Reason & Impediments to Good Reasining

Reason, Rhetoric, and Argument Analysis

GOAL: to determine whether the premises of an argument provide good reason to believe that its conclusion is true. In real life, we’re not always interested in achieving this goal.

Sometimes, we might want to be comforted, or amused, or morally challenged by written (or spoken) words.

There are various non-rational ways of dealing with or responding to arguments, e.g.:

·       Credulity [accepting every argument]

·       Contradiction [rejecting every argument]

·       Dogmatism [maintaining beliefs in light of any argument]

·       Skepticism [not taking arguments seriously]

The rational way of responding to an argument involves trying (in good faith, and in a careful, reflective way) to determine whether the premises support the conclusion.

In order to do this, we must maintain an open mind, and think very carefully about (a) what is the strongest version the argument that has been given?, and (b) how strong is it?

Here are some impediments to good (rational) reasoning.

1.    Lacking an adequate vocabulary

In order to effectively analyze arguments, we need the right conceptual tools/vocabulary.

We’ve been mentioning “rational strength” and we have distinguished it from rhetorical power and literary merit.

But, we have not yet said precisely what the “rational strength” of an argument is (or consist in).

Knowing a precise set of concepts of things discussed in any argument, helps us to get a precise definition of “rational strength”.

Having that vocabulary will be crucial for our goal.

2.   The Desire to be “Tolerant” / “Open-Minded”

Being open-minded — in a sense — is important (and a good thing) for successful argument analysis.

But, perhaps ironically, one can be too open-minded.

When we analyze arguments, we have to be willing (in some cases) to say that various sorts of errors or mistakes have been made in the course of a passage/argument.

We may be hesitant to make such judgments — out of a desire to be “tolerant” or “open-minded” (in some sense).

But, there is no real conflict between making such judgments and being “tolerant” and “respectful” of others.

There is nothing intolerant or disrespectful about carefully explaining to others errors you see in their arguments.

The point of argument analysis is not to “put down” the arguments of others. Rather, it is to (ultimately) come to your own conclusion, based on the available evidence.

It might be helpful to think of the arguments we encounter in this class as being “given” to us from an unknown source.

Argument reconstruction is not a personal, but a rational activity — whose aim is to come up with the best arguments on both sides of issues we think about.

Ultimately, it is about rational inquiry into the truth.

3.   Misunderstanding the Point of Argument Analysis

So much of what we hear and read concerns the rhetorical power of arguments, and not their rational strength.

This may make it difficult to overcome the tendency to think of “arguments” in a non-rational way.

One must always remember the point of argument analysis.

Every argument aims to determine the degree to which the premises of an argument rationally support the truth of its conclusion.

Ultimately, we want to find the best arguments in favor of (and against!) any particular statement — with an eye toward rationally determining whether it is true or false.

4.     The Use of “Argument Stoppers”

There are various quick responses to arguments which have the effect of cutting-off discussion and preventing careful rational analysis of the argument in question.

These are called argument stoppers. Examples:

• “Well, that’s a matter of opinion.”

• “Who’s to say what the truth is about that?”

• “That’s a subjective judgment.”

Often, these quips are just shorthand for something like:

• “I would prefer not to think about what you said. I would prefer to continue believing what I have believed up to until now, so I’m going to ignore your argument.”

So, such statements are often (seemingly) polite ways of avoiding thinking about someone’s argument.

In some contexts, there may be some substance to the claim that a judgment is “subjective” or “mere opinion”.

But, these terms tend to be confusing and are oft abused.

Thus, one thing we must do is learn to use terms like “subjective” and “mere opinion” very carefully.

It’s something very subtle, and we must watch out for it.