So what is this thing called reasoning? Basically, it's a structured process. In this respect, it's like arithmetic. Consider an addition problem:
| 34
88 122 |
Arriving at the answer is a process with a certain structure: We add the 4 and the 8, put down the 2, carry the 1, and put down the 12 in its proper position. If we didn't carry out the process in this structured way - if, for example, we hadn't added straight down the columns - we would have no reason to believe the answer is correct.
Of course there are differences between reasoning and arithmetic, but reasoning is also a structured process. Consider the example of a man standing on the curb beside a busy street. In the back of his mind this thought process unfolds:
What could be simpler and more obvious? What could be more commonplace? We reason all the time - and reason well - otherwise we wouldn't stay alive.
But unfortunately, the example just given is typical only of the automatic reasoning that governs our everyday routines. Many of the decisions we face, including decisions concerning public affairs, require argumentation of a much more complex kind -- there are arguments on both sides; premises are uncertain and require further arguments to back them up, and so on. We need to make the right logical moves in order to keep the reasoning process on the right track.
Most importantly, we need to identify issues, the questions that must be answered in order to arrive at a justified conclusion. In the above example, no issues arise for the average person; but suppose Hamlet was considering such an argument while in his "To be or not to be" frame of mind. In that case, "Do I want to be killed or injured, or not?" could be an issue for him.
Reasoning well also requires us to make our meanings clear, to make distinctions, to distill arguments from everyday conversation, to recognize common fallacies, and the like. Self-discipline is required to follow out the twists and turns of complex controversies.
These abilities have a double-edged nature which often leads to misunderstanding about the nature of reasoning, misunderstandings that were made evident to Brumm while he was in Boston. A local TV program featured four well-educated people, including a prominent historian, in discussion of public affairs. Seeing that no one on the program made any effort to articulate arguments or define issues, Brumm wrote the moderator to suggest greater attention to the reasoning process. The moderator wrote back to say that what Brumm had in mind was more appropriate to a logic course.
But the reasoning process is not what one learns in a logic course. Rather, the reasoning process straddles the line between the academic and the expert on the one hand and everyday common sense on the other hand. "We're not talking about logic as it is usually taught in colleges," Brumm says. "We're not talking about the rules for validity of the syllogism, nor Venn Diagrams. Conversely, the usual college course doesn't teach the abilities that we promote in CLURT - the careful articulation of arguments, identification of issues, making distinctions, and so on. However uncommon these may be, they require no special education. Hence a person might get the impression that good reasoning is just common sense thinking, but that is far from the truth. Take the media: On even the best discussion programs, the way of arguing never rises above the level of: 'Mr. Jones, your opponent says that you're a thief and a scoundrel. What is your answer to that?' Beyond the media, in everyday life, the typical discussion is chaotic, undisciplined and gossipy.
"Good reasoning is not merely common sense. Rather it is what common sense should be - it is heightened common sense that observes a proper framework and has the self-discipline necessary to follow that framework. It is only by doing so - by following the reasoning process - that we are able to arrive at effective decisions, to understand our basic motives, and to recognize our relationships with others.
"Everyone, of course, can go through the automatic reasoning involved in deciding to stay on the curb, but most people are unfamiliar with the moves needed to deal with complex arguments and controversies. Therefore they simply give up - they short-circuit the complexities and resort to whatever simplistic reasoning is nearest at hand. The result is the public nonsense we see all around."
Why is this allowed to be? Why has the reasoning process not received the attention it deserves? One would think that most adults would be adept at reasoning, just as most adults are able to read well. Why is this not so?
Part of the answer, Brumm says, is plain: Reasoning is absent from all areas of our society - the schools, the media, all forms of deliberation - and therefore the absence of reason is self-reinforcing, a vicious circle: we don't practice reasoning; therefore we don't educate people in reasoning; therefore we don't know how to reason; therefore we don't practice reasoning; and so on.
To overcome this vicious circle, reasoning must be promoted throughout the community. The first step, as Brumm sees it, is to raise community consciousness and make reasoning the norm. He envisions a Thinking City project, aimed at acquainting people with the reasoning process and related forms of thinking. Such a project could be conducted in a number of venues, perhaps the most important being the Library.
In the schools, the aim would be to take reasoning seriously, just as reading and math are taken seriously. This means requirements and standards which teachers are mandated to observe. In other words, it means an institutional commitment to the teaching of reasoning -- rather than leaving it to the initiatives of individual teachers. "Suppose you asked school administrators what they did to teach reading, and the administrators said that they couldn't tell you because the teaching of reading was left up to each teacher. That would be scandalous, because it would show that the schools do not take reading seriously. Likewise, the fact that the schools leave the teaching of reasoning up to individual teachers shows that they do not take reasoning seriously.
"The principles and practices of reasoning, such as laying out arguments or identifying issues, are universal in the sense that they cut across any one discipline such as history or English. Ideally, then, the schools would teach these principles and practices in separate classes or separate units, while applying them in a variety of class settings. Separate classes may be too much to ask, but in any case the essential requirement is that teachers in the relevant subjects be well versed in the reasoning process and teach it through their own subjects, for example by having reasoned debates in social studies classes. The key element is commitment on the part of teachers. That depends on the organizational culture of the school system, which in turn depends on the intellectual atmosphere of the community."
It is the intellectual atmosphere of Lakewood that Brumm and his Committee
for the Fourth R are addressing. Having learned more or less how to
reason, his task is to convey what he has learned so that reasoning gains
the preeminence it deserves.