Well, what I mean by identity politics is that you are reasoning on the basis of skin color, or religion, or gender, or some particular trait, which you have by accident, which you can't change — you fell into that bin through no process of reasoning on your own, you couldn't be convinced to be white or black — and to reason from that place as though, because you're you, because you have the skin color you have, certain things are true and very likely incommunicable to other people who don't share your identity.
|
|
It received few reviews, and these granted it no significance. Kant's former student, Johann Gottfried Herder criticized it for placing reason as an entity worthy of criticism instead of considering the process of reasoning within the context of language and one's entire personality.Copleston, Frederick Charles (2003).
|
|
According to Lewis, More precisely, Lewis's argument from reason can be stated as follows: > 1\. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms > of nonrational causes. Support: Reasoning requires insight into logical relations. A process of reasoning (P therefore Q) is rational only if the reasoner sees that Q follows from, or is supported by, P, and accepts Q on that basis.
|
|
Beyond that, the nature of intuition is hotly debated. In the same way, generally speaking, deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more general premises to reach a logically certain conclusion. Using valid arguments, we can deduce from intuited premises. For example, when we combine both concepts, we can intuit that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two.
|
|
He was invited to lecture of mysticism and theology by The Department of Middle East Researches of Berkeley University. In his works certain theories are discussed. He notedly emphasized the role of methodogical human reason in the process of reasoning Islamic laws underlining the necessity of objective legitimacy of political rule and the analyse of the methodology of Ijtidah. In 1998, some of his works were published.
|
|
This analysis is aimed at an exhaustive understanding of the Mishna's full meaning. In the Talmud, a sugya is presented as a series of responsive hypotheses and questions – with the Talmudic text as a record of each step in the process of reasoning and derivation. The Gemara thus takes the form of a dialectical exchange (by contrast, the Mishnah states concluded legal opinions – and often differences in opinion between the Tannaim. There is little dialogue).
|
|
Casuistry () is a process of reasoning that seeks to resolve moral problems by extracting or extending theoretical rules from a particular case, and reapplying those rules to new instances. This method occurs in applied ethics and jurisprudence. The term is also commonly used as a pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions (as in sophistry). The word casuistry derives from the Latin noun casus ("case" or "occurrence").
|
|
A more intuitive, subjective, fast, and efficient process, System 1 represents the brain's capacity to make split-second choices, often using personal experience to guide decision-making. System 2, however, characterizes a slower, more analytical process of reasoning to reach a conclusion. Michael Lewis points out in The Undoing Project how Daryl Morey observed basketball experts of the time making awfully subjective assessments in looking at basketball players. Shifting the Rockets' scouting strategy to look at hard data over simple observations, Morey implemented a more System-2-based approach to the team's hiring practices.
|
|
The problem arises from the fact that the passions, inextricably based in human nature, threaten the supremacy of the thinking subject on which Descartes based his philosophical system, notably in Discourse on the Method. Descartes had made the thinking subject the foundation of objective certainty in his famous statement, “I think, therefore I am.” It was on this system that he based the possibility of knowing and understanding the world. In allowing that the passions could disrupt the process of reasoning within a human, he allowed for an inherent flaw in this proof.
|
|
He proposed that society was the product of change from lower to higher forms, just as in the theory of biological evolution, the lowest forms of life are said to be evolving into higher forms. Spencer claimed that man's mind had evolved in the same way from the simple automatic responses of lower animals to the process of reasoning in the thinking man. Spencer believed in two kinds of knowledge: knowledge gained by the individual and knowledge gained by the race. Intuition, or knowledge learned unconsciously, was the inherited experience of the race.
|
|
Deduction, is the classic process of reasoning from the general to the specific, a process made memorable by Sherlock Holmes: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Deduction can be used to validate a hypothesis by working from premises to conclusion. The pattern of air maneuvers described above may be a general pattern, or it may be purely General X's personal command style. Analysts need to look at variables, such as personalities, to learn whether a pattern is truly general doctrine, or simply idiosyncratic.
|
|
Lewis didn't mean to suggest that if naturalism is true, no arguments can be given in which the conclusions follow logically from the premises. What he meant is that a process of reasoning is "veridical", that is, reliable as a method of pursuing knowledge and truth, only if it cannot be entirely explained by nonrational causes. Anscombe's third objection was that Lewis failed to distinguish between different senses of the terms "why", "because", and "explanation", and that what counts as a "full" explanation varies by context (Anscombe 1981: 227-31). In the context of ordinary life, "because he wants a cup of tea" may count as a perfectly satisfactory explanation of why Peter is boiling water.
|
|
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left (there is no epistemic uncertainty; i.e.
|
|
Additionally, the process of identifying rights in constitutional penumbras is known as penumbral reasoning.Julia Halloran McLaughlin, DOMA and the Constitutional Coming Out of Same-Sex Marriage, 24 145 (2009) Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds have described this interpretive framework as the process of "drawing logical inferences by looking at relevant parts of the Constitution as a whole and their relationship to one another."Brannon P. Denning & Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Comfortably Penumbral, 77 1089, 1092 (1997) Glenn H. Reynolds has also characterized penumbral reasoning as a process of "reasoning-by- interpolation" where judges identify the full scope and extent of constitutional rights.Glenn H. Reynolds, Penumbral Reasoning on the Right, 140 1333, 1334–36 (1992).
|
|
Writing in The Times after Durbin's death, Hugh Gaitskell paid tribute to Durbin's 'clarity of purpose' and 'well defined set of moral values and social ideals'. Gaitskell wrote that Durbin 'insisted in applying the process of reasoning unflinchingly and with complete intellectual integrity to all human problems' – including a consistent opposition to the dictatorship of Stalin, for 'he would not sentimentalise about tyranny, which seemed to him equally odious everywhere'. Gaitskell noted in his diary: "There is ... nobody else in my life whom I can consult on the most fundamental issues, knowing that I shall get the guidance I want". Despite his early death, Durbin continued to influence on Labour Party thinking throughout the 1950s, particularly for Gaitskell (who became party leader in 1955) and Labour revisionist Anthony Crosland.
|
|
Borrowing a style of phrase from Kant, Hartmann characterizes values as conditions of the possibility of goods; in other words, values are what make it possible for situations in the world to be good. Our knowledge of the goodness (or badness) of situations is derived from our emotional experiences of them, experiences which are made possible by an a priori capacity for the appreciation of value. For Hartmann, this means that our awareness of the value of a state of affairs is not arrived at through a process of reasoning, but rather, by way of an experience of feeling, which he calls valuational consciousness. If, then, ethics is the study of what one ought to do, or what states of affairs one ought to bring about, such studies, according to Hartmann, must be carried out by paying close attention to our emotional capacities to discern what is valuable in the world.
|
|
HMS G9 In foul weather on the night of 16 September 1917, whilst escorting a convoy from Aspö FjordMap of Aspo Fjord location north of Bergen, Norway, to Lerwick, Pasley rammed and sank the submarine , after G9 fired two torpedoes at her, believing her to be a German U-boat; one torpedo missed, the second failed to explode. Pasley stopped to pick up survivors, but only one member of G9s crew was saved, after Able Seaman Henry Old jumped from the destroyer into the sea to attach a running bowline around him, enabling him to be hauled aboard. Pasley suffered extensive but not critical damage to her bows, and was able to continue her voyage to Lerwick; she was later repaired and returned to the fleet. At the Court of Inquiry held four days after the incident aboard at Scapa, it was decided no blame could be attached to Pasley, concluding "that the process of reasoning which led the captain of HM Submarine G9 to mistake HMS Pasley for a U-boat is, and must remain, unexplained".
|
|