I recently took the incentive to be a part of a Top 5, Master's (Philosophy) Methodology Reading group.
Just so happens, during one of the gatherings, there was a big discussion/question regarding reasoning. What defines reasoning? What is reason? And parameters, formulas for determining (scientific) reasoning, for the ages.
Still no answer (lol) :)
Ms. Kaila S. Walker,
BABOC, CPC, MSP Candidate
--- In email@example.com, W C Adams <clifton_adams@...> wrote:
> Ms. Walker,
> Â Â Â Thank you for your contribution to our discussion.
> Â Â Â Iâm sorry that you think my question was part of a research effort.Â I canât imagine what prompted that conclusion.Â I never thought of this forum as a place to do research but as an opportunity to discriminate information and to stimulate discussion, the latter being the intent in this case.Â So, I do appreciate your contribution toward that end.
> Â Â The original post presented a hypothetical situation, but one with which many in the audience is familiar.Â It asked for a judgment, using a rubric, as is often the case to standardize the process, to the validity of an example.Â The rubric used in the question is really quite standard for âreasoning from analogy,â clearly within Communication, but Iâd say in related disciplines as well.Â It is the definition presented in every basic speech-communication book that gives a definition of reasoning from analogy.Â
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â If the question were asked in an actual test situation, the scorer would be asked to indicate whether the studentâs example met the criterion.Â It is my belief that most, probably 100%, of professional scorer would indicate that the studentâs example is incorrect; that believe has now been confirmed by two respondents to my question.Â Given that believe, I have to ask, âWhy does that example of âanalogyâ continue to appear in a public-speaking textbook edition after edition?âÂ I wrote to the lead author of the textbook about problems with the text and was told that over the years and the many editions, the many reviewers, etc. that Iâm the only one who sees any problems with the treatment of reasoning.Â
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So, youâre perception that there is a motive behind the question it true.Â I thought that was a given in a discussion forum.Â And, I did select the weakest link in the treatment of reasoning among the mainstream texts in speech communication.Â However, if the reviewers arenât even catching such glaring problems, itâs reasonable to ask what they are doing.Â In my paper on reasoning terminology on my website, I discuss other problems; but, if Iâm the only one who sees any of them (which clearly Iâm not), it is easy for the authors to cast me as a deviate.Â I felt the need to get past that challenge in order to advance the discussion to more substantive issues.
> Â Â Â Â Â So, thanks again for giving me a forum to present my position.
> From: swalkerk <swalkerk@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:45 PM
> Subject: [americancomm] Re: Feeback on Analogy Example
> RESPONDING TO THE Q&A:
> The question lends itself to be 'open' and broad. Is there a particular theory or discipline that the thought/answer should be generated in?
> The answer, if it is to be an answer, would have to be concluded, right? "You could reason", as an preemptive would cause me to be reluctant in including it in research.
> The -rubric- seems calculating and divisive, as well as casts an unfavorable appeal to the tone of the question. If I am to be made to agree, should the question not be a question but rather a provocation of: to what degree.
> Ms. Kaila S. Walker,
> BABOC, CPC, MSP Candidate
> Communication's Consultant
> Atlanta, GA
> Ph. 404-484-6380
> E. mailto:swalkerk%40yahoo.com
> --- In mailto:americancomm%40yahoogroups.com, Jon Ru <jru2797@> wrote:
> > I'm not positive, but I thinkÃÂ that example isÃÂ more about cause -- phone bans caused child injury reduction in two places and could cause reduction elsewhere.ÃÂ The particular state isÃÂ irrelevant here, they're only mentioned because states have/make laws.ÃÂ For me, the analogy case would need to be built around similarities between the three states.ÃÂ Something like IA is analogous to MO and FL in terms of population density, cel phone usage patterns, injury rates, etc., so regulation that is effective in MO and FL is likely to be effective in IA.ÃÂ That said, analogies are frequently weaker arguments than causal arguments.ÃÂ A clear and establishedÃÂ cause-effect chain is great evidence, whereas analogies can be drawn between any two things.ÃÂ All things are similar to allÃÂ other things across multiple variables, some will be relevant and some won't,ÃÂ but a cause-effect chain links specificÃÂ phenomena across time.ÃÂ FYI,
> NJ bans phones for allÃÂ people
> > who are driving.ÃÂ Happy Thursday!ÃÂ JonÃÂ
> > ________________________________
> > From: W C Adams <clifton_adams@>
> > To: "mailto:americancomm%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:americancomm%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:31 PM
> > Subject: [americancomm] Feeback on Analogy Example
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ IÃ¢â¬â¢ve been assured by two members of this organization that IÃ¢â¬â¢d get feedback from you (more so than from posts on CRTnet).ÃÂ So, I submit to you the following hypothetical situation to see how much agreement among us there is to the following.ÃÂ Freely submit whatever discussion youÃ¢â¬â¢d like along with your answer.ÃÂ You may submit either publically or to me directly if you prefer.
> > ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ Pretend youÃ¢â¬â¢re working for someone from Princeton and, in scoring written answers, you come across the following:
> > Q:ÃÂ What would be a clear and complete example of reasoning from analogy?
> > A:ÃÂ Ã¢â¬Å"You could reason that because bans on using cell phones while driving in school zones have reduced the number of children being injured in Missouri and Florida, those laws should be instituted in Iowa.Ã¢â¬ï¿½
> > Please rate the answer using the following rubric:
> > Excellent Ã¢â¬" Example shows clearly that two things are alike in known ways and reasons that the two things will be the same in an unknown way.
> > Good -- Example only suggests that two things are similar and therefore may be similar in unknown ways.ÃÂ It should be more explicit to be clear and complete.
> > Inadequate Ã¢â¬" Example claims that since something produced a positiveÃÂ effect in two cases itÃÂ should be institutudedÃÂ in a third case.ÃÂ It more clearly reflects reasoning from cause that analogy.
> > ÃÂ
> > w. clifton adams
> > clifton_adams@
> > http://www.wca-refracted.com/