|
critical
thinking
Reasoning:
There are many types of reasoning patterns which are
used in persuasive speaking. Reasoning is making the connections
between and among the words. It is the way to interpret the ideas, to
reach conclusions. A speech with strong reasoning is one which has a
better chance to create logos. I will take you through two types of
reasoning patterns: deductive and inductive reasoning.
Deductive
reasoning: this is taking the audience to a
conclusion by using
absolutes.
It is moving them from a generalized statement or premise to a
specific conclusion. In deductive reasoning, there is a
general
premise and a
secondary
premise, which leads us to the
conclusion.
General Premise:
All men are mortal
Secondary Premise:
Socrates was a man
Conclusion:
Socrates was mortal
If the General Premise is
correct, and the Secondary Premise is correct and linked correctly to
the General Premise, then the Conclusion must be true.
General Premise:
Democrats favor social services
Secondary Premise:
Candidate A is a Democrat
Conclusion:
Candidate A favors social services
Sometimes the General Premise
is incorrect, which creates a fallacy in reasoning. Sometimes the
General Premise is correct, but the Secondary Premise is false,
creating a fallacy. General Premise
Democrats favor social services
Secondary Premise
Candidate B favors social services
Conclusion
Candidate B is a Democrat
We often use Deductive Reasoning, calling it
"generalizations," although we don't often talk in this formal manner
when we draw conclusions. Instead we say it more like this: Sarah's
son Jay is probably a reckless driver (based on the deductive
reasoning of: General Premise: all teenage males are reckless
drivers; Secondary Premise: Jay is 17; Conclusion: Jay is
reckless).
If a speech uses too much Deductive reasoning, or
absolutes, the audience is not satisfied because they want to prove
the speaker wrong. But a strong deductive reasoning pattern here and
there in the speech is undisputed and the audience can observe how
the speaker came to this conclusion. Even better is Inductive
reasoning.
Inductive
Reasoning: this is taking specific examples
and coming to a general conclusion. It is creating
probabilities.
Aristotle said Inductive reasoning can create a strong logos because
the audience is reaching the conclusion along with the speaker. We
also use Inductive reasoning more often in our everyday lives than we
use Deductive.
Diamonds have increased in
value by five percent every year for the past ten years; therefore,
there is reason to believe they will increase in value this year by
five percent.
You have tasted four types of green apples and all
four have been sour. You believe all green apples are sour.
As a speaker, you need to beware of making
generalizations and fallacies. The text discusses fallacies and
errors in reasoning very well. Read it....pay attention.
Reasoning
Critical thinking:
I have said all along it is important to allow your
audience to think critically. It is important because this will help
create Artistic Proofs. It creates Artistic Proofs because they get
involved in what you are saying. It creates a sense of credibility,
involves them emotionally in the speech, and they will reason along
with you as you take them through your ideas and points.
Just what
is critical thinking?
It is easy to reach conclusions. Usually we simply use our own past
experiences to draw conclusions. Or we get caught up in the emotion
of the moment and fail to examine the ideas presented (see
persuasion
lecture, ethical appeals - this is the basis
of unethical appeals). So while it is easy to reach conclusions, it
is more difficult to research evidence that will safely support these
conclusions.
Critical thinking is looking at all the evidence. It
is examining the information and deciding which is important and
which is not in order to reach a conclusion. Here are some general
guidelines to help yourself become a more critical thinker:
1. How reliable is the
source? Is the source
competent? Objective? Responsible? Unbiased?
If you were giving a speech on
Environmental Protection, the information sources you might use could
be from Green Peace or the Sierra Club. We all know the information
from organizations such as these is often different than that from
the Forestry Industry or the Bonneville Power Administration. Both
groups are using information which supports their sides of the issue.
Using any of these sources might be in question. Examine their
objectivity and competence and draw your own conclusions. Your
audience will also be looking at these same aspects.
2. What form does the evidence
take? How permanent is the
form?
There is more reliability
in information taken from a printed source than a form which can
change easily, such as television, the World Wide Web, a conversation
in passing. While all these forms are legitimate, it is easier to
check back to those who are more permanent; therefore, it is a
stronger piece of evidence. 3. Who is the author?
Find out if the author is
an expert in the field being discussed or someone who has formed an
opinion based on what he or she has read. Did they gather the data
themselves, or use data from others? When was the information
gathered? This often has an impact on the reliability of the
information. Is it the latest available material or did an important
event occur since this data was collected.
The Oregon Citizen's Alliance had
claimed that gays and lesbians lived an extremely promiscuous life
and were perverted, using films of the Gay Pride Parade in San
Francisco to help prove their warrants. They also used data collected
from gay meeting places to support themselves. The problem was their
data was old, collected pre-AIDS. The question that needed to be
answered is: has this behavior changed since this major, important
event occurred (AIDS)? 4. How truthful is the evidence?
What does it say?
What is the level of
abstraction? Is it a factual report which reports the data. Is it an
inferential report, which draws conclusions from the facts? Or is it
a judgmental report, which give the readers a value based on the
conclusions drawn? All three will have a different slant on the
report.
Is it consistent within itself? Is it
consistent with others? While it must be consistent within itself, it
does not have to remain consistent with others. But the question then
is: why is it different from the majority of the research? This must
be examined. 5. How much depth does the
research have?
Information gathered from
sources such as Psychology
Today,
Omni
and
Discovery
have little depth. They are written for the general public to gather
an overview of the subject, not to give an indepth focus. They
usually fail to tell the reader from where the information was
gathered or to quote the direct data. It is more difficult to
critically examine this type of source because of this lack of
information. They can make a good jumping place, but as references
themselves they lack a depth that is needed. Critical thinking is needed as you gather your
supporting material and as you listen to speakers, especially in
persuasion. You are the ones who are creating this speech or making
it a success. Be reasonable and follow through with your
ideas.
|