world. None of these mentioned ‘items’ can have connotation in or of itself. And the reason behind this is that an item can only be understood in relation to other ones. What are the merits of reasoning? Undoubtedly, the most obvious advantage is that reasoning enables one to surpass countless independent events, objects and ideas. With the help of reasoning, one can discover that all independent items are interrelated and what knowledge do we possess on any particular object is subjected by our knowledge of other objects. Frequently the relations are evident, other times they are more complicated to perceive at once. Reasoning includes identifying and conveying these relations or connections so that each separate event, object,
or idea is comprehensible in terms of other events, objects, or ideas.
One can not possibly deny the huge significance which reasoning possesses. Renowned Australian explorer asserts this fact in his quote: “You should carefully study the Art of Reasoning, as it is what most people are very deficient in, and I know few things more disagreeable than to argue, or even converse with a man who has no idea of inductive and deductive philosophy”. Reasoning is not an inherent trait; it must be learned and can be honed with practice.
Let me introduce an easy example of reasoning at its simplest. Assume you have a pen on one table and pencil on the other. At fist glance these two objects appear to be different, each would seem to be coherent solely in its own terms—that is, in a way peculiar to each pen and each pencil. However, we are better able to understand them and to communicate what we think about them when we start to make connections. Here are some examples:
–A pen is not a pencil.
–A pen and a pencil are similar: both of them are tools for writing.
–This pen will be, roughly speaking, the same as all the other pens I have written with.
–If I can write with this pen, then I can assume thatgenerally I will be able to write with other pens
–You should write with this pen if you need to write something down.
Clearly, these are just a few simple connections between two writing tools, there are also connections between pen and pencil and other writing tools in general.
As have been mentioned, reasoning is primarily about the use and communication of knowledge. However, it is not limited to that; it is also about people: the authors and audiences of arguments, explanations, and so on. And it is in relation to the human, social aspect of reasoning that we must really be 'smart'. Reasoning cannot be defined just a type of formal logic or as an abstract way of thinking about notions. It is constantly a social act accounted by the fact that people consistently apply reasoning for specific purposes (whether they are political, economic and so on). Every person has different views on the issues being discussed. Factors such as age, race, gender, ethnicity and class all affect the broad structures upon which people depend on in reasoning. There is a risk of failing to contemplate adequately if we dismiss this social aspect of reasoning. The connections and relations between ideas, events, proposals, and so on only become meaningful in the context of how, when, where, and why they are communicated with others.
What kinds of reasoning are there?
Deductive and inductive reasoning
Common error
The distinction of deduction from induction is one of the more vexed issues in contemporary logic. How and why we differentiate these two notions is influenced by flawed views and justifiable controversies. One should bear in mind that deduction and induction are not form of reasoning from general to specific premises and from specific to general conclusions respectively. This is a commonly believed fallacy. The difference of these two terms does not lie in general or specific reasoning but it lies in conclusion on the basis of the premises.
Deduction
One the characteristics of deductive reasoning is that a relationship between two or more premises is affirmed in conclusion. It must be certain for the reason it shows a straightforward relation that exists there (but not directly obvious) in the sequence of the claims that function as premises. For instance:
– She is not 16; citizens under 16 in USA cannot drive. Thus she cannot drive.
In the argument presented above, there are three crucial terms. The first is age (under 16); the next is driving; and the last is T. The role of conclusion is just to re-assert implied relations of the premises. These premises may be conveyed with the help of the formula:
–А is one of В; В cannot do С; therefore А cannot do С.
Logical structure of the argument is related to the certitude with which the conclusion is stated. This certitude is not related to the truth or otherwise of the premises.
The conclusion is ensured both by the truth of the premises and by the reasoning form if the premises are absolutely correct.
Deductive thinking is kind of mind game. If one assumes that premises are indeed true then he or she has to look for deductive entailment (where the conclusion is ensured by the premises). Correct premises imply that conclusion is logically followed from them. Only then one can go back and check whether there are some doubts about the premises.
Induction
Compared to deduction, induction presents a conclusion which may or may not be true on condition the premises are correct. How big a chance that conclusion is true is based on the weight of evidence given in the premises. The conclusion is an inductive argument is only supported by the premises; not ensured by them.
Oftentimes, the discrepancy lies in the way that an inductive conclusion does not express an implicit relation but goes beyond the premises to create absolutely a new claim. For example:
Just imagine you are conducting a murder investigation. Mr Green's body has been found stabbed to death. In the course of your investigations, you discover that:
Jack claims he saw Alex stab Ross. Alex is known to have hated Ross.
Ross’s blood is found on Alex’s hands. Mr. Brown heard Ross cry “Alex is stabbing me!”
This claims might presented as a proof that Alex is the one who killed Ross. Nonetheless, can it absolutely true? No. To boost the odds that you are right in thinking Alex is the murderer you may only collect evidence. If this case were to go to court, the jury’s tests to sentence or not sentence would be one of ‘justifiable doubts’. The jury would not have to be 100percent certain, simply convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex was guilty. Thus, despite the fact that one would accuse Alex as if he or she were convinced he was the killer, in entirely logical terms one would not have deduced that conclusion from the proof. He or she would have induced it and therefore constantly be partly short of complete certitude. The claim which functions as the conclusion in this argument 'Alex killed Ross' is not absolutely implicit in the premises, as we shall see...
You, being a good detective, carry out some more checking and reveal that:
Jack told people Alex hated Ross. Alex got bloody trying to help Ross. Jack disguised himself as Alex to do the job.
Consequently, the probability now is that Jack might be the real murderer. Once again, this might be not absolutely true but you would possibly now accuse Jack. Induction is the process of collecting proof and making predictions or evaluate most likely conclusion with the help of evidence. It is not about making statements about something already included in the premises (however not apparent).
What to conclude here is that if one thinks about the types of perplexed arguments, what he or she might notice is that, towards the end of a complex argument, the reasoning will become deductive, cautiously describing a logical set of relations that, in the earlier parts of the complex argument have been set with inductive reasoning.
References:
- Smart thinking: skills for critical understanding and writing, 1997–2004/Matthew Allen.- Oxford University Press-2004.- I,1p.
- Smart thinking: skills for critical understanding and writing, 1997–2004/Matthew Allen.- Oxford University Press-2004.- VII,89 p.
