Laws of Thought
How can one be a reasonable person? A reasonable person is one with a logical mind (eg in characterizing arguments or explanations). What are the laws of thought ie the methodological processes in a person's logical mind in distinguishing arguments from explanations, valid from invalid, or probable from improbable, conclusions?
We all think (like recalling or imagining), but not all thinking (such as daydreaming or streams of consciousness) is reasoning. When we reason, the only question we have in mind is: "Whether a (suggested) conclusion follows from the preceding assumptions or premises?" If the premises is conclusive evidence for the conclusion, the reasoning is valid, or if the premises is just some evidence for the suggested conclusion, then its reasonableness is a matter of degree of likelihood or probability.
In the field of legal practice, actors of the legal system frame arguments based on facts and law to provide conclusive evidence or reasons (E) in arriving at valid conclusions (C) ie "C because of E" is deductive. Alternatively, they strive to frame arguments providing some evidence or reasons (<E) in inferring the likelihood or probability of the truth of the suggested conclusions (<C) ie "<C because of <E" is inductive. If C is considered as unproblematic as E, then "C because of E" is not an argument, but an explanation of their close relationship, as in judges' reasons for decisions.
I first studied Logic & Methodologies in the mid 1970s as a core subject in my philosophical pursuit. Since then, I have been in the habit of discerning the rationale of arguments and explanations. By applying the laws of thought, I often get flashes of insight as to how to frame better arguments or to give better explanations, in all my discourses!
Comments