¤¤¤

Basically, to reason means to have a claim/position/opinion that is supported with specific evidence--that which tends to prove or disprove something... (Dictionary.com). Dictionary.com also offers this definition of reason: a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines reasoning as "1. The action of reason v.; esp. the process by which one judgement is deduced from another or others which are given." So we can say that reasoning is based on information that causes a particular response or conclusion. In fact, in Western thought, reasoning cannot consist of a single thought, e.g., The dog is gentle. That is a only a claim--not supported with reasons or evidence.

A reasonable statement/claim ALWAYS includes a reason to support the statement/claim AND, if needed, some evidence to prove the statement/claim

However, whether or not the reason and evidence are true (verified by believable, repeatable means) or accepted by the reader/listener is quite another matter.

As humans, we have reasons for everything we think and do, whether we fully realize them or not. Probably animals also function in a cause/effect pattern of behavior as well, but to plan/construct a pattern of claim, reasons and evidence may be uniquely human.

Reasoning is virtually inescapable in creative problem solving, even in artistic compositions (written, visual, musical, etc.), and clearly in mathematics, philosophy and the sciences. If we analyze any situation, idea, etc., we can test the veracity of what is being considered by reasoned observations and acceptable evidence. In many cases, it is the evidence that is being tested against repeatable outcomes of the proposition and/or what is known to be "true" by individual experience or understanding. Unacceptable or questionable evidence is usually the telling element for the soundness of any reasoning.

There are many kinds of reasoning, including:

    * Abduction: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses.
    * Analogical reasoning: relating things to novel other situations.
    * Cause-and-effect reasoning: showing causes and resulting effect.
          o Cause-to-effects reasoning: starting from the cause and going forward.
          o Effects-to-cause reasoning: starting from the effect and working backward.
          o The Bradford Hill Criteria: for cause and effect in medical diagnosis.
    * Comparative reasoning: comparing one thing against another.
    * Conditional reasoning: using if...then...
    * Criteria reasoning: comparing against established criteria.
    * Decompositional reasoning: understand the parts to understand the whole.
    * Deductive reasoning: starting from the general rule and moving to specifics. [often most convincing--
          emphasis added]
    * Exemplar reasoning: using an example.
    * Inductive reasoning: starting from specifics and deriving a general rule. e.g. prejudice and hypothesis
    * Modal logic: arguing about necessity and possibility.
    * Traditional logic: assuming premises are correct.
    * Pros-vs-cons reasoning: using arguments both for and against a case.
    * Set-based reasoning: based on categories and membership relationships.
    * Systemic reasoning: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
    * Syllogistic reasoning: drawing conclusions from premises.[Basis of deductive and Inductive and analogical]

Also various subject areas (disciplines of study) can have special patterns or modes of finding conclusions. For instance, "historical reasoning" may involve reconciling conflicting accounts. "Mathematical reasoning" involves axioms, theorems and proofs to account for conclusions.

Analogical Reasoning

Description

A is like B. M is in A. N is in B. So M is like N.

In analogical reasoning, an analogy for a given thing or situation is found, where the analogy is like the given thing in some way. Other attributes of the analogical situation are then taken to also represent other attributes of the given thing.

To use an analogy:

Start with a target domain where you want to create new understanding.
Find a general matching domain where some things are similar to the target domain.
Find specific items from the matching domain.
Find related items in the target domain.
Transfer attributes from the matching domain to the target domain.

Example- [See "Likenesses"]

This company is like a racehorse. It's run fast and won the race, and now it needs feed and rest for a while.

Today is like a day in paradise. We don't need an umbrella.

Dating is like flying. At some point, your feet are going to leave the ground.

Discussion [Explanation]

Our brains work by patterns and association -- if a perception fits roughly into an existing pattern, then the existing pattern may be taken as definitive. For example, we see a half-hidden person and 'recognize' them as someone we know.

We also use similarity in our thinking, where even distant fields may be used to help understand a given concept or situation. Although this can lead to fallacious associations, it can also be very helpful in extending understanding. [It also is a natural way of perceiving.] [Derived from changingminds.org]

The following is an excerpt from writing posted by Rick Garlikov, a interesting writer, but without formal credentials...
For more complete coverage of Garilikov's views on rational thinking see, [ http://www.akat.com/reasoning.htm#example ]. Consider how much of this writing seems credible. Viewed critically, does this writing/explanation "ring true?" and WHY?

Being reasonable means holding beliefs and views for which (1) one can give true or probable evidence that (2) actually (or sufficiently and relevantly) supports them. And it means also (3) having true or probable evidence about what is wrong with beliefs that oppose or challenge your conclusions or the truth or sufficiency of your evidence.* For the only ways any views can be reasonably challenged are by the supported claim that (1) the conclusion is not true, (2) that the evidence is not true, or (3) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion. The only ways you can have mistaken beliefs of any sort is to have faulty evidence -- evidence that is not true or that, even if it is true, still does not support your beliefs. (As an example of the latter point, the view that the sun moves around the earth does not follow from the appearance that it does, because that very same appearance can be explained by a rotation of the earth instead. So even though the reason for believing that the sun is revolving a. round the earth is true -- that we see the sun going from east to west each day -- that reason does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the sun is revolving around the earth.)

Showing evidence to be not true or to be inconclusive does not, by itself, show a conclusion to be false, but it shows it unreasonable or unwarranted to believe it on the basis of that evidence.

Other people's evidence that your conclusion is false must itself be faulty in some way if your conclusion is true; otherwise your conclusion must be false and there must be something wrong with YOUR evidence for it. Whenever there is evidence that a belief or a conclusion is true, and other evidence that it is false, there must be something wrong with at least one of those sets of evidence.

As a corollary, this all means being able to support your reasons or evidence itself, insofar as is necessary. So, if someone challenges the truth of any of your reasons, you need to be able to give the evidence you believe that reason itself is true, and you then need to show why you think their challenge is itself faulty. In other words, you will be looking at the reason under attack as a conclusion itself -- a conclusion of a "prior" argument or of prior evidence. In one episode of the television series "Law and Order", the defense attorney challenged the eyewitness testimony of an elderly woman who had positively identified his client as the perpetrator of a crime. He asked her age and he asked her about failing vision. When she denied any problem with her vision, he asked her to identify a mural on a far wall in the courtroom. She said it was some part of Manhattan in the seventeenth century. When he sarcastically asked her whether she was familiar with 17th century Manhattan, her response annihilated his attack on her credibility as an eyewitness from the standpoint of her allegedly having impaired vision: "No, young man, but I can read the legend at the bottom of the mural." (The legend was in small script.)

As another corollary, it means having true or probable, relevant, sufficient evidence against other people's conclusions you dispute, or against the truth, probability, or sufficiency of their evidence. (Whenever possible and feasible this may include expressing not only what you think is untrue or irrelevant but what you think the correct or relevant points are. Sometimes, however, this latter is not possible, as when one knows, and can demonstrate, something is wrong, but does not know what is right to replace it.) Evidence and conclusions can be disputed as being either false, unproved, improbable, unclear, or meaningless. (Garlikov)