175 study reasoning self 147
 |
| Illustration Twelve — toddler’s life-long-reasoning at work 1940 |
2024oct22 Reasoning: Meaning, Definition and Types https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/thinking/reasoning-meaning-definition-and-types/2060
Meaning: Reasoning is one of the best forms of controlled thinking consciously towards the solution of a problem. It is realistic in the sense that the solution is sought always in reference to the reality of the situation. We can solve many problems in our day-dreams, dreams and imaginations but they are unrealistic solutions. As Sherman defined, “reasoning is a process of thinking during which the individual is aware of a problem; identifies, evaluates, and decides upon a solution”. Reasoning is used not only when we want to solve an immediate problem but also when we anticipate future problems. Reasoning plays a significant role in one’s adjustment to the environment. It not only determines one’s cognitive activities but also influences the behavior and personality. Definitions: 1. “Reasoning is a stepwise thinking with a purpose or goal in mind” —Garrett. 2. “Reasoning is the term applied to highly purposeful, controlled and selective thinking”—Gates. 3. “Reasoning is the word used to describe the mental recognition of cause and effect relationships, it may be the prediction of an event from an observed cause or the inference of a cause from an observed event”—Skinner. Thus reasoning is a highly specialized thinking which helps an individual to explore mentally the cause and effect relationship of an event or solution of a problem by adopting some well-organized systematic steps based on previous experience combined with present observation. Types: 1. Inductive is a specialized thinking aimed at the discovery or construction of a generalized principle by making use of particular cases, special examples and identifying of elements or relations. 2. Deductive is the ability to draw some logical conclusions from known statement or evidences. Here one starts with already known or established generalized statement or principle and applies it to specific cases. ……
2024oct22 Reasoning: Nature, Type and Motive | Psychology https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/reasoning/reasoning-nature-type-and-motive-psychology/1663
Nature: (i) Typical Thinking: Reasoning thinks out a new relationship among the facts previously observed and recalled at present. It is different from thinking of something, because it involves a series of symbolic activities [taught by parochial elementary school 1940s]. When you reason, you call up some images, ideas or symbols, which enable you to respond to absent stimuli. Thus reasoning involves a sequence of symbolic activities directed towards the solution of a problem, theoretical or practical. (ii) Mental Exploration: Reasoning finds a new relationship among the data perceived or recalled. It is a substitute for motor exploration. …… (iii) Resembles Trial and Error Behavior: Reasoning is like a trial and error process as it follows one clue after another. But it differs from trial and error process in that it does not actually explore clues by movements but follows them by thinking them through. It follows clues by recalling facts which were previously observed. It economizes time and energy. It saves us from the labor of physical exertion involved in motor exploration. But it resembles a trial and error process like motor exploration. Reasoning shows the general pattern of trial and error behavior . It is oriented towards a goal [universal growth]. It reaches the goal by trying this mean and that means. It solves a problem by seeing the implications of the data observed or recalled, and grouping them together into new patterns. (iv) Different from Trial and Error Behavior: First, Reasoning does not involve motor exploration. The present environment is not actually explored in reasoning. Secondly, the leads to the goal are not always actually observed. They are recalled from past experience. The clues are not actually manipulated, but thought out for the solution of the problem. Thus reasoning resembles a trial and error process in its general pattern, but it is quite different from it in its nature. But sometimes reasoning cannot reach a solution. So it yields to actual motor exploration and observation of fresh facts. If you cannot find out your way in a new place by reasoning, you have to move hither and thither in search of fresh clues. (v) a Conative Tendency: McDougall holds that reasoning involves a conative tendency, a desire to know the answer to a question, which may spring from the instinct of curiosity. The desire selects the relevant material to facilitate the drawing of the right conclusion. This selectivity is an important factor of reasoning. It is the essence of intelligent adaptation. In reasoning, the relevant data, furnished by observation, or recall, or both, are combined and examined in order to draw a new conclusion from the combination. Then the conclusion is tested or verified.
The process parts: (a) Gathering the data or facts or judgements. (b) Combining the data or inter-relating them to one another. (c) Seeing the implications of the combined data or drawing a new conclusion from the combined data. (d) Testing the conclusion so reached. The first step in reasoning is gathering the data from observation, or memory, or both, bearing on the problem. The second step consists in assembling the data, relating them to one another, and examining them to see what they mean or imply when combined. The third is the crucial step in reasoning. It consists in seeing the implications of the combined [related] data. It consists in finding out a new relationship among the data combined. Then the conclusion is verified by fresh observation if possible. Reasoning mainly consists in mental exploration of the data and finding out a new relationship among them. Psychology mainly deals with the exploratory process which leads to inference. Logic mainly deals with the inference alone.
Types: There are three types of reasoning from the standpoint of Logic: induction, analogy and deduction. Induction consists in deriving a general principal from particular acts observed. Analogy consists in in-erring a new particular fact from the particular facts observed. Deduction consists in applying a general principle to a particular act. Thus reasoning may be either inductive, analogical, or deductive. From the standpoint of Psychology, reasoning may be either planning or understanding. In the first case, we have a desire or need which must be satisfied or supplied, and or which the data of perception are not sufficient. Reasoning aims at invention and discovery. Invention is designing a new device. Discovery is drawing a new conclusion from the given judgements. Reasoning saves the time, energy and materials which might be wasted in hit and miss trial. We try to understand natural phenomena as they happen. In this kind of reasoning, we do not aim at changing the course of the world directly, but at seeing how it works. Scientific reasoning aims at discovering new truths. Pillsbury points out that both forms of reasoning arise from a thwarting of progress. They are motivated by a desire for change in a present situation. Both arise from a thwarted response. In active planning we try to effect a change in the present situation, which is desired. We reason out the desired change. In understanding a phenomenon, which appears strange, is explained. (i) Correct and Incorrect: Fallacies in the process of reasoning occur owing to the violation of the rules of logical reasoning. They can be corrected by a study of logic. ………… Our ordinary reasoning seldom follows logical rules. The premises with which we start are seldom true. Our common reasoning is distorted by our illogical past experiences. False opinions, beliefs, and prejudices distort our reasoning. We cannot often discriminate logical from fallacious reasoning. Reasoning is distorted by love, hate, and other emotions. (ii) Reasoning or Problem-Solving: Reasoning is reflective thinking. It aims at the solution of a problem. There is a problem, simple or complex, theoretical or practical, which calls for a solution. The solution is not ready at hand. The data of sense—perception do not give a key to the solution of the problem. So the perplexing situation initiates reflective thinking or reasoning. It investigates the data perceived and recalled in order to throw light on the solution of the problem. Drever mentions four steps in reasoning as a mental process: (i) The understanding of the problem, (ii) The active following of the clues, (iii) The suggested hypothetical solution, and (iv) The deduction of the results and the verification of the thought out solution. The problem should be clearly comprehended. Otherwise it cannot be solved. The problem intelligently understood is half solved. It should be completely understood in all its bearings. A crudely apprehended problem leads to unintelligent groping in the dark for a correct solution. It leads to hesitancy and doubt, faltering and bungling, and ineffective handling of the situation. The more complete is the comprehension of the problem, the greater is the facility for its solution. Then the data given by perception and recalled in memory must be clearly followed. The clues should be logically followed and interconnected. Then a solution is suggested to the mind [by the brain[. It is a hypothetical solution. Then results are deduced from the hypothesis. If the deduced results tally with facts of actual observation, the hypothesis is verified. These are the four steps in, reasoning.
In problem solving a guiding idea is necessary. It is suggested by the data observed and the clues followed carefully and intelligently. A detective makes a hypothesis after observing and collecting all data about a crime committed, and continues his investigation in the light of the hypothesis. He deduces consequences from it, and if they tally with observed, facts, his hypothesis is proved. But if they do not tally with facts, he has to reject it and make another hypothesis and proceed in his investigation. At last he will solve the problem and detect the criminal. But even a provisional hypothesis may facilitate scientific investigation, because it explains certain facts and fails to account for other facts. It may point to a better and more adequate hypothesis which may satisfactorily explain all the facts. Thus a hypothesis is an important aid to problem-solving.
Woodworth States the Motives: Reasoning solves a practical problem. Suppose, you have lost your way in a forest. You are confronted with a novel situation. You will have to find out the necessary data or premises and find a key to the novel situation. You will have to recall the facts of your past experience, select the relevant facts and reject irrelevant ones, and combine the data into one pattern after another until you find one that meets the situation. Rationalization is a process of thinking which provides acceptable reasons for a wrong action done by a person while concealing the secret motive in order to escape from self-reproach and reproach from others. … Sometimes we reason in order to justify an action which has been done already. We have done an action. It conflicts with the standard generally accepted by the society. It meets with criticism from our-selves and other people. So we reason to find out a reasonable motive of our action. We reason in order to justify our action. We try to find out some acceptable general principle which will explain our action. This is called rationalization. We try to explain a fact or phenomenon by referring it to a general principle. And we try to explain a law of nature by deducing it from a higher law. When we succeed in explaining a phenomenon or law, we get rid of uncertainty and perplexity. We may start from a general principle and hunt for particular cases to which it may apply. Here the motive of reasoning consists in seeing the application of the principle. This may lead to prediction. The general principle, applied to a particular situation, enables us to predict a future event. Thus the astronomer predicts solar and lunar eclipses. A general principle may stimulate reasoning because we doubt its universal validity and wish to find out particular instances to which it does not apply. So reasoning may be motivated by doubt. Doubt is an unpleasant state of mind. We can get rid of it by reasoning. Sometimes we start with a hypothesis and try to verify it by deducing consequences from it and comparing them with observed faults. Thus we may reason in order to verify a hypothesis.
Psychology and Logic of Reasoning: Psychology and Logic both deal with reasoning. But they do not deal with the same aspect of reasoning. (i) Psychology deals with the actual process of reasoning as attended with emotion and conation. But Logic deals with reasoning as devoid of its attendant emotion and conation. (ii) Psychology studies the exploratory process of reasoning which culminates in inference. Inference consists in drawing a conclusion from two or more given premises. The premises and the conclusion are set out in a logical order. The conclusion is inferred from the data or premises; it is seen to be implied in the premises taken together. From the standpoint of Logic, reasoning consists in inferring a new judgement from two or more given judgements or data through the medium of the common factor among them. It consists in putting together the data and grasping a new relation among them. For example; … (iii) Psychology deals with both correct thinking and incorrect thinking and investigates their motives and other psychical determinants. Logic is not concerned with their motives and other mental antecedents, but with their validity or invalidity and its causes. It is concerned with the rules of correct reasoning and finds out if a reasoning conforms to them or violates them. If it conforms to them, it is valid, and if it violates them it is invalid. Logic is interested in the truth or falsity of reasoning. But Psychology is not concerned with the validity or invalidity of reasoning. It investigates the laws of reasoning whether it be correct or incorrect.
Some psychologists maintain that reasoning is a trial and error process at the ideational level. … It explores the situation, finds certain leads and tries them one after another, fails several times, and finally finds a good lead and reaches the goal. … Reasoning does not involve overt muscular movements; not does it always involve actual perception of the leads. Reasoning, like a trial and error process, is oriented towards a goal. But it is different from the latter in that it does not involve motor exploration, and also because it gets some of its leads from memory instead of actual perception. It reaches its goal by thinking of its clues. Reasoning thinks of the clues given by perception or memory, and tries to draw a new conclusion by combining and recombining them in various ways and seeing their implications. Though reasoning resembles a trial and error behavior, since it involves a goal-set or orientation towards a goal, it is the very antithesis of trial and error behavior since reasoning involves thinking out the meaning of the clues observed or remembered and seeing the implications of the combination of the data and drawing a new conclusion. This is lacking in a trial and error behavior.
2024oct22 Essay on Thinking: (it’s Types and Forms) https://www.psychologydiscussion.net/essays/essay-on-thinking-its-types-and-forms/632
……………………
Harv avoids the use of the science definition of logic, in fact, avoids the use of the work “logic” in the interest of common sense understanding.
He sees parallelisms [successive verbal constructions] between A.I. and what he is doing with Theory W [as yet not satisfactorily defined].
Successive in terms of the precedence network’s why.task.flow and how(way).task.flow.
……….. expansionary comments apart from the above narrative
2024oct06 Google Dictionary search address “reasoning definition”
Definitions from Oxford Languages
rea·son·ing
noun
noun: reasoning; plural noun: reasonings
the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
rea·son/
verb
gerund or present participle: reasoning
think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
Similar:
think rationally
think logically
think straight
use one's mind
use one's common sense
use one's head
use one's brain
think things through
cogitate
intellectualize
put on one's thinking cap
cerebrate
ratiocinate
logicize
calculate
come to the conclusion
conclude
reckon
think
consider
be of the opinion
be of the view
judge
deduce
infer
surmise
figure
find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.
"she was growing too sleepy to reason it out"
Similar:
work out
find an answer/solution to
think through
come to a conclusion about
sort out
make sense of
get to the bottom of
puzzle out
solve
figure out
persuade (someone) with rational argument. [end kf Google search citation]