Sir: Martin Kelly (‘Fishy business in Loch Ness’, 28 March) reports Dr Ian Winfield
as saying that the fish stocks in Loch Ness are not big enough to feed a monster,
therefore a monster does not exist. He confuses cause and effect.
It is perfectly obvious to me that the reason why the fish stocks are low is because the
monster keeps eating them.
(Peter Stanton, Letters to the Editor, The Independent, 31 March 1995)
Sir: I read with disbelief James Barrington’s letter (31 December) in which he
contrasts foxhunting and fishing. He argues that the League Against Cruel Sports
does not campaign against angling, because most fish which are caught are either
eaten or returned to the water. Does that mean that the League would stop
campaigning against foxhunting if the victims were turned into stew afterwards?
(Patricia Belton, Letters to the Editor, The Independent, 4 January 1994)
This is not a book about whether the Loch Ness monster exists, nor one about whether
foxhunting is more cruel than angling. What the two extracts above have in common is
that they are examples of reasoning – the first one perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but reasoning
nevertheless. This book is concerned with helping readers to develop their ability to understand
and evaluate reasoning.
Reasoning is an everyday human activity. We all think about what we should do and why
we should do it, and about whether – and for what reason – we should believe what other
people tell us. We see examples of reasoning in our favourite soap operas on television: the
single mother who allows the baby’s father to help with child minding because this will
enable her to pursue her career; the parent who concludes that his daughter must be
taking drugs because this is the only plausible explanation of her behaviour; and the jurors
who struggle to assess whether the abused wife killed her husband due to provocation, or
in self-defence, or at a time when her responsibility for her actions was diminished.
One dictionary defines reasoning as ‘the act or process of drawing conclusions from
facts, evidence, etc.’. Since it is clear that we all do this, the purpose of this book is not to
teach people to reason, but to remind them that they do not always pay attention to
whether they are reasoning well, and to provide the opportunity to practise reasoning in
a clear-headed and critical way. This kind of approach helps us to know whether the
conclusions which are drawn from the facts or evidence really do follow, both when we
ourselves are drawing conclusions and when we are assessing the reasoning of others.
However, the use of the word ‘critical’ is not intended to suggest that, when we evaluate
other people’s reasoning, we must restrict ourselves to saying what is wrong with it.
Critical evaluation involves judging both what is good and what is bad about someone’s
reasoning.
Reasoning well is a skill which is valuable to anyone who wants to understand and deal
with the natural and social worlds. Scientists need to reason well in order to understand
the causes of phenomena. Politicians need to reason well in order to be able to adopt the
right policies. But we cannot leave reasoning to scientists and politicians, because we
all want to know whether what they tell us and what they prescribe for us is right. So
reasoning well is an important skill for all of us.
Critical reasoning is centrally concerned with giving reasons for one’s beliefs and actions,
analysing and evaluating one’s own and other people’s reasoning, devising and constructing
better reasoning. Common to these activities are certain distinct skills, for example,
recognising reasons and conclusions, recognising unstated assumptions, drawing conclusions,
appraising evidence and evaluating statements, judging whether conclusions are
warranted; and underlying all of these skills is the ability to use language with clarity and
discrimination.
In common with other skills, reasoning skills can be improved and polished with practice.
If we think of critical reasoning as analogous to a game, we can see it as involving a set of
particular skills and also the ability to deploy this set of skills when engaged in playing the
game. In tennis, for example, players need to be good at executing particular strokes –
driving, volleying, serving. But, in order to win a game, they need to be able to put these
skills together in an appropriate way, and also to be able to respond to moves made by their
opponent.
When ‘playing the game’ of reasoning, we need to be good at certain basic activities, such
as drawing conclusions and evaluating evidence. But we also need to be able to put the
skills together in order to present an effective piece of reasoning to someone else, and we
need to be able to respond to the moves in reasoning made by others: for example, when
someone presents us with a piece of evidence of which we were unaware, we need to be
able to judge how it affects our argument. The tennis coach will improve the tennis
players’ ability by sometimes requiring them to practise particular skills and then requiring
them to play a game in which they must remember to deploy those skills and also select the
appropriate strategy.
This book offers the reader the opportunity to practise particular reasoning skills, and
sometimes to ‘play the game’ of reasoning by deploying a set of skills. Each chapter focuses
on particular skills, and presents short passages of reasoning on which to practise these
skills. Model answers to a number of the exercises are given at the end of the book to
enable readers to assess their progress. The reader’s overall ability is developed by longer
written passages for analysis and evaluation. As readers’ command of skills improves,
so their ability to analyse and evaluate the longer passages, and eventually to construct
reasoning of their own – thus to ‘play the reasoning game’ – should improve.
For the most part, these exercises offer practice in understanding, analysing and evaluating
the reasoning of other people, rather than asking readers to focus on their own reasoning.
There are two good reasons for this. The first is that it is necessary to illustrate the
structure of reasoning, and this can only be done by presenting particular examples. The
second reason is that it is often easier for us to recognise problems in others’ reasoning than
in our own. Improved skills in evaluating the reasoning of others, and the willingness to
apply the same critical standards to your own reasoning, are important first steps towards
developing the ability to produce good reasoning of your own. Moreover, some of the
exercises which suggest working with a partner, as you might do in class, will begin to
make you aware of the need to present good reasons for your beliefs and conclusions, and
will give you practice in responding to criticisms and questions. The final chapter sets out
the steps to take in order to devise and construct better reasoning of your own. The final
exercise suggests subjects upon which you can practise the skills of constructing arguments
and making decisions.
It has already been pointed out that the ability to reason well is important in everyday life
– in understanding, for example, the reasons upon which politicians base their policies,
or the evidence presented in a court of law. It is also true that almost every subject of
academic study, both at school and at university, requires an ability to reason well. However,
most subjects are not taught in a way which requires students to think about their
own thinking processes. Hence it is possible to become good at reasoning about, say,
geography, without realising that you have developed skills which apply in other areas. The
approach presented in this book does not require any specialist knowledge; the passages of
reasoning are on topics of general interest, such as would be discussed in newspapers and
can be understood by the general public. But it does require you to think about the nature
of reasoning, so as to acquire the tendency to approach reasoning on any topic in this
critical, analytic way. In other words, these reasoning skills are transferable; they will help
students in their reasoning on a wide range of topics, including their own specialist area.
Practice in dealing with reasoned argument will also help students in their essay writing,
since in most subjects a requirement of good essay writing is that ideas should be presented
in a clear, coherent and well-argued way.
The ideas underlying this text are related to the academic discipline known as Critical
Thinking, as can be seen from the following quotation from Edward Glaser, co-author of a
widely used test of critical thinking, the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal:
‘Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to
which it tends.’ (Glaser 1941: 5). The Critical Thinking tradition, which derives from
both philosophy and education, originated in the US. Some of its foremost American
proponents were, or are, John Dewey, Edward Glaser, Steven Norris, Robert Ennis,
Richard Paul and Michael Scriven; in Britain one of the first to write about Critical
Thinking was Alec Fisher. Readers who are interested in learning more about the subject
will find details of these authors’ works in the bibliography at the end of this book.
It is possible to study for an A level in Critical Thinking, and the skills which are assessed
in this examination are very closely related to the skills which this book seeks to improve.
However, the book should not be seen merely as an aid to improving one’s skills for
the purposes of assessment, though it will certainly function admirably in this way. Its
influence will be much wider than this, enabling readers to deal effectively with reasoning
in every sphere of their lives.
as saying that the fish stocks in Loch Ness are not big enough to feed a monster,
therefore a monster does not exist. He confuses cause and effect.
It is perfectly obvious to me that the reason why the fish stocks are low is because the
monster keeps eating them.
(Peter Stanton, Letters to the Editor, The Independent, 31 March 1995)
Sir: I read with disbelief James Barrington’s letter (31 December) in which he
contrasts foxhunting and fishing. He argues that the League Against Cruel Sports
does not campaign against angling, because most fish which are caught are either
eaten or returned to the water. Does that mean that the League would stop
campaigning against foxhunting if the victims were turned into stew afterwards?
(Patricia Belton, Letters to the Editor, The Independent, 4 January 1994)
This is not a book about whether the Loch Ness monster exists, nor one about whether
foxhunting is more cruel than angling. What the two extracts above have in common is
that they are examples of reasoning – the first one perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but reasoning
nevertheless. This book is concerned with helping readers to develop their ability to understand
and evaluate reasoning.
Reasoning is an everyday human activity. We all think about what we should do and why
we should do it, and about whether – and for what reason – we should believe what other
people tell us. We see examples of reasoning in our favourite soap operas on television: the
single mother who allows the baby’s father to help with child minding because this will
enable her to pursue her career; the parent who concludes that his daughter must be
taking drugs because this is the only plausible explanation of her behaviour; and the jurors
who struggle to assess whether the abused wife killed her husband due to provocation, or
in self-defence, or at a time when her responsibility for her actions was diminished.
One dictionary defines reasoning as ‘the act or process of drawing conclusions from
facts, evidence, etc.’. Since it is clear that we all do this, the purpose of this book is not to
teach people to reason, but to remind them that they do not always pay attention to
whether they are reasoning well, and to provide the opportunity to practise reasoning in
a clear-headed and critical way. This kind of approach helps us to know whether the
conclusions which are drawn from the facts or evidence really do follow, both when we
ourselves are drawing conclusions and when we are assessing the reasoning of others.
However, the use of the word ‘critical’ is not intended to suggest that, when we evaluate
other people’s reasoning, we must restrict ourselves to saying what is wrong with it.
Critical evaluation involves judging both what is good and what is bad about someone’s
reasoning.
Reasoning well is a skill which is valuable to anyone who wants to understand and deal
with the natural and social worlds. Scientists need to reason well in order to understand
the causes of phenomena. Politicians need to reason well in order to be able to adopt the
right policies. But we cannot leave reasoning to scientists and politicians, because we
all want to know whether what they tell us and what they prescribe for us is right. So
reasoning well is an important skill for all of us.
Critical reasoning is centrally concerned with giving reasons for one’s beliefs and actions,
analysing and evaluating one’s own and other people’s reasoning, devising and constructing
better reasoning. Common to these activities are certain distinct skills, for example,
recognising reasons and conclusions, recognising unstated assumptions, drawing conclusions,
appraising evidence and evaluating statements, judging whether conclusions are
warranted; and underlying all of these skills is the ability to use language with clarity and
discrimination.
In common with other skills, reasoning skills can be improved and polished with practice.
If we think of critical reasoning as analogous to a game, we can see it as involving a set of
particular skills and also the ability to deploy this set of skills when engaged in playing the
game. In tennis, for example, players need to be good at executing particular strokes –
driving, volleying, serving. But, in order to win a game, they need to be able to put these
skills together in an appropriate way, and also to be able to respond to moves made by their
opponent.
When ‘playing the game’ of reasoning, we need to be good at certain basic activities, such
as drawing conclusions and evaluating evidence. But we also need to be able to put the
skills together in order to present an effective piece of reasoning to someone else, and we
need to be able to respond to the moves in reasoning made by others: for example, when
someone presents us with a piece of evidence of which we were unaware, we need to be
able to judge how it affects our argument. The tennis coach will improve the tennis
players’ ability by sometimes requiring them to practise particular skills and then requiring
them to play a game in which they must remember to deploy those skills and also select the
appropriate strategy.
This book offers the reader the opportunity to practise particular reasoning skills, and
sometimes to ‘play the game’ of reasoning by deploying a set of skills. Each chapter focuses
on particular skills, and presents short passages of reasoning on which to practise these
skills. Model answers to a number of the exercises are given at the end of the book to
enable readers to assess their progress. The reader’s overall ability is developed by longer
written passages for analysis and evaluation. As readers’ command of skills improves,
so their ability to analyse and evaluate the longer passages, and eventually to construct
reasoning of their own – thus to ‘play the reasoning game’ – should improve.
For the most part, these exercises offer practice in understanding, analysing and evaluating
the reasoning of other people, rather than asking readers to focus on their own reasoning.
There are two good reasons for this. The first is that it is necessary to illustrate the
structure of reasoning, and this can only be done by presenting particular examples. The
second reason is that it is often easier for us to recognise problems in others’ reasoning than
in our own. Improved skills in evaluating the reasoning of others, and the willingness to
apply the same critical standards to your own reasoning, are important first steps towards
developing the ability to produce good reasoning of your own. Moreover, some of the
exercises which suggest working with a partner, as you might do in class, will begin to
make you aware of the need to present good reasons for your beliefs and conclusions, and
will give you practice in responding to criticisms and questions. The final chapter sets out
the steps to take in order to devise and construct better reasoning of your own. The final
exercise suggests subjects upon which you can practise the skills of constructing arguments
and making decisions.
It has already been pointed out that the ability to reason well is important in everyday life
– in understanding, for example, the reasons upon which politicians base their policies,
or the evidence presented in a court of law. It is also true that almost every subject of
academic study, both at school and at university, requires an ability to reason well. However,
most subjects are not taught in a way which requires students to think about their
own thinking processes. Hence it is possible to become good at reasoning about, say,
geography, without realising that you have developed skills which apply in other areas. The
approach presented in this book does not require any specialist knowledge; the passages of
reasoning are on topics of general interest, such as would be discussed in newspapers and
can be understood by the general public. But it does require you to think about the nature
of reasoning, so as to acquire the tendency to approach reasoning on any topic in this
critical, analytic way. In other words, these reasoning skills are transferable; they will help
students in their reasoning on a wide range of topics, including their own specialist area.
Practice in dealing with reasoned argument will also help students in their essay writing,
since in most subjects a requirement of good essay writing is that ideas should be presented
in a clear, coherent and well-argued way.
The ideas underlying this text are related to the academic discipline known as Critical
Thinking, as can be seen from the following quotation from Edward Glaser, co-author of a
widely used test of critical thinking, the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal:
‘Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to
which it tends.’ (Glaser 1941: 5). The Critical Thinking tradition, which derives from
both philosophy and education, originated in the US. Some of its foremost American
proponents were, or are, John Dewey, Edward Glaser, Steven Norris, Robert Ennis,
Richard Paul and Michael Scriven; in Britain one of the first to write about Critical
Thinking was Alec Fisher. Readers who are interested in learning more about the subject
will find details of these authors’ works in the bibliography at the end of this book.
It is possible to study for an A level in Critical Thinking, and the skills which are assessed
in this examination are very closely related to the skills which this book seeks to improve.
However, the book should not be seen merely as an aid to improving one’s skills for
the purposes of assessment, though it will certainly function admirably in this way. Its
influence will be much wider than this, enabling readers to deal effectively with reasoning
in every sphere of their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment