Likewise with reasoning. When we go through the proper process – that is, a process with the proper pattern, or form, or structure – we arrive at a conclusion we are justified in accepting. Conversely, when we don’t go through the proper process, we are not justified in accepting the conclusion. (Of course, the reasoning process is much looser and rougher than arithmetic.)

You should consider this reasoning process as a model when you engage in discussion. With this model in mind, you can take the more-or-less formless flow of ideas and impose a proper order on it.

Reasoning, as a framework for thought, is immensely valuable, but we mustn’t view it as more than it really is. A couple of remarks to that point:

Following the reasoning process has nothing to do with what your views are. Think of a foreign-language class, say French, taught by the immersion method. It doesn’t matter what you say, but it must be said in French. Similarly, reasoning encompasses any views you may wish to express, as long as they conform to the reasoning process. (This is why the term “reasoning” is used and not “reasonable,” which is usually used to evaluate particular beliefs or decisions.)

When we reason together, there is no guarantee that we will all arrive at the same conclusion. Reasoning only helps find agreement where agreement is possible and helps us understand and respect each other’s opinions where disagreement remains. Also it helps guarantee that whatever opinion a person arrives at will be justified.

Two types of argument: practical and factual.

We need to distinguish the two principal types of argument, practical and factual:

1) Practical arguments are represented by the standing-on-the-curb example above. They serve to tell us what to do (hence the term “practical” -- they concern our actions, or practice). They do this by citing an end and then asserting the means to accomplish that end. Thus a practical argument consists of three elements:

A value premise, as it will be called here. This cites the end to be accomplished (or in other words the purpose, aim, goal or value to be achieved, or the principle to be followed.).

A factual premise. This asserts that a certain way of acting is the necessary means to accomplish the end cited in the value premise.

The conclusion. This tells us that we are to carry out the way of acting mentioned in the factual premise. The conclusion follows from the value premise together with the factual premise.

For example:

We ought to keep the sidewalks clean. [asserts the goal]

To keep the sidewalks clean, we‘ll have to get a snow-blower. [asserts a fact

that demonstrates the necessary means to accomplish the goal]

Therefore, we ought to get a snow-blower. [tells us what to do]

Stealing is wrong. [asserts a principle to be followed]

To take extra sugar packets is stealing. [asserts a fact that demonstrates what

is necessary to follow the principle]

Therefore, to take extra sugar packets is wrong. [tells us what to do in a certain

situation]

A practical argument, or a set of practical arguments, forms the backbone of any viewpoint or discussion on political or moral questions, or of any viewpoint or discussion about what ought to be done. For we are talking about a means-end relationship, and this is what a practical argument expresses.

2) Factual arguments are arguments in which all the premises, as well as the conclusion, are factual statements. For example:

All mammals have backbones.

All dogs are mammals.

Therefore, all dogs have backbones.

He’ll win in Iowa.

If he wins in Iowa, a majority of delegates will flock to him.

Therefore, a majority of delegates will flock to him.

There are a great many controversies that are completely factual in nature, and thus involve only factual arguments. (E.g.: What will the weather be tomorrow? Who will win the pennant? Who is the tallest person in class? Etc. Etc.) But for purposes of discussion of public issues they are not so important or central as practical arguments. However, a factual argument may serve to support the factual premise in a practical argument. For example, in the first of the examples on practical argument the factual premise is “To keep the sidewalks clean, we’ll have to get a snow-blower.” How do we know this to be true? Only because we can bring out one or more factual arguments to show it’s true. (For example, an argument to the effect that the only alternative to a snow-blower is hiring someone, and there is no one to hire, therefore we’ll have to get a snow-blower.)

Issues.

The term “issues” is used promiscuously nowadays, but for our purposes it has a specific meaning: Issues are the questions in a controversy that must be settled if we are to come to a justified conclusion.

Issues are often raised when two arguments contradict one another. For example:

We ought to go the fastest way. We ought to go the fastest way.

I-90 is the fastest way. The Lakeshore is the fastest way.

Therefore, we ought to go I-90. Therefore, we ought to go the Lakeshore.

The issue raised is: Is I-90 or the Lakeshore the fastest way?

Or issues may be raised when one argument is presented and one of its premises is challenged. For example, suppose someone gave this argument:

We should paint the basement today.

To paint the basement today, we have to buy more paint now.

Therefore, we should buy more paint right now.

And suppose one of the persons in the conversations challenged the first premise, thus raising the issue:

Should we paint the basement today?

Issues can be divided into three types:

Value issues are issues questioning the value premise of an argument, that is to say, issues concerning the purpose, goal, principle etc. to be accomplished or served.

Factual issues are issues questioning factual statements, including statements asserting the means to achieve a purpose.

Issues of definition, the least frequent, are issues arising when different definitions of a term are used in a controversy.

For example, suppose we hear the argument:

Utilities should be guaranteed a fair profit.

To guarantee a fair profit, capital improvements must be tax-free.

Therefore, capital improvements must be tax-free.

We might raise three issues:

Should utilities be guaranteed a fair profit? This would be a value issue.

Is it necessary that capital improvements be tax-free in order to

guarantee a fair profit? This would be a factual issue.

What is a fair profit? This would be an issue of definition.

Arguments, it was said above, are the basic building blocks of reasoned discussion. But once arguments are in place, issues are by far the most important aspect of a discussion. To think in terms of issues is like adding another dimension to your thinking, like living in a three-dimensional world instead of a two-dimensional one.

Issues are like crossroads – decision-points at which our reasoning goes in one direction or another. Thus thinking in terms of issues helps us to see the structure of a controversy and to organize our thoughts better. It helps us understand where we agree and disagree with one another; we may agree on one issue and disagree on another.

Issues tell us what we need to know or to decide. Specifically, they tell us what we need to know or decide in order to support or reject an argument. Arguments arise in the course of a discussion, and therefore issues do also. Thus we cannot specify in advance what the issues in a discussion will be.

This point is especially important in regard to factual issues, for factual issues specify the information – the “facts” – we will need in the course of a discussion. Since factual issues arise in the course of a discussion, many or most of the facts we need must be gathered as the discussion goes on. They cannot be gathered or defined in advance.

If we do not explicitly recognize the issue we want to address, we may put forth arguments that seem to bear on one another but do not actually do so. This is called “talking past one another” or “talking at cross purposes.” Suppose, for example, that two people are talking about gun control. The proponent argues that with gun control killers would have less access to weapons. The opponent says, no, each individual has the responsibility to abide by the law. The arguments do not contradict each other, nor can they be measured against each other. They simply don’t connect.

Extended Arguments and Intermediate Conclusions/Premises.

Take the example first given, the argument about standing on the curb. If I wanted to be more specific in my reasoning, I could have said:

I don’t want to be killed or injured.

If I get hit by a speeding car I’ll be killed or injured.

Therefore, I don’t want to be hit by a speeding car.

If I step into the street I’ll be hit by a speeding car.

Therefore, I don’t want to step into the street.

This, as you can see, is a double argument. The conclusion of the first argument (“I don’t want to be hit by a speeding car.”) is the first premise of the second argument. Thus it’s called an intermediate conclusion, because it’s in the middle, i.e. intermediate, between the first argument and the final conclusion. Likewise it can be called an intermediate premise.

Intermediate premises/conclusions are especially important in political discussions. They state principles or goals that we can agree on despite disagreements on deeper principles or goals. For example, consider these two double arguments and what they share between them:

The greatest good ought to be promoted. We ought to respect individual rights.

To promote the greatest good requires To respect individual rights requires

freedom of expression. freedom of expression.

Therefore, there ought to be freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression requires that sources be confidential.

Therefore, sources ought to be confidential

“There ought to be freedom of expression” is the intermediate conclusion here, and it is the

conclusion of two different initial arguments. So no matter which initial argument we agree with, we arrive at the same result. (Of course, it works the other way also: Two people can start with the same value premise and by believing in two different factual premises can arrive at different intermediate conclusions.)

Unexpressed premises

So far, in talking about arguments we’ve been considering only examples of full arguments, in which the two premises support the conclusion with certainty, which is to say that if we believe in the two premises we have to believe in the conclusion. But arguments are not always given in their full form. Often – indeed, most of the time – an argument is given with only one premise, because the other premise is obvious. So the other premise remains left out, unexpressed. Take the first example given. In real life, we might say it this way:

I don’t want to be killed or injured.

Therefore I don’t want to be hit by a car.

The unexpressed premise, of course, is “If I get hit by a car I will be killed or injured.”

Another example:

To improve our character is to help the next generation.

Therefore, we ought to improve our character.

[missing: “We ought to help the next generation.”]

Sometimes both a premise and the conclusion are unexpressed. For example:

If we start home now, we’ll get there before dark.

[missing: premise, perhaps “We ought to get there before dark,” and

conclusion “We ought to start home now.”

The point to remember about unexpressed premises is this: Since the premise is unexpressed it’s likely not to have been scrutinized, so we need to bring it to light. Also remember that more than one possible premise may do the job of filling out an argument, so it’s not always clear exactly what premise has been intended. The only way to make sure is to ask the person who presents the argument.

The reasoning process and the discussion process

The nature of the reasoning process, essentially consisting of arguments and issues, has definite implications for the form that a good discussion process will take.

Most obvious is the need for carryover, which means that a subject must be carried over from one meeting to the next. This is not only because few if any subjects can be exhausted in one meeting, but also because the issues that are raised in one meeting need to be reflected on and perhaps researched between one meeting and another.

In addition, you must keep in mind that the aim of discussion is to produce a good intellectual process, not a process of social interaction per se. Of course everyone should be given the chance to speak, but the purpose of a participant’s speaking is to bring out worthwhile ideas, not to produce personal satisfaction.

II. Some Points about Proceeding through a Discussion

Counterarguments vs. criticisms of arguments

Suppose someone has argued for a position you oppose. There are two ways to support your own position against this argument. One way is to present arguments on your own, arguments that support your own conclusion. These are called counterarguments. The other is to attack the arguments your opponent has brought forth. (Of course, both of these tactics can be used together.)

Distinctions and definitions.

If the reasoning process is to work correctly we must keep it on track instead of letting it jump from one track to another. We mustn’t let it switch from one idea to another without our realizing it. This requires making appropriate distinctions.

Usually the distinction to be made is between different meanings of words, but behind different meanings are different ideas. A good example is “affirmative action.” In reference to hiring or college admissions, that term may mean any of at least three things: a) reaching out to find minority candidates; b) giving extra credit to members of minority groups; or c) hiring or accepting a certain number of minority candidates (a quota system). In addition, we need to make distinctions among the various types of situations – there is a difference between college admission, hiring for a non-skilled job, hiring for a skilled job, or a professional job etc. But often these are all lumped together under the one term “affirmative action” (though there has been some recognition of these differences recently).

Another example is in the term “flat tax.” We know that “flat” refers to taxing all income at the same percentage rate. But the other features (or lack of features) define a variety of plans. For example, what will the percentage rate be? Will there be a certain amount of income exempted, and if so, how much? Will items such as mortgage interest or business expenses still be deductible? We must distinguish between one version of the flat tax and another.

Some words – “weasel words” – are notorious for meaning many things to many people, examples being “well-rounded person,” “good citizenship” or “national interest.”

Distinction without a difference.

There are some distinctions we shouldn’t make, that is, distinctions that are not based on any significant differences in the things distinguished. For example, suppose you say “Senator X is not opposed to the principle of extending benefits; he is only opposed to the implementation of that principle at present.” I might reply, “That’s a distinction without a difference, because the practical effects – i.e. the practical effects of opposing the principle and opposing its implementation – are the same.”

Shifting your ground

This is another way of allowing a controversy to jump from one track to another. Shifting your ground consists of changing from one position to another -- in particular, from one argument to another -- in the middle of a controversy, without making clear that you are doing so. This allows the arguer to evade criticisms of his first position by hiding behind the second. For example, consider this exchange over Internet censorship:

A: Pornography and other material is psychologically harmful.

B: How do you know it’s psychologically harmful?

A: Well, just think about it! You wouldn’t want your children to see that

stuff, because it’s against your values. The same goes for most

other parents.

Here, A begins by arguing that certain material is psychologically harmful. But upon being challenged, she shifts to a different argument, namely that the material in question is contrary to the values of parents. She doesn’t announce the shift, so the unsuspecting listener might be lulled into believing that she has proven her first claim.

Counterexamples and hypotheticals

Counterexamples and hypotheticals are used to refute and examine statements, especially value statements.

A counterexample is a particular instance that contradicts a general statement and

so knocks it down. For example:

It’s wrong to lie.

Counterexample: What about lying to dying friends about their condition?

Every great city is built on a river.

Counterexample: What about San Francisco?

Hypotheticals are the same kind of statement, but with a different intent. The intent is not to disprove the general statement, but simply to test it, or see how far it would apply. E.g.:

It’s an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in their home.

Hypothetical: What if they were on their front lawn – would that count?

Case-by-case (situational) vs. blanket judgments or principles

A blanket judgment is one claimed to be true of all cases of a certain type, whereas a case-by-case judgment is not. Its truth depends on the particular situation. Sometimes it’s not clear how a given judgment is meant to apply. For example: “School uniforms are needed because otherwise fights break out over clothing.” Does this mean a) that at all schools fights break out over clothing if students wear what they wish, and therefore school uniforms are needed at all schools? or does it mean b) that at some schools fights break out if students wear what they wish, and in those cases school uniforms are needed? You must determine which type of judgment or issue is meant.

Reasoning is simple but complex

When you saw the first example of the reasoning process, the everyday argument about not stepping off the curb, you might have wondered why anyone has to think about reasoning, because it’s so simple and so obvious. On the other hand, you can see that the essentially simple process of reasoning can be very complex in its application, especially when it comes to questions of public policy. We need mental discipline and persistence to keep the reasoning process in mind while tracing out all the branches of a controversy.

Most people are of course able to handle the simple and obvious cases, but when it comes to the complex cases they are at a loss. So they treat all cases as if they were simple. They jump to conclusions, ignore evidence, and in general short-circuit the reasoning process. This is what you must avoid.

Facing a complex, confused and often formless controversy, you should resist the temptation to simplify. Look at the elements of that controversy as the elements of a reasoning process, then fill out that reasoning process. Think in terms of arguments and issues. Make distinctions and all the other moves needed to perfect the process.

III. Three Specific Forms of Argument

Anecdotal accounts

An anecdotal account is a report on one or a small number of cases. Frequently an anecdotal account is given in support of some general claim. They convey the assumption that what is true in one or several cases is true of all, usually a clear overgeneralization. For example, we hear accounts of people being helped by certain medical treatments, or having their future laid out for them by psychics. (What we don’t hear is the cases where the medical treatment or the psychics failed.)

However, even if anecdotal accounts usually count as weak evidence, they may be suggestive. But we must distinguish between suggestiveness and proof.

In addition, if we are trying to refute some general claim, anecdotal accounts may legitimately provide counterexamples, discussed above.

Arguments from analogy

An analogy is a comparison. The argument from analogy is based on comparison of two (or more) things, on the presumption that if they are similar in some important respect they are also similar in another respect. For example, suppose we know of book A:

It’s a mystery written by Joe Smith, published by XYZ,

and is pleasant reading.

And suppose we know about book B:

It’s a mystery written by Joe Smith, published by XYZ.

We might conclude that book B also is pleasant reading. We draw an analogy between book A and book B, and assume the analogy holds in the respect we are interested in.

Arguments from analogy are used often, and they are a natural way of thinking. Yet they have some major weaknesses. For example, we can support a variety of conclusions depending on the analogy we choose. Do you want to prove that all government programs are inefficient? Then use the Post Office for an analogy. Do you want to prove the opposite? Then use Social Security for an analogy.

How, then, do we choose among possible analogies? Primarily, an analogy is stronger when the two objects compared have a greater number of significant points in common and weaker when they have a greater number of significant points of difference. Significant points are those likely to affect the characteristic we are interested in.

At bottom, arguments from analogy are suggestive, not decisive. They give us something to think about and they organize our thoughts. But they aren’t the final word.

Arguments from authority

We all realize that in many subjects we must remain ignorant and therefore we rely on the opinions of those who are knowledgeable and insightful. We must appeal to the authority of experts.

But Argument from Authority is also one of the traditional fallacies, which tells us that relying on authority is a good way to get fooled. We can’t rely on authority all of the time, but neither can we rely on authority none of the time. What we need to do is draw the line that shows when it’s wise and when it’s unwise to do so.

First, of course, we have to make sure that the authority is truly an expert in the field we’re concerned with. An economist knows more than we do about economics, but the Marlborough Man doesn’t know more than we do about smoking (and probably a lot less).

Second, examine the possible biases that might affect the expert’s judgment. Biases may be of two kinds. One is human bias – leanings toward a political viewpoint, etc. This is something we as laypersons can detect. The other kind is professional bias – commitment toward certain viewpoints within her field of expertise. There is virtually no way to detect this bias except from other experts, which means a conflict among authorities.

Third, break down the expert’s argument into its separate elements and evaluate each in the way appropriate to it. There may be both a moral component and a factual component to the expert’s argument. For example, an economist may say a certain policy is worthwhile because it will serve to make people work harder and because working harder is a virtue (the moral component often only being implied). Well, the economist’s authority extends to the factual claim that the policy will make people work harder, but not to the moral claim that working harder is a virtue. Or, in another kind of case, the expert may make two factual claims, one of which can be compared with the opinions of other experts. So by breaking the expert’s claims into separate components, we may narrow down the scope of our reliance on expert authority.

IV. Handling the Discussion -- General Guidelines

In discussing questions of common concern, your task is first to present a clear and coherent account of your views, and then to persuade others to agree with your views by presenting reasons they accept – in other words, to use rational persuasion. Here are some general guidelines:

1) Be open-minded, objective and cooperative instead of competitive. Consider all possible conclusions in answer to the basic question. Consider criticisms on their merit, not as attacks to be repulsed. Criticize others with the purpose of helping them to find the truth.

Be civil and judicious in your comments, not only out of respect for others but even more out of respect for reason. (The Golden Rule might be helpful here.) On the one hand, don’t refrain from criticism for the sake of politeness if you have good reason to criticize. On the other hand, don’t criticize unless you have good reason to do so. Remember that an insult is not an argument.

2) Analyze all arguments to note their specific parts. Distinguish means from ends. Note and distinguish all the parts of an extended argument. In responding to others, address their claims specifically, and make your own criticisms conform to the reasoning process.

3) Identify issues raised. Ask “What issue are you addressing?”

4) Identify unexpressed premises, as discussed above. Be sure everyone is clear about the unexpressed premises in the arguments asserted, and don’t let anyone sneak a doubtful premise past you.

5) Appeal to the broadest possible principles or goals. You will persuade others only if you find principles that both you and the other party agree on, and you are more likely to find agreement on broader principles than on narrower ones. For example, suppose the debate is over school vouchers. Suppose you assert “We should have a school voucher program” and your opponent asserts the contrary. If you make no effort to go beyond those narrow principles, you’re at an impasse. Persuasion and agreement are possible only if you appeal to a broader principle (perhaps something like “Each child is entitled to the greatest possible development.”) and work down from that to show how that broader principle applies to the case at hand.

6) Be aware of the various distinctions and techniques that make for effective reasoning, including topics mentioned above: the limits of anecdotal evidence, analogy, proper use of arguments from authority, blanket vs. case-by-case issues, counterarguments vs. criticisms, counterexamples and hypotheticals.

V. Checklist of Mistakes to Avoid.

Finally, in addition to giving a list of what we should do, we can pinpoint some of the things we should not do:

1) Irrelevant comments. So often in a discussion, someone will pipe up with a comment that is only tangentially connected to the subject at hand, a comment that has no logical connection with the question to be decided. For example, the question is whether required community service for high schoolers is a good idea, and someone chips in with a description of their nephew’s high school curriculum. (This is not so unlikely as you might think.) Keep your mind on the subject. For this purpose, asking “What issue are you (am I) addressing?” is often helpful.

2) Talking at cross purposes (talking past one another). This was discussed above. If you are answering a fellow participant, make sure you are addressing the same issues.

3) Shifting your ground, discussed above.

4) Confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of your terms. Make the proper distinctions among the meanings of the terms you use, or positions being considered, as discussed above.

5) Overgeneralization. When you provide evidence, don’t overgeneralize from a few examples. (This is especially relevant to anecdotal evidence.)

6) Distinction without a difference, discussed above.

7) Unjustified analogies, discussed above.

8) Straw man fallacy. This refers to the tactic (whether deliberate or not) of attributing a false and unfavorable position to your opponent. The false and unfavorable position is of course easy to refute; it is as if you had set up a straw man and knocked it down, pretending you had overcome a real person. This is of course an unfair procedure, and it deprives your fellow discussants of the benefit of knowing your opponent’s true position.

9) False-alternatives fallacy (black-and-white thinking). This consists of assuming that only two alternatives exist in a situation, ignoring the possibility of a third alternative. Thus we conclude that if one alternative is shown not to be true, the other must be true. To give a crude example:

No person is completely good.

Therefore, every person is evil.

This assumes that every person either is completely good or is evil, whereas in actuality there is a third alternative (actually, a wide range of other alternatives), namely that a person is partly good and partly evil.

Another way of treating the example would be to ask what is meant by the term “evil.” This shows that it is possible to analyze and criticize an argument in more than one way.

-- G. B.