what is mature reasoning? from a book.
-
Book title: The aims of of argument by Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell
Quoted:
One way to understand argument as mature reasoning is to contrast it with debate. In debate, opponents take a predetermined, usually assigned side and attempt to defend it, in much the same way an army or a football team must hold its ground. The point is to win, to best one's opponent. In contrast, rather than starting with a position to defend , mature reasoners think it through and evaluate it rather than rush to its defense. To win is not to defeat an opponent but rather to gain insight to the topic at hand. The struggle is with the problem, question, or issue we confront. Rather than seeking the favorable decision of the judges, as in debate, we are after a sound opinion in which we can believe - an opinion consistent with the facts and that other people will respect and take seriously.
Of course, having arrive at an opinion that seems sound to us, we still must make out case- argue in the sense of providing good reasons and adequate evidence in support of them. But whereas debaters must hold their positions at all costs, mature reasoners may not. The very process of making a case will often show us that what we thought was sound really isn't. We try to defend our opinion until and find that we can't - or at least try, not very well. And so we rethink our position until we arrive at one for which we can make a good case. From beginning to end, therefore, mature reasoning is a process of discovery.
Author information:
Quoted:
Timothy W. Crusius is profesor of English at Southern Methodist University, where he teaches beginning and advanced composition. He's the author of books on discourse theory, philosophical hermeneutics, and Kenneth Burker.
PS: took fifteen minutes to type it out from the book i have. -
You can quote all this, then how come you show so little sign of mature reasoning?
You approach in here basically tells people 'don't think! don't think!' -
I don't regard opinions as mature, rather, as a view of yours.
Round earth, flat earth, square earth all are opinions, and everybody could give facts and evidence that proves the opinion so. -
-
Interesting book advert I received from Amazon, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, titled "The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World".
Book Description:
Excessive secrecy corrodes democracy, facilitates corruption, and undermines good public policymaking. But keeping a lid on military strategies, personal data, and trade secrets is also vital to the protection of the public interest. In this timely and compelling book, case studies show when and how transparency serves the public interest in governance, business regulation, environmental protection, and national security. They describe how countries like India, China, Nigeria, and those in central Europe have struggled to overcome entrenched secrecy and establish effective disclosure policies. Around the world, governments and corporations are battling with citizens and one another over growing demands to submit their secrets to public scrutiny. The important lessons in this volume and its accessible style make it a critical companion for policymakers, executives, and activists as well as scholars. -
How is that evidence for mature reasoning? For starters, the reasoning must be logical. If one is more than happy to accept illogical reasoning for some stupid reason, how is that mature?
And Mature is such a relative term. Don't impose your standards of maturity on others, or others will impose it on you. -
so whats the TS point? or rather whats he trying to say?
-
TS "zhi shang tan bing", preach but don't practise!!!
-
-
To demostrate pseudointellectualism prehaps?Originally posted by 4getmenot:so whats the TS point? or rather whats he trying to say?
Some people don't seem to realize that being able to string together concepts, buzz words, and one liners does not make ones own point valid.
It's laughable that he starts his own atheism forum to denounce conformist thought to blind faith but preaches his own brand in here when he states quite simply that the common man is simply unqualified to have any say in the way his nation is run and ought to leave it up to the (apparent) demigods who are incorruptable, omnipotent, and omniscient to run the whole show.
Is it any surprise nobody takes him seriously? -
Isn't it funnier that he can't even follow what he quotes?
Of course, having arrive at an opinion that seems sound to us, we still must make out case- argue in the sense of providing good reasons and adequate evidence in support of them.
His case so far is summed up as this:
You cannot trust yourself because you are biased, no matter what your common sense and good reason tells you and listen to the system because it has the big picture.
Question: Then why argue against and question religion in his atheism forms? Just use his own logic and follow lah?But whereas debaters must hold their positions at all costs, mature reasoners may not. The very process of making a case will often show us that what we thought was sound really isn't. We try to defend our opinion until and find that we can't - or at least try, not very well. And so we rethink our position until we arrive at one for which we can make a good case. From beginning to end, therefore, mature reasoning is a process of discovery.
Despite having multiple holes pointed out in his paper thin case, he has made no attempt at actually seriously answering them except to post one liners.
He said that just because somebody has a monopoly on power does not mean he is likely to become corrupted, but yet puts nothing in the way of proving why it will be so in our case.
Most of his "rebuttals" are Bulverisms, answers that touch nothing on the logical consistency of his opponents but instead bypasses any discussion or reasoning and goes straight to the "we are biased" and "we can't trust ourselves" and repeats that with much hyperbole like a mantra, as if repeating it again and again would help his case.
It seems to me that whatever january is doing in here, is neither mature reasoning, nor even debating. It is quite simply nonsense- a person who thinks that by being able to string together diverse disciplines in science and thought without considering the context and spirit in which to take them somehow makes his case valid simply because he could use "big" science and intellectual looking concepts and words.
He's pretty funny actually, once you realize that most of the time he does not even have half a clue of the concepts he's attempting to apply.
My advice? He really should listen and learn more and talk less. -
As such, january is a pseudointellecutal, lets quote a more apporiate article then the gibberish he posts:
Pseudointellectual is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge and experience to have an informed opinion. Synonyms for this character include sophist, and in medical terms, mountebank and quack.
So far it seems he lacks all the intellecual virtues, despite his attempts to paint himself as a thinker in a sea of "biased people"Intellectual virtues are character traits necessary for right action and correct thinking. They include: a sense of justice, perseverance, integrity, humility, empathy, intellectual courage, confidence in reason, and autonomy.
-
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.
The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're stupid", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance.
The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audient reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy. In such cases, the speaker is (perhaps unwittingly, and always ironically) guilty of both intellectual dishonesty and ignorance, because he or she has mistaken opinions for verifiable facts. -
Ironic!!!
-
so January is a 'quack'?
-
If that's what you call someone who talks about mature reasoning but needs to read a book to understand what mature reasoning isOriginally posted by 4getmenot:so January is a 'quack'? ...........then yes.