Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Reasoning

-- Valerie Ross Everybody reasons. Our everyday conversations, casual and professional, are most often acts of reasoning that follow a loose set of rules and procedures referred to as informal logic. Universities are institutions of higher reasoning. Each of its disciplines requires a rigorous form of informal logic. A few, such as philosophy and mathematics, insist upon adherence to the rules of formal logic. Reasoning, or critical thinking, requires two things: first, you must distance yourself from your perceptions and experiences sufficiently to put them into words; and second, you must be able to manipulate those words to create and share your understanding of something. Reasoning begins the moment you set out to explain, narrate, or justify an observation, experience or idea. A conversation will seldom be as tightly structured as the explanatory reasons or Nestorian exercises you will be writing, nor are you likely to set up and take down an argument as handily as you will do in composing the refutation and concession exercises. These are, however, strategieschess movesof the fundamental forms of reasoning demanded of professionals and scholarly writing, which we refer to as critical writing. Whether in conversation or in writing, however, the basic rules, moves, and effects are the same. The difference boils down to those that distinguish speaking and writing. Speakers exchange ideas in real time; they refine, support, question, correct, and explain their propositions in ongoing dialogue. Writers, in contrast, must imagine and anticipate their audiences, from the puzzled to the doubting, providing explanations, reasons, and evidence and responding to likely counterargumentsand they must do this without the benefit of the back-andforth of a conversation. Thus it is that the best critical writers attune themselves to their audiences, seeking various forms of explicit and implicit feedback, paying close attention to what others say, feel, and write about their topics. Informal logic is the basis of most of our problem-solving and decision-making processes. It informs everyday conversation, as well as critical and professional writing. It takes three basic forms and, in a given exchange, we may use them all: * narrative reasoning: organizes raw data into a story form. The proposition in narrative reasoning is often implicit rather than remarked. Narrative reasoning in literature anticipates an audience that wishes to participate in the construction of meaning; in other fields, narrative is regarded as evidence and explanation. Narrative reasoning takes the form exposition/rising action/turning point/falling action/resolution * explanatory reasoning: organizes raw data into an explanation. The proposition of explanatory reasoning is typically a summary statement that answers one or more of the following questions: who, what, where, or when something is, or how it is done or came about. Occasionally explanatory reasoning answers the question why, such as in Why is the sky blue? Explanatory reasoning assumes a receptive audience that seeks knowledge about a specific subject. Its audience does not have to be convinced of the existence or value of the subject. Explanatory reasoning takes the form of Two (or more) Reasons and the Nestorian order. It may use narrative reasoning as part of its evidence. Types of explanatory reason include definition, summary, instruction, chronology, directions.

* justificatory reasoning: organizes raw data as well as other forms of reasoning (explanatory, narrative) into an argument that justifies, persuades, or otherwise works to move an audience to accepting that which is not self-evident but instead plausible, probable or possible. The proposition of justificatory reasoning seeks an audiences adherence. It tries to change or reinvigorate its audiences understanding of something. Justificatory reasoning takes the forms of reasons and evidence, concession, and refutation. Most typically it addresses the question of why we should believe, do, or feel something. Justificatory reasoning is sometimes referred to as dialectical reasoning (thesis/antithesis/synthesis). It imagines an audience who does not altogether agree with the writer or an audience who welcomes reinforcement of a position it already holds. Narrative reasoningthe story form--is the most familiar to us. We know its form so well that we can readily identify a skillful or clumsy user of it. We appreciate people adept at selecting and shaping sensory data into a fully-realized story. We are disappointed when a film or a book falls short, loses control of the form (plot) or lacks invention, proffering instead a boring, banal, predictable story. As with the other types of reasoning, the form itselfthe plotprovides structure and to some extent the meaning of the story. Consider, for example, how the choice of a happy or sad ending changes your understanding of a story. Writers are acutely attuned to the formal elements of narrative and how, in conjunction with ideas and language, one manipulates these elements, bringing basic forms to life, creating new stories and meanings. Explanatory reasoning, like narrative reasoning, is also part of our everyday life but its artfulness is seldom remarked. We are always giving and getting explanations about something what or who or how it is, where to find it, how to do it, when it occurred. Our first encounters with explanatory reasoning typically come from parents and other authority figures. Explanatory reasoning is the stuff of textbooks, Wikipedia, directions, instructions, recipes, dictionaries, summaries, classifications. As with justificatory reasoning, explanatory reasoning depends upon the ability to generalize from raw data. The formidable task of explanatory reasoning is to summarize a mass of data (a movie, the making of a cake, the animal kingdom, 500 pages of statistics) in a single sentencethe proposition and then break it down into its main components (the reasons, or generalizations, that led to the proposition) and support them, as needed, with the details: Thus, an explanatory proposition might be: All mammals share certain features. One generalization that led to and thus supports this proposition will be, All mammals have hair. To illustrate and support this generalization, the writer might note, Some mammals are covered in thick fur, such as bears, while others have scant hair, such as humans. In explanatory reasoning, the reasons are generalizations that answer the questions who, what, where, when, how and sometimes why about which, more later. The tone of explanatory reasoning is cool, level-headed, objective, perhaps authoritative, but not forceful. One is explaining, not persuading. We are as versed in explanatory form as we are in story form, but we are far less likely to appreciate its finer points, except when were in a fix: trying to assemble a desk from Ikea, or get directions from a passerby. In these moments, we want absolute clarity and logical order. We are dismayed by tangents, no matter how juicy. If someone can manage to entertain us while adhering to these stark constraints, all the better, but well gladly forego invention in such instances if it in any way interferes with understanding. If, for example, you ask for directions from Van Pelt to 1920 Commons, you will

appreciate a master of the form, who opens with a clear proposition: Its a short walk down Locust Walk and then provides two or three reasons (generalizations) supporting and illuminating this proposition: 1) Its five blocks 2) It takes about 7 minutes to walk and 3) Its right on the other side of the 38th Street pedestrian bridge. A master of explanation will note if you need further illumination (perhaps you give him a puzzled look), at which point he will provide some more supporting details (from 34th to 39th street; a few blocks past the compass and the Franklin statue, etc). Someone not in control of the explanatory form will typically deviate from giving directions and go off on a tangent. For example, mentioning the Franklin statue, he may wander into a discussion of an appalling tradition rumored to involve it, or suggest you stop along the way to get a great oatmeal cookie at Au Bon Pain. He has forgotten or muddled his propositionwhich was to give you directionsand deviated from its form. Consciously or otherwise, you will be aware of this mangling of form. If youre in a hurry, you will be annoyed; if not, perhaps you will find his tangents charming. As a listener, you may interrupt and redirect or allow the conversation to continue its unpredictable course. A writer, however, has no such advantage. To be successful, she must avoid detours, for they risk her readers patience and understanding. Justificatory reasoning boils down to one relative pronoun: why. Why should we find this person guilty? Why did I earn this grade? Why is this the best interpretation of the poem? Why should I vote for this candidate? This particular why carries with it an ought or a should, and must be distinguished from the explanatory why (as in, Why is the sky blue?). Justificatory reasoning, simply put, justifies. Where the writer of explanatory reasoning anticipates an agreeable reader, the justificatory writer generally must imagine someone who needs to be persuaded. The job is to change that persons mind. As David Faris notes in Reasons vs. Evidence, an essay you will be reading in a few weeks, the justificatory writer answers the question of why with a because and implicitly with a should. In an informal conversation, a speaker who is attempting to persuade others is only expected to provide her reasons and evidence in support of her position. Her interlocutors may then question and challenge her reasons, at which point she will likely explain, counter-argue, refute and in some instances concede one or more points as the discussion unfolds. Writers do not have any such advantage. The critical writer must instead anticipate and address a readers objections, testing her proposition and reasons by being her own worst enemy, reasoning-wise. Justificatory reasoning pulls out all the stops, uses every form at hand, to capture the readers mind and lead him to a new understanding. A good critical writer will test her arguments through counterargument not simply to be persuasive, but because counterargumenttesting ones reasoning and evidenceis fundamental to any situation or profession where being fully informed is the goal. Like a researcher, a critical writer is expected to provide as much information, pro and con, as necessary to give the reader an accurate basis for making a decision. In everyday life, such full disclosure is rarely given, however deeply we may all desire it. In the worst cases, the persuader deliberately withholds information that would complicate or contradict her proposition. Such deception is what has given rhetoricthe art of persuasion-- a bad name. The purpose of critical writing is to confirm, build upon, or create knowledge, to solve problems and advance ideas, not to defeat or trick others into agreeing with us. The critical writer seeks the truth: the cause of happiness, the meaning of rhetoric, the best economic philosophy. Everyday acts of

persuasion, profit-making, and politics may be considerably less idealistic. If you want to persuade your friend to loan you his Ferrari, youre unlikely to mention the reasons why he shouldnt. Only someone of great integrity and seriousness of purpose supplies counterarguments. In everyday life, justificatory reasoning seldom shrinks from engaging in a range of logical fallacies, rhetorical tricks that masquerade as reason and that in the wrong hands turn reason into a dangerous game. In conversation, a justificatory argument will dart back-and-forth, like any dialogue, with highly fluid movement between proposition, argument and counterargument, reasons, examples, concessions, refutations, revised propositions. Logical fallacies, such as calling the speaker insane (ad hominem) or shifting the discussion to some horrific imaginary consequences of the opponents position (slippery slope) rather than addressing the actual argument, are not atypical of undisciplined informal reasoning. In academic and professional writing, however, logical fallacies are avoided and, depending upon the field, formal rules and structure for persuasive reasoning may rigorously adhere. For example, in the natural and social sciences, the different types of reasoning are made explicit and even given subject headings: Introduction, Data, Methodology, Literature Review, Conclusion. In math and philosophy, the rules of reasoning are often highly formalized and even translated into a second form of symbolization: numbers, equations, proofs. In still other fields, rigorous reasoning and its forms are in evidence, but not so clearly demarcated and ordered. Now and again a critical writer will play with reasons conventions, sometimes at the expense of clarity. Some renowned theorists, such as Theodore Adorno, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, have viewed reason as oppressive, constraining. However, they have also been quick to admit that the only way to communicate the dangers of reason, its constraints and limitations, is through the very forms of reason itself; thus their arguments invariably fall prey to that which they aimed to dismantle. Whether were writing or speaking, the question of which reasoning strategies to use, and in which order, always depends on audience, context, and purpose, as well as the inter-dynamics of the argument itself. In the end the forms of reasoning that you will practice are merely the framework, the bones, that allow you to present your ideas and achieve your own designs upon your reader. For most writers, the aim is not to challenge the forms but rather to become so intimate with them that we can control and manipulate them, put them to work. Its not easy to write a good story, and its not easy to write a productive, well-reasoned, engaging work of explanatory or justificatory reasoning. There are as few great writers of explanatory and justificatory reasoning as there are of narrative and, like the great novelists, we are typically able to name only the greatest critical writers: Darwin and Freud, for example. The creative side of critical writing entails an intimacy with the forms of reasoning combined with great invention, knowledge, command of stylistic devices, and a hand on the pulse of the audience. Boy meets girl is a basic narrative structure that has supported everything from Romeo and Juliet, Annie Hall, and The Fountainhead, to 40 Year Old Virgin and Twilight. So too the plots of explanatory and justificatory reasoning undergird everything from You Belong with Me to The Critique of Pure Reason.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi