In chapter 2, the authors heavily discuss the topic of reasonability and evaluating reasonability in argumentation in order to decide if an argument is acceptable or not. The authors write about reasonability because one of the main intentions of argumentation is to make the best decision through the processes of analytic thinking and systematic processing. When discussing reasonability, they address factors that are not always reasonable such as thinking, the mind, social influences, and beliefs. For me, I found the information written on beliefs not necessarily being reasonable to be the most interesting concept. On page 27, the authors write that “Although your beliefs are important and meaningful to you, they may not have come from a reasonable foundation or they may be applied in a way that cannot survive critical scrutiny.” By writing this, the authors are saying that though one may hold tight to a belief, that belief may not have much to information to support it or survive questionings or other criticisms. The authors also further discuss the concepts of beliefs as they write about beliefs guiding us in our decisions to join certain political parties or join certain clubs and groups. Interestingly too, it is stated that criminal behavior can be understood through a belief system because it helps to understand what a criminal is thinking and understanding that person’s perception of reality. Overall, I found beliefs not necessarily being reasonable to be most interesting because so many people in society make judgements, decisions, and do daily activities based on their beliefs in mind. However, many of the beliefs that people consume their lives with lack a foundation and could potentially not survive critical scrutiny.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
I think the point you brought up about beliefs not being reasonable brings up another point mentioned in the reading. This other point was that, until very recently, logic was seen as the ultimate goal and superior to other types of thinking. Aristotle was originally the person to write about logic being the most acceptable way of thinking. Only recently has using feelings to help make decisions been deemed acceptable in some situations. We still live in a society that touts logic as the best possible way to come to a conclusion. People still made decisions guided by beliefs and values, they just didn't discuss it in the ways that many people do now. Instead, people would try to connect a logical process to the decision that aligned with their personal beliefs. I think it will be interesting to see how personal feelings and beliefs are seen in the coming years as the American and global political landscape continues to change. I also believe that more people should look into how beliefs help guide decision making. In my opinion, gaining insight on how people's feelings guide decisions could help people learn more about the cognitive process and could potentially alter the way we argue all together.
ReplyDelete