I go over three ways to up your reasoning skills when engaged in discussion/argument. P.S. I need your help on my latest music video campaign here: https://igg.me/at/disobey I'm trying to take my music production to the next level in a cultural pushback against the lockdown, shutdown, and mask/pass tyranny! Please share the link and contribute if you can so we can make this the best video yet! Thank you as always for your GENEROUS support! ~Pho ^^
Catch behind-the-scenes posts and help choose my next video topic at: Patreon
SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/the-pholosopher
Flote https://flote.app/thepholosopher/support
Sources and transcript:
Sources and transcript:
3 Ways to Grow Your Argumentation Reasoning Skills
Number 3: Understanding the difference between Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning.
Inductive and deductive reasoning are descriptions of how someone is processing steps to reach their ultimate claim.
Inductive reasoning is where a person makes observations and then derives an inference from those observations.
For example, if someone is canoeing on a lake and they notice that all the birds they see while out for the day have white feathers, they may make an induction that the lake is home to mostly birds with white feathers.
Of course, further observation may contradict this if it were shown that the white birds were migratory and that birds with other kinds of feathers made their home by the water throughout the year.
Deductive reasoning is where one starts with an assumed premise and draws conclusions from the truth assumed.
For a good example of this, let’s look at this logical syllogism, a three-part deduction:
All soccer goalies wear cleats.
Mark is a soccer goalie.
Therefore, Mark wears cleats.
As you can see, the beginning premise is the assumption of truth from which other categories and labels can be based to draw conclusions.
If the assumed premise is untrue, one may have a valid conclusion, that is, one may follow the logic to the natural end.
However, the outcome may not be sound, that is, both logically valid and factually true.
For example,
All cats are dogs.
Fluffy is a cat.
Therefore, Fluffy is a dog.
While we know this is a valid conclusion, definitionally, cats and dogs are not the same, and so the conclusion is not sound because it’s not true.
Recognizing what kind of reasoning you’re employing in an argument can help you home in on what elements must be strengthened or critiqued in the process.
Number 2: Using the R.A.V.E.N. method to evaluate the source of information.
The R.A.V.E.N. method helps one consider the source of information.
While it may not be dispositive of truth alone, it can help uncover problem areas for further investigation to see if the proponent is able to speak accurately to the topic.
With the acronym R.A.V.E.N.
“R” stands for “Reputation,” that is, asking if the proponent has a reputation for being reliable or honest.
“A” stands for “Ability to See,” that is, asking if the proponent has direct contact with the pertinent observation and is able to understand it readily.
“V” stands for “Vested Interest,” that is, asking if the proponent has something of value at stake that benefits themselves.
“E” stands for “Expertise,” that is, asking if the proponent has sufficient experience in the topic to merit their credibility, especially if the topic is highly technical.
“N” stands for “Neutrality,” that is, asking if the proponent has a special connection with a related project or person where their bias may supersede honest discourse.
When factored together, the R.A.V.E.N. analysis is a great tool to help one think about the source and whether there could be any missing details or conflicts of interest to investigate.
Number 1: Noting the difference between arguments and assertions.
When engaged in an argument, it’s important to watch for unbacked assertions being presented as if they are arguments.
To form an argument, a person needs both a claim or conclusion, that is, the point being asserted, with reasoning backing up the claim that is falsifiable, that is, reasoning that can be checked independently for logical connection and proof.
Ideally, an argument will also bring evidence to the table, that is, something empirical that demonstrates the connection of the claim to the reason.
Breaking this down, an example to show the parts:
A claim: Denial of elective procedures can lead to people dying.
A reason: Because turning away people for cancer and heart screenings can miss deadly conditions.
Evidence: You can see from this study published in JAMA called, “Preserving Elective Surgeries,” how the missed surgeries in 2020 led to preventable deaths occurring.
If someone is only presenting a claim without tying together at least a reason and, ideally some piece of evidence, then they’re not providing an opportunity for others to counter the claim by specifically addressing the reasons and evidence backing the claim.
So, the next time you wish to engage in debate and sharpen your argumentative skills, use these tools to help you more effectively dissect others’ claims and check your own for reasonability and soundness.
SOURCES
Validity and Soundness
https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Critical Thinking for Beginners
https://johnct.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/five-criteria-of-credibility/
LESSON # 1
Arguments, Premises And Conclusions
https://www.uky.edu/~rosdatte/phi120/lesson1a.htm#:~:text=A%20premise%20is%20a%20statement,to%20convince%20the%20reader%2Flistener.&text=These%20are%20your%20premises.
Critical Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpbtRdN7xWUcPT0qWBfC52FubQxcgdgjk
🖤 💛 🖤 💛 🖤 💛 🖤 💛
#freemarket #voluntaryism #libertarian #criticalthinking #thinking #thinkingskills
Cool! I've written quite a bit about this sort of thing, and I have some more to write, but I take a different approach. Care to compare and contrast ideas? I really like your RAVEN method. I'm in the middle of writing an article in which I discuss the exact same topic, but I break it down by the types of people who use such arguments. I'll probably end up using your post as a source.