Hallo, this is Bin Song at the course of Introduction to Philosophy at Washington College.

Our course starts from telling my personal story on how I entered the study of philosophy, and then, we discussed ancient Greek philosophy as a tradition of rational criticism and debate. In last unit, we introduced the charismatic figure, Socrates, who would like to sacrifice his life to his belief in democracy and his practice of philosophy.

Now, it is a perfect time to introduce one of the central skills that a philosophy major is required to command: logic, and the art of Reasoning. Quite obviously, without the tool of good reasoning, those ancient Greek philosophers cannot rationally debate each other; and Socrates cannot apply his Socratic method to have extensive dialogues with his Athenian fellow citizens on varying topics either, such as what is justice, courage, goodness, etc. In other words, the birth of philosophy in ancient Greece is distinguished by its logical mindset, a mindset to use evidence, reasoning, and argument to collectively advance human knowledge.

I also linked two recent articles here to help you appreciate how important the skill of reasoning is. One is titled “Want a good job? Major in philosophy.” Its thrust is that the major of philosophy teaches students how to think critically, logically and independently, and it also teaches students how to find better solutions to problems with an open-minded awareness that real life problems normally do not have a singular, one-size-fit-for-all solution. And these skills of critical thinking and problem solving prepare philosophy students for a variety of jobs, and in particular, increase the needed momentum and adaptivity in their middle careers, no matter what job they would be pursuing. Another article is “how teaching philosophy could help combat extremism,” and its major claim is that the critical and independent thought to which a philosophy student is habituated is a powerful antidote to the simplistic, tribalist and extremist thinking that today’s extremely open yet dividing media environment is prone to inculcate. In other words, individually, learning how to think philosophically prepares one for jobs, while from the perspective of society, the consistent implementation of critical thinking, rational debate and free inquiry is absolutely vital to the well-functioning of a democracy.

Even if we do not quote any history or article, the significance of learning how to think makes a common sense. In the human society, if you look around, everything that humans have accomplished start from an idea. If you want to become rich, you need a business idea; if you want to speak a new language, live in a new country, and have new human relationships, you need an idea about how to do so. More importantly, when many ideas existing in your mind, how to differentiate good ideas from bad ones, how to connect these ideas to form a solid body of knowledge, and how to learn new ideas to complement the old, all of these lie rightly at the initial moment of any human activities. In this sense, we will find that the ability to think rigorously, creatively, and independently before delving into any depth of human activities is really what distinguishes humans from animals, humans from machines and more importantly, distinguishes human individuals from each other. In other words, this ability makes us not act from impulse, not act from old programming, but from our independent, autonomous, and creative center of human personality: reason.

Good, enough for the significance of the ability of thinking. Let’s move on to the basics of Logic, and the art of reasoning.

Regarding the art of reasoning, or how to make good argument, there are two aspects of it, one is technical and another is ethical. The technical side of it pertains to the basics of logic, and the ethical side of it is about how to rationally debate, persuade, and learn from your disputants. Let’s proceed following one aspect after another.

So, the first question is: what is logic?

Logic is the study of reasoning, which provides standards for distinguishing good reasoning from bad reasoning.

But, before we get to the standards part, the immediate second question is: what is reasoning?

All reasoning consists of two components: (1) at least one premise, and (2) one conclusion. The premise(s) of your reasoning provides the reasons or evidence that you are using to support your conclusion. Accordingly, the conclusion of your reasoning is a statement that you believe on the basis of your premise(s). For example, the following is reasoning: “I should stay quiet when others are studying in the library because that’s what I would expect of others.” Here, I am concluding that I should be quiet based on the premise that I would expect the same from others.

There are two general types of reasoning: Induction and deduction

Inductive reasoning is reasoning in which you base your conclusion on a premise(s) that supports your conclusion with some degree of probability. That is, the premise(s) gives you a strong reason for concluding something but doesn’t guarantee that this conclusion is true. For example, you might conclude that the courses in this fall semester (this refers to 2020 Fall) would end up in a few weeks after the Thanks Giving holiday so that you have booked a travel for that time, because in your mind, the school most often ended that way before. However, while this conclusion may be quite probable given your past experience, it is not automatic and certain. Indeed, something could happen abruptly so as to change the normal schedule. The current pandemic is one best example for this. So, all inductive reasoning is like this. Even if all your premises are true, your conclusion is at most probable, not certain.

Deductive reasoning is different. If the premise(s) of deductive reasoning is true, your conclusion will automatically be true too. In other words, there is an automatic transmission of truth value from the premises to the conclusion in deductive reasoning. In fact, we say that deductive reasoning is “valid” (viz., acceptable) only if the conclusion is automatically true when the premises are true. For example, the following is valid deductive reasoning: “If someone is a human then they will someday die; Socrates is a human; therefore Socrates will someday die.” Notice that, in the case of this reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion is automatically true. It’s guaranteed to be true. However, it is usually the case that the premises in valid deductive reasoning are not themselves certain. For example, the premise that if someone is a human then they will someday die is not certain because it is itself a conclusion drawn from inductive reasoning.

To see this, you need only consider how we can claim to know that all humans die. We believe this premise because we have concluded it from the further premise that all humans have always died in the past. But, it is still possible that in the future we might figure out how to make ourselves immortal. At least, the idea of immortal human beings is not self-contradictory, and hence, is possible in reality. So, we can’t conclude with certainty that if someone is a human, they will someday die. Of course, it’s very likely and for practical purposes we might not question it; but, strictly speaking, it is only probable and not automatically true.

So, even though the conclusions of deductive reasoning are automatically true given that their premises are true, the conclusions of such reasoning may still not be true. This can be the case when at least one of the premises is false. For example, consider this reasoning: “If you are a human then you will live forever; you are a human; therefore you will live forever.” Here one of the premises is probably false. So the conclusion that you will live forever is not automatically true. It would have to be true only if both of the premises were true.

From these discussions, we also find that deductive reasoning could be sound or valid. If all of the premises of a valid deductive argument are true then its conclusion will also be true. Such a deductive argument that has all true premises is called sound deductive reasoning. So, in valid deductive reasoning the conclusion is automatically true if all of its premises are true; and in sound deductive reasoning all of the premises are actually true.

In light of these discussions, since reasoning comprises of inductive one leading to probable conclusion, and of deductive one leading to certain conclusion as long as its premises are also certain, our standards to judge whether one’s reasoning is good or bad include the following points: whether they raise enough evidences to support the high probability of their conclusion, and whether they conform to the rules of deductive reasoning so that their arguments appear to be valid and sound. If not, we definitely can use two counter-arguments to refute them: that is, we can raise contrary evidence to refute that inductive conclusion, and we can also point out inconsistency of their deductive reasoning.

However, even if our own argument contains highly probable inductive reasoning, and sound deductive reasoning, we cannot guarantee that our arguments always sound persuasive to our audience. Why? That’s because as mentioned, apart from the technical side of reasoning, viz., the basics of logic that we just mentioned, there is another ethical side of argumentation and debate. In other words, for that sort of rational debate favored by ancient Greek philosophers which leads to the advancement of human knowledge, we do not only need the basics of logic, we also need a practical art of persuasion, one that could turn our audience into willing listeners even if we may disagree each other on certain points of views. Believe me, this side of the art of reasoning turns out to be more difficult than commanding the rules of good reasoning, although the latter is also utterly important. I also believe that this difficulty does not sound unfamiliar to you. An instinct of human beings which may be inherited from our aggressive animal nature is that we usually misunderstand disagreement of views as a sort of clash of persons, so that whenever someone refutes our view, our initial impulse tends to perceive it as a personal attack, and then, we will wield everything in our hand to fight back. In this case, debate may easily turn into being irrational, and the ideal of learning and advancing human knowledge through rational debate will be just thrown under the bus.

So, here, I will raise a six-step program for the art of persuasion, which is also the ethical part of the art of reasoning. And its central concern is how to criticize with kindness, and thus, realize the ideal of rational debate. Do remember, if you want to be a good artist of reasoning, you must practice both the technical side, and this ethical side of the art consistently. Neither of the two aspects can be dispensed with another.

So, how to deliver a successful critical response?

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” This means you always understand your disputant accurately and thoroughly before criticizing their views. In an actual dialogue, this step could be said in a sentence like “Peter, let me try to grasp what you have said. … Is this what you mean?” or “Sarah, I do not fully understand the point you just mentioned … Can you clarify it a little bit before we’re moving forward? Did you say that …? Is this what you mean?”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). This is very important for the art of persuasion, which shows the existence of a common ground among disputants, and thus, would not turn the dialogue into overtly antagonistic or hostile.
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target. This point deepens the last point even further, isn’t it so? The necessity of rational debate consists in the limitedness of knowledge of any human individual. So we need to come together to debate, to analyze, and more importantly, to learn from each other. A highlight of what you have learned from your disputant is a must-do before moving the debate forward.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. Considering the standards of good reasoning we mentioned above, you can refute the view of your disputants through raising contrary evidences or pointing out their inconsistency. In the future, if you continue to sign up in philosophy courses, you will learn more methods of refutations and how to apply those methods into varying contexts. But overall, to raise contrary evidences and point out inconsistency are always a good start.
5. If your refutation pertains to ethical issues, make sure you do before you say it. For instance, you may refute that your interlocutor’s view not to donate to a certain charity is too selfish. In order that this refutation is really persuasive, you need to do before you say it, which may mean that you must already have a such a record of donation, or you can make your interlocutor believe that you will make such a donation. Regarding ethical issues, humans are persuaded by examples and deeds more than by words.
6. After all these five steps have been successfully conducted, you need to put yourselves into your disputants’ shoes, and explain from their perspective, how their pre-established views can accept your critique, and thus, how this critique can enlighten their own understanding on the addressed issue. In this way, you help your disputants realize that as a team, you are learning from each other, and collectively, you are contributing to the advancement of human knowledge, which is what rational debate is all about.

Ok, let me simplify these six steps in some pithy words so that you can memorize them:

To present persuasive criticism or refutation to others, you need to:

• 1, Recapitulate others’ views.
• 2, Find where you agree with them.
• 3, Explain what you have learned from them.
• 4, Present your criticism rationally, viz., following the basics of logic.
• 5, If disputing ethical issues, do before you say.
• 6, Explain how others can accept your criticism.

Recommended further reading:

Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking (W. W. Norton & Company, 2013)

Recommended further watch:

Quiz

(1) When you arrive at your office, and find that the door has been opened; based upon your past experience, you conclude that the janitor is working inside right now. What type of reasoning are you utilizing to reach this conclusion?
A, Induction
B, Deduction

(2) A gym trainer is struggling to figure out whether he should quit the job he loves because he has the least clients among peer trainers. He thought that “All marketing strategies are to sell products that clients do not want, and I hate it. There is a specific way of marketing for gym trainers to promote their training programs. Therefore, I would not learn this marketing skill in my profession even if this means the decrease of the number of my clients.” What type of reasoning is this gym trainer using to reach his conclusion?
A, Induction
B, Deduction.

(3) If you get it correct on last question, how would you describe that gym trainer’s reasoning?
A, it is a valid and sound deductive reasoning.
B, It is a valid deductive reasoning because if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.
C, It is not a sound deductive reasoning because some premise of it is not true.

(4) There are two components for the art of reasoning. What are they?

A, the basics of logic which state the rule of good reasoning.
B, the art of persuasion which lays out the rules for the ethical practice of argumentation.

(5) There are six steps for the art of persuasion addressed by this meeting. Please find a topic to debate with your friends, family members, or peer-students following these steps, and then, submit a short report of the debate. In the report, you only need to state the topic of the debate, people’s views on the two sides, and what you have experienced or learned from the process. The report needs to be within 100 words.