PHIL 347 Week 6 Checkpoint

Student Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name:

Date

Three Fundamental Reasoning Strategies

According to the text, the three fundamental reasoning strategies are comparative reasoning, ideological reasoning, and empirical reasoning. Each of these strategies serves a different purpose in the reasoning process and can be applied in different contexts to support or challenge conclusions.

Comparative Reasoning

Comparative reasoning involves comparing two things to interpret, infer, or explain differences and similarities. This form of reasoning is rooted in critical thinking skills, as it requires comparing existing knowledge with new or unfamiliar information. By examining similarities and differences, individuals can make informed conclusions about the relationship between the compared elements.

Evaluation of Argument Tests in Comparative Reasoning

When evaluating comparative reasoning, four tests are often used: truthfulness of premises, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. However, these tests are not always effective in assessing comparative reasoning. The first test, which focuses on determining whether premises are true or false, lacks the clarity needed for comparisons. The second test, assessing logical strength, faces challenges because comparisons often highlight both similarities and dissimilarities, making it hard to apply the test consistently. The third test, relevance, depends on the individual making the analogy to explain its relevance, which can be subjective. The fourth test, non-circularity, struggles with comparative reasoning as it is often difficult to connect premises and conclusions when dealing with unfamiliar concepts, such as comparing business to war.

Five Criteria for Evaluating Comparative Reasoning

To evaluate comparative reasoning effectively, five criteria are used: familiarity, simplicity, comprehensiveness, productivity, and testability.

Familiarity refers to how much the audience knows about the compared objects.
Simplicity involves the complexity of the comparison being made.
Comprehensiveness looks at how well the comparison covers key aspects of the objects being compared.
Productivity measures the ability of the comparison to inspire new ideas beyond the original comparison.
Testability assesses whether the comparison can predict possible consequences, including those that may be inaccurate.

Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning is a type of reasoning that uses experiences, particularly those shared interpersonally, to support or refute hypotheses. It is inductive, self-corrective, and open to scrutiny, making it a valuable tool for understanding and testing the real world. The process of empirical reasoning encourages the exploration of evidence, with conclusions that are constantly subject to revision and independent verification.

Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning

Empirical reasoning has three defining characteristics: it is inductive, meaning it builds general conclusions from specific observations; it is self-corrective, meaning it adapts when new evidence challenges previous conclusions; and it is open to independent verification, allowing other experts to confirm or challenge its findings.

Key Aspects of Empirical Reasoning Evaluation

Empirical reasoning can be evaluated using the same four tests of argumentation: truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity. If empirical reasoning passes these tests, it strengthens its conclusions. Peer review plays a crucial role in the evaluation process, ensuring that reasoning and methods are scrutinized by other experts in the field to maintain the quality and integrity of the research.

Purpose and Process of Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that research findings meet high standards by having other experts critically evaluate the research methods, analysis, and conclusions. This process is designed to filter out work that does not pass the necessary tests of logical strength, relevance, and other criteria for scholarly work.

Comparison of Critical Thinking Courses and Skill Development

Although research shows a positive correlation between taking a critical thinking course and improved critical thinking skills, it is premature to assert that taking such a course directly causes improved skills. There may be many other factors involved, and the correlation does not establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship.

Empirical Reasoning and Statistical Representation

Just because empirical reasoning is presented with statistics and published in print does not guarantee that it passes all four tests of argumentation. Errors can still occur in peer-reviewed studies, which means that conclusions based on such reasoning should not be accepted without further scrutiny.