Principles of Critical Reasoning for A5

Principles of Sound Critical Reasoning 

In looking for principles of sound critical reasoning related to the social issues you have studied this semester, you might want to consider the list below.  Be aware, however, that this list is not exhaustive.  These principles should not be used to structure an argument but rather to generate ideas.    

Attitude of Approach

Sound critical reasoning

…understands that social issues, by their very nature, don’t have certain answers 

    or solutions

…reflects this uncertainty by being skeptical of one’s own ideas as well as the

    ideas of others

…realizes that engaging uncertainty and practicing intellectual skepticism results

    in a more honest and objective argument 

Formation of Ideas

Sound critical reasoning

…contributes to the ongoing discussion of the issue in an original manner,

    moving beyond the superficial to put forth an entirely new perspective or 

    approach existing perspectives in new ways

…identifies credible and sufficient evidence

…refines rough ideas into conclusions proportionate to this evidence

Articulation of Argument

Sound critical reasoning

…recognizes the distinctions between ideas but also the connections that bridge

    them 

…expresses itself in language that is resonant with the complexity and nuance of

    the ideas

…displays an awareness of the audience receiving the reasoning, thereby

    presenting it in a manner that engages rather than alienates other people 

Some Examples of Unsound Critical Reasoning

In looking for examples of unsound critical reasoning related to the social issues you have studied this semester, you might want to consider the list below.  Be aware, however, that this list is not exhaustive.  These terms should not be used to structure an argument but rather to generate ideas, though the best essays will transcend these terms by bringing something original to the discussion.    

Apathy/Laziness:  unwillingness to invest in the work required for sound reasoning

Avoiding Conflict: sometimes a heated debate or discussion may appear like a tense conflict to be avoided rather than joined (e.g. consider phrases like “I don’t want to rock the boat.”)

Barriers to Entry:  if entering the conversation requires resources/qualifications/access available to only a select few (e.g. poll tax in the Jim Crow south, or running for office requiring independent wealth—Meg Whitman for Governor of California, or Michael Bloomberg for Mayor of New York)

Certainty:  approaching argument from an absolute, close-minded position that cannot take other positions into consideration

Conformity: while conformity may be somewhat reasonable (and necessary) in a social context, it can also hinder one’s ability to think beyond the boundaries of social norms and expectations

Conspiracy:  claims that require no evidence and that reject all evidence to the contrary as “part of the conspiracy” itself (e.g. 9/11 attacks were planned by George Bush, Barack Obama is not a US citizen)

Dependence on “Experts”:  wherein participants give up their agency to authorities (e.g. the Milgram electric-shock experiments in psychology; consider phrases like “I was just following orders.”)

Diffusion of Responsibility: the refusal or inability to take personal responsibility for social issues may stem from the belief that others will take care of problems

Distraction: good reasoning requires sustained attention. What distracts us? (e.g. pop culture, Facebook updates, personal life, consumerism)

Factual Discord:  it is hard for the reasoning to advance if the parties cannot agree on the same set of basic facts (i.e. hard to argue productively about what to do if there is disagreement on what is happening)

Ignoring/Deferring to Tradition:  reasoning that ignores tradition will not resonate with a public, and reasoning that is overly beholden to tradition will be static and discourage new ideas

Logical Fallacies (see pages 9-12 in the Writing 140 Course Book)

Metaphysical/Mythical Thinking:  reasoning that assigns responsibility to factors beyond the “human” (e.g. declaring Hitler evil/satanic and thus absolving us of the task of explaining Nazism as a real social phenomenon)

Naïve Romanticism: reasoning that is naively ideal cannot genuinely engage the complex realities of most social issues

Scape-goating: transferring accountability (and usually guilt) from one group or person to another, thereby obscuring the record of events pertinent to an issue and thus concealing genuine responsibility for outcomes

Self-consciousness: worries about how others perceive us can limit our engagement with social issues (e.g. being labeled a radical, flip-flopper, idealist)

Self-selection & Confirmation Bias:  the practice of only participating in the conversation through filters that you yourself select—and that tend to confirm rather than challenge preconceived ideas (e.g. understanding American social issues only through the lens of Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann, FOX News or MSNBC)

Static Reasoning:  that which doesn’t adapt to new social attitudes/practices/realities (e.g. fighting the War on Terror with conventional, Cold War-era strategic thinking)

Stubbornness: engaging in critical reasoning requires one to find common ground between contrasting ideas

Ulterior Motive:  if the conversation is entered for reasons other than advancing the best answer to the issues at hand, problems can arise, e.g.:

Popularity/Profit: commercially-driven reasoning that is primarily concerned with ratings and selling advertisements

Sabotage/Corrupt:  if the goal is not to advance the discussion but rather destabilize or discredit it

Pleasure Principle: when the drive for pleasure is the chief motivating force in behavior it may affect reasoning

Undue Adherence to Data:  reasoning only concerned with raw numbers or cold instrumental analysis will be devoid of pathos and ineffective at dealing with real human issues