Plain Language Reasoning Methods
Here is a set of reasoning methods that are written in
plain language, for everyday use.
Here is a set of reasoning methods that are written in
plain language, for everyday use.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Clarifying Names Versus Things
Description: Many times, people will get caught up in a
question like, "What is the essential nature of..." Then
they won't bother dissecting human beings or letting the
evidence of the electron microscope guide them.
Instead, they will rely on "what people say these things
are" or "How people think of these things." We need to
realize that the first question is a study of the things we
call humans, whatever names we use and regardless of
if there is a hard boundary for that study or not. The
second is a discussion of how a label is used, a label
that may have more of a basis for its definition in politics,
bigotry, misunderstanding, and random conventions.
Example: When we talk about what a human being is,
we need to clarify that the usage of the label might
extend to related species or not, like Neaderthals. But
that as we study what we think of as humans, study
actual humans, our definitions should be subject to
correction, and not demand that evidence follow our
habits of language.
It's Not Personal
Description: In many communities, people are raised
to say that some things are personal choice, personal in
a way that can or should not be questioned. One of the
most common is choice of religion, or choice in how one
things of magical things. When people say, "It's a
personal decision" or "It's a matter of personal faith" they
are really shielding their assertions, and the basis for
their decisions from critical examination. Generally
though, when people say this it is very much not
personal. People using this thought shield have often
been influenced heavily by ideological groups, often
driven through peer pressure, to accept certain notions
that are not based in any fact, but absurd conjecture
that is necessary to maintain their group status. They
say, "It's personal" or "It's my personal relationship with
this magical being" because if their ideas were exposed
to examination, and they had to acknowledge the
baselessness of these facts, their assertions would no
longer work as a means of maintaining their group
relationships. Making sure that the basis for our
decisions is not so personal that we can't examine it is
very important if we are to make good decisions.
Example: When people say, "My religious choice is
personal", or "My relationship with "god" is personal,
they are avoiding openly considering a question, and
generally avoiding confronting it themselves. When we
say, "Hey you're right, it wasn't really personal, I was
really just playing along with the group because that's
what I was told it was to be a good person" then we are
beginning to look at our own convictions rationally.
Emotional Understanding
Description: Many people see reasoning and emotions
as opposites or mutually exclusive. This is far from true.
Healthy emotional understanding actually comes from
reasoning, and healthy emotions lead to reasoning.
When we reason through why we feel a certain way
(instead of treating it as an absolute mandate and acting
on it) we are more likely to have new, more relevant, and
more productive emotions. In kind, when we have a
healthy emotional connection to things, we generally
want to understand more about these things and more
naturally choose reasoning to support that
understanding.
Example: When people begin to understand about a
problem like global warming, at first they are emotionally
distant. When they realize the personal implications,
they become emotionally connected and want to learn
as much as they can about the problem and how to
solve it.
Being Reasonable, Really
Description: Often when people have come across a
problem in the way their group thinks, or have had an
insight into a better way to do things, the group
members say, "Let's do it the way we always have. Why
question it, just come along. BE REASONABLE!" They
don't mean, "Reason through this and see what is really
a better way to think about this." In fact they often mean
the exact opposite, the mean, "Let it go. Stop thinking
about this and just accept what we say." To be a
reasoning person, that is to be really reasonable, at
times we will naturally buck conventions, dissapoint the
group, intimidate those who claim authority, and discover
problems with the way things have been traditionally
done and thought. This is the great advantage of
reasoning, that it offers the opportunity to improve, to
learn, and to adapt to new environments.
Example: When Leonardo DaVinci was looking at sea
shells in the mountains nearby, he began to question
the conventional wisdom of the day that said the shells
got their through Noah's flood. This reasoning was
based on the variations in strata, the different types of
sediment, and the sheer volume of sediment in relation
to the purported flood. Leonardo did not arrive at
modern geological and evolutionary understanding, but
from where he was he was able to begin looking in the
right direction to understand the natural world when so
many others around him were enamoured only with the
smoke and mirrors of mythical stories.
Description: Many times, people will get caught up in a
question like, "What is the essential nature of..." Then
they won't bother dissecting human beings or letting the
evidence of the electron microscope guide them.
Instead, they will rely on "what people say these things
are" or "How people think of these things." We need to
realize that the first question is a study of the things we
call humans, whatever names we use and regardless of
if there is a hard boundary for that study or not. The
second is a discussion of how a label is used, a label
that may have more of a basis for its definition in politics,
bigotry, misunderstanding, and random conventions.
Example: When we talk about what a human being is,
we need to clarify that the usage of the label might
extend to related species or not, like Neaderthals. But
that as we study what we think of as humans, study
actual humans, our definitions should be subject to
correction, and not demand that evidence follow our
habits of language.
It's Not Personal
Description: In many communities, people are raised
to say that some things are personal choice, personal in
a way that can or should not be questioned. One of the
most common is choice of religion, or choice in how one
things of magical things. When people say, "It's a
personal decision" or "It's a matter of personal faith" they
are really shielding their assertions, and the basis for
their decisions from critical examination. Generally
though, when people say this it is very much not
personal. People using this thought shield have often
been influenced heavily by ideological groups, often
driven through peer pressure, to accept certain notions
that are not based in any fact, but absurd conjecture
that is necessary to maintain their group status. They
say, "It's personal" or "It's my personal relationship with
this magical being" because if their ideas were exposed
to examination, and they had to acknowledge the
baselessness of these facts, their assertions would no
longer work as a means of maintaining their group
relationships. Making sure that the basis for our
decisions is not so personal that we can't examine it is
very important if we are to make good decisions.
Example: When people say, "My religious choice is
personal", or "My relationship with "god" is personal,
they are avoiding openly considering a question, and
generally avoiding confronting it themselves. When we
say, "Hey you're right, it wasn't really personal, I was
really just playing along with the group because that's
what I was told it was to be a good person" then we are
beginning to look at our own convictions rationally.
Emotional Understanding
Description: Many people see reasoning and emotions
as opposites or mutually exclusive. This is far from true.
Healthy emotional understanding actually comes from
reasoning, and healthy emotions lead to reasoning.
When we reason through why we feel a certain way
(instead of treating it as an absolute mandate and acting
on it) we are more likely to have new, more relevant, and
more productive emotions. In kind, when we have a
healthy emotional connection to things, we generally
want to understand more about these things and more
naturally choose reasoning to support that
understanding.
Example: When people begin to understand about a
problem like global warming, at first they are emotionally
distant. When they realize the personal implications,
they become emotionally connected and want to learn
as much as they can about the problem and how to
solve it.
Being Reasonable, Really
Description: Often when people have come across a
problem in the way their group thinks, or have had an
insight into a better way to do things, the group
members say, "Let's do it the way we always have. Why
question it, just come along. BE REASONABLE!" They
don't mean, "Reason through this and see what is really
a better way to think about this." In fact they often mean
the exact opposite, the mean, "Let it go. Stop thinking
about this and just accept what we say." To be a
reasoning person, that is to be really reasonable, at
times we will naturally buck conventions, dissapoint the
group, intimidate those who claim authority, and discover
problems with the way things have been traditionally
done and thought. This is the great advantage of
reasoning, that it offers the opportunity to improve, to
learn, and to adapt to new environments.
Example: When Leonardo DaVinci was looking at sea
shells in the mountains nearby, he began to question
the conventional wisdom of the day that said the shells
got their through Noah's flood. This reasoning was
based on the variations in strata, the different types of
sediment, and the sheer volume of sediment in relation
to the purported flood. Leonardo did not arrive at
modern geological and evolutionary understanding, but
from where he was he was able to begin looking in the
right direction to understand the natural world when so
many others around him were enamoured only with the
smoke and mirrors of mythical stories.
Currently all entries are © Erik Moore
To submit resources to our editors, please use the contact
MOR button above or click here.
MOR button above or click here.
Page and Icons © Mission of Reason™ all rights reserved. Mission of
Reason™ is a non-profit corporation of the state of Colorado, U.S.A.
Text and images falls under the copyright of the author when indicated.
Reason™ is a non-profit corporation of the state of Colorado, U.S.A.
Text and images falls under the copyright of the author when indicated.
 |  |  |  |
MOR - Resources for Reasoning
