This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Reason Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Reason |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Reasoning page were merged into Reason and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
That page claims that reasoning must be either deduction or induction, which I think is unjustifiable.
Would anyone write please something about the psychological/logical meaning of Shadowboxing? (Refuting something which sounds like the other has said but is not actually that.) -- Adam78 22:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe some merging would be in order ? We have :
How do all those ideas interrelate ? Is defeasilble reasoning the same as abductive reasoning, or as retroductive reasoning ? If not, how can we make the differences clearer ? Flammifer 18:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I just added a bit to the Reasoning article, creating some consistency between Reasoning and Reason. I'd like to expand on, and go into more detail, the idea of reasoning as a creative function of the soul. As for merging, my suggestion is... Reasoning is fine Logical reasoning should be merged into reasoning, what little it adds could easily be incorporated into the Reasoning article; But a link to reasoning should be added to the Logic article. Inductive reasoning is named Induction, and is a nice expansion on the reasoning article and should be left as it is. Perhaps the other methods should be similarly renamed. Daffdaemon 2/20/2006
To the above list, add (at least)
dealing with the same topic(s) -knowledge Newbyguesses 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's all pretty much better than nothing. In reality there are only three areas of reasoning which match the three existing human reasoning capabilities:
"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. ... Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
reasoning is the understanding of one bound and forces.
The next thing is this random Einstein quote. What relevance does anything pertaining to Einstein hold to a discussion of reasoning? I'm not familiar of the exact context of that quote of yours, and the context of it is not provided (Which, ironically, is a fallacy in and of itself--to provide a quote without providing context is to provide a positive claim on conjecture. Pure conjecture, at that. That is, pure conjecture, as in, expecting the reader to just assume that the context allows the quote to hold relevance without any evidence at all to suggest that.
One explanation (And the one I'd wager on) is that it is a non-sequitur based on Einstein's fame. The non-sequitur being the premise, "Einstein is a smart guy and smart guys make correct statements," and the consequent being "This statement is made by Einstein, and is, therefore, correct." Does not follow. This does not follow. Non-sequitur.
Let's review. Two things that you should know about this post, and should remember to take into account in the future, include... -Sign your posts. -Do not try to use fallacies as arguments, especially not when you're trying to make a claim about reasoning itself. Unless you're trying to be ironic... If that's the case, then you should make the deliberate nature of the irony more apparent, and also keep in mind that although absurdism does not carry the negative connotation that a fallacy does, it still doesn't carry a point.
So, what's the third thing we need to learn from this post? Simple. Don't make positive claims of "fact" when what you're discussing is abstract scientific theory, an abstract concept of philosophy, or, as it is in this case, both.
One last thing of note--your actual post was just... It was just this side of unreadable. I sympathise with you if you're not a native speaker of English, as it is my third language and it took me years of practise to attain fluency. I tried to figure out your meaning and revised it, to make your post easier to understand. If I was mistaken in any of those revisions, then I apologise. 162.40.241.39 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a branch of philosophy. However, it should be under logic. There is a group whose purpose in life is to pare the logic project to nothing. They have removed dozens of articles out from under logic. That's why it's not there. Gregbard 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The introduction claims that all reasoning is used to support already existing beliefs, etc. I am less cynical. I think that at least sometimes, we reason in order to discover the truth, rather than only to justify what we already believe. I'm going to change the intro accordingly, and see what happens. Rick Norwood 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
maybe such a table would be good to show the differences at one look
Abduction | Induction | Deduction | |
---|---|---|---|
Input(Reason) | ? | given | given |
Rules | given | ? | given |
Result | given | given | ? |
? = the data to be determined | |||
given = the data that is given |
i myself had trouble understanding the differences between abduction and induction since both deal with the unknown and many variables
it would have had come handy in class
I removed the following statement from the opening paragraph:
Although reasoning was once thought to be a uniquely human capability, other animals also engage in reasoning.
My reasons for this excision are:
I searched for evidence sufficient to justify its inclusion but thus far came up empty handed. Hence I think it should be excluded until a stronger case can be made for its inclusion. Manning ( talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. I searched the page history, and found one edit by Jagged 85 in February 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this is crap. Come and have a look at my comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Genezistan
Genezistan ( talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines
Where did I break the rule? Genezistan ( talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is either way out of date, playing dumb or ignorant of the state computer reasoning has reached. 96.252.218.253 ( talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This article nominally covers the same subject as Reason. Just adding an "-ing" does not change that fact. To the extent that there is any superior and worthwhile material in this article then I think as per WP:CFORK we should consider integrating those bits into the other article. Although this present article seems rather big and to cover lots of different things than Reason, but on closer inspection a lot of it is quite questionable in terms of notability, and appropriateness for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. What do others think?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Greg and Pgr, I agree that the current Reason article does not do much concerning non human reasoning, for example the use of the word with regards to computers. I am not sure that there is much to say about the subject but if there is why could it not either be merged to Reason or put into a new article? Secondly though, what else is there, if anything, in this article which is worth saving? Obviously the principle of not wanting to loose any good material is reasonable, but see my notes above.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 06:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the current table of contents, with comments by me attached:-
So just as my first comment, open to discussion, I'd think the stuff worth discussion is maybe in sections 3, 4, and 5, or maybe not. This is just to get discussion started.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of that?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reason is a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.
If I haven't been very clear, let me summarise my position:
pgr94 ( talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and done a merge, turning this article into a redirect. Please note that this is not a deletion, and I am not insisting that all the material in Reason needs to ultimately remain in one article. I think however, that discussion on two talk pages is not going to work. Having all discussion at that page will focus minds better. And in any case it is clear that there is no rationale for having two articles named Reason or Reasoning, so if some of the material does not fit on Reason then we can discuss there where it might fit better.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Reason Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Reason |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Reasoning page were merged into Reason and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
That page claims that reasoning must be either deduction or induction, which I think is unjustifiable.
Would anyone write please something about the psychological/logical meaning of Shadowboxing? (Refuting something which sounds like the other has said but is not actually that.) -- Adam78 22:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe some merging would be in order ? We have :
How do all those ideas interrelate ? Is defeasilble reasoning the same as abductive reasoning, or as retroductive reasoning ? If not, how can we make the differences clearer ? Flammifer 18:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I just added a bit to the Reasoning article, creating some consistency between Reasoning and Reason. I'd like to expand on, and go into more detail, the idea of reasoning as a creative function of the soul. As for merging, my suggestion is... Reasoning is fine Logical reasoning should be merged into reasoning, what little it adds could easily be incorporated into the Reasoning article; But a link to reasoning should be added to the Logic article. Inductive reasoning is named Induction, and is a nice expansion on the reasoning article and should be left as it is. Perhaps the other methods should be similarly renamed. Daffdaemon 2/20/2006
To the above list, add (at least)
dealing with the same topic(s) -knowledge Newbyguesses 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's all pretty much better than nothing. In reality there are only three areas of reasoning which match the three existing human reasoning capabilities:
"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. ... Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
reasoning is the understanding of one bound and forces.
The next thing is this random Einstein quote. What relevance does anything pertaining to Einstein hold to a discussion of reasoning? I'm not familiar of the exact context of that quote of yours, and the context of it is not provided (Which, ironically, is a fallacy in and of itself--to provide a quote without providing context is to provide a positive claim on conjecture. Pure conjecture, at that. That is, pure conjecture, as in, expecting the reader to just assume that the context allows the quote to hold relevance without any evidence at all to suggest that.
One explanation (And the one I'd wager on) is that it is a non-sequitur based on Einstein's fame. The non-sequitur being the premise, "Einstein is a smart guy and smart guys make correct statements," and the consequent being "This statement is made by Einstein, and is, therefore, correct." Does not follow. This does not follow. Non-sequitur.
Let's review. Two things that you should know about this post, and should remember to take into account in the future, include... -Sign your posts. -Do not try to use fallacies as arguments, especially not when you're trying to make a claim about reasoning itself. Unless you're trying to be ironic... If that's the case, then you should make the deliberate nature of the irony more apparent, and also keep in mind that although absurdism does not carry the negative connotation that a fallacy does, it still doesn't carry a point.
So, what's the third thing we need to learn from this post? Simple. Don't make positive claims of "fact" when what you're discussing is abstract scientific theory, an abstract concept of philosophy, or, as it is in this case, both.
One last thing of note--your actual post was just... It was just this side of unreadable. I sympathise with you if you're not a native speaker of English, as it is my third language and it took me years of practise to attain fluency. I tried to figure out your meaning and revised it, to make your post easier to understand. If I was mistaken in any of those revisions, then I apologise. 162.40.241.39 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a branch of philosophy. However, it should be under logic. There is a group whose purpose in life is to pare the logic project to nothing. They have removed dozens of articles out from under logic. That's why it's not there. Gregbard 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The introduction claims that all reasoning is used to support already existing beliefs, etc. I am less cynical. I think that at least sometimes, we reason in order to discover the truth, rather than only to justify what we already believe. I'm going to change the intro accordingly, and see what happens. Rick Norwood 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
maybe such a table would be good to show the differences at one look
Abduction | Induction | Deduction | |
---|---|---|---|
Input(Reason) | ? | given | given |
Rules | given | ? | given |
Result | given | given | ? |
? = the data to be determined | |||
given = the data that is given |
i myself had trouble understanding the differences between abduction and induction since both deal with the unknown and many variables
it would have had come handy in class
I removed the following statement from the opening paragraph:
Although reasoning was once thought to be a uniquely human capability, other animals also engage in reasoning.
My reasons for this excision are:
I searched for evidence sufficient to justify its inclusion but thus far came up empty handed. Hence I think it should be excluded until a stronger case can be made for its inclusion. Manning ( talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. I searched the page history, and found one edit by Jagged 85 in February 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this is crap. Come and have a look at my comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Genezistan
Genezistan ( talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines
Where did I break the rule? Genezistan ( talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is either way out of date, playing dumb or ignorant of the state computer reasoning has reached. 96.252.218.253 ( talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This article nominally covers the same subject as Reason. Just adding an "-ing" does not change that fact. To the extent that there is any superior and worthwhile material in this article then I think as per WP:CFORK we should consider integrating those bits into the other article. Although this present article seems rather big and to cover lots of different things than Reason, but on closer inspection a lot of it is quite questionable in terms of notability, and appropriateness for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. What do others think?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Greg and Pgr, I agree that the current Reason article does not do much concerning non human reasoning, for example the use of the word with regards to computers. I am not sure that there is much to say about the subject but if there is why could it not either be merged to Reason or put into a new article? Secondly though, what else is there, if anything, in this article which is worth saving? Obviously the principle of not wanting to loose any good material is reasonable, but see my notes above.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 06:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is the current table of contents, with comments by me attached:-
So just as my first comment, open to discussion, I'd think the stuff worth discussion is maybe in sections 3, 4, and 5, or maybe not. This is just to get discussion started.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of that?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reason is a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.
If I haven't been very clear, let me summarise my position:
pgr94 ( talk) 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and done a merge, turning this article into a redirect. Please note that this is not a deletion, and I am not insisting that all the material in Reason needs to ultimately remain in one article. I think however, that discussion on two talk pages is not going to work. Having all discussion at that page will focus minds better. And in any case it is clear that there is no rationale for having two articles named Reason or Reasoning, so if some of the material does not fit on Reason then we can discuss there where it might fit better.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)