REASONING & ARGUING
Is there a difference between arguing and reasoning?
At first glance, the two might seem interchangeable.
An argument means revealing the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection, and reasoning is also an effort to uncover the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection.
The difference is that one is broader, and the other is more specific.
- 1⃣ Where there is a way to reveal the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection by analyzing the interconnections of the issue at hand.
〰 It could involve logical fallacies or errors in thought experiments.
- 2⃣ COGNITIVE BIAS. Uncovering the causal pathway as proof for acceptance or rejection by analyzing the environmental conditions surrounding the issue.
〰 A lack of understanding of the conducive situation for the research object may lead to the assumption that there is no logical fallacy (it seems reasonable), while there is an oddity, a deception like watching a magic trick, or being unaware of being deceived—deluded by the situation.
The first investigates where there is an error in thinking, and the second examines the conditions under which point 1⃣ is applied.
IN GENERAL
Generally, arguing is just one specific way of reasoning, whereas reasoning goes beyond mere logical argumentation and can involve considering other approaches in making judgments.
IN A BROADER SENSE
If expanded further, reasoning is not just about making judgments limited to arguing, but also about preparing oneself to avoid cognitive biases as part of the broader consideration process.
Top comments (0)