The last posting
shared with the reader Philip Selznick’s[1]
useful list of five qualities upon which reasoned arguments are based. They are order, experience, principle, prudence,
and dialogue; he calls them the five pillars of reason. Here, this writer has preferred to call these
qualities disciplines. In the previous
posting, the discipline of order was identified and described.
A
shorten explanation of the discipline, order,
is:
this discipline calls on a person to be able to functionally
objectify the information relevant to the essence of an argument. In turn, this discipline calls on the person
to keep in check any emotions, rhetoric, prejudices, or inclinations that
hamper an objective-based analysis and determination as to the value of the
information.
This posting
reviews principle and experience. The
next discipline to be explained is principle. Its shorten description is:
this discipline calls on a person to keep in focus ultimate
goals of the argument-formation process.
“Reason is end-centered: the fate
of comprehensive or long-term objectives is always to be kept in mind, always
open to intelligent assessment.”[2]
In
terms of a more extended treatment, principle leads one to detect a pragmatist
bent to what is being described as Selznick’s qualities. As such, at times, some might argue that the
emphasis of pragmatic thinking radicalizes the practical and therefore, accuses
it of being principle-less. The whole
notion is that pragmatism in its arguments utilizes means that will lead to
ends and will, when attained, render those ends as new means to further sought
after ends and on and on.
Under
such a mode of argumentation, there are no ultimate ends and thus no
principles. Selznick argues that this is
but a parody of pragmatist philosophy.
He points out that its main proponents, John Dewey and William James,
were much ensconced in seeking ultimate goals, in ultimate principles. And those principles had to do with moral
foundational ends such as justice.
They
pursued those values – ends – that facilitate cooperation. As has been argued, a pragmatic way to view
principles of justice and fairness, liberty and equality are as essential
qualities that allow, in continuous fashion, productive interaction between
people. It is when these qualities are
not kept, that the motivation for discord occurs and, if not remedied,
encourages serious discord that can be sustained for sufficient time to render
disastrous consequences.
But
these are not the usual sought after ends.
In civic or governmental operations, usually people are engaged in
seeking more immediate ends, such as whether they should construct a street or
fix a water main or provide some governmental service. It is only when they string together a long list
of “shoulds,” logically, tying one to the other, that they will arrive at
justice and fairness. It is in this
light that federation theory is offered with the trump value of societal
welfare and key instrumental values such as liberty and equality.
These
are ultimate or near ultimate ends. And
these types of values – though often not at a conscious level or somewhat taken
for granted – are the ends that govern and guide a people as to which issues
are important and which resolutions are legitimate. Therefore, principles which include these are
essential parts of a good argument and when judging whether an argument has
merit or not, one can ask about these ends, particularly when they are not
stated or immediately discernable. In
other words, they are thought of when “something smells rotten in Denmark.”
The
third discipline that Selznick shares is experience. A shorten explanation is: this discipline is the willingness to subject formed
hypothesis to experience – empirical information. This experience comes in varies forms but is
most explicit when derived from
experimentation. Having said that, most
citizens will not conduct experiments, but can review historical information
from reputable historians, journalists, and other researchers who enjoy positive
reputations among legitimate reviewers of such material. It should be remembered by the reader; all
knowledge is historical in nature.
In
the case of civics, a more extensive view revolves around a question that is
posed to students. That is: what is appropriate public policy either in
the case of formulating new policy or reviewing already implemented
policy? People, in trying to answer this
question, respond with various answers because they have varied interests and
public problems and issues can be quite complex.
And
unlike the physical world, mistakes do not become so readily knowable or
apparent. It is amazing how often
certain social conditions need to be experienced and certain reactive policies
tried before humans can detect the errors of past policy attempts.
For
example, in the case of economic downturns, should the government engage in
austere policies or promote, through public spending and borrowing, stimulus
policies? Even though economies
continuously seem to go through economic cycles with serious downturns, people
still have strenuous debate as to what the appropriate public policy should be.
Experience
can be managed in several ways. Science
provides us a way that is conducted with a great deal of discipline. When engaging in science, there are accepted
and unaccepted ways of handling and recording experience. These demands are usually supervised, in
various forms, by professional organizations.
But,
as mentioned above, there are other forms of experiences that are also valid
and often more efficient. Take the
person who has worked at a job or career for a long period of time, say
years. He or she develops a sense of
what the job is about and, in the process and almost at a subconscious level,
forms intuitive insights. That person
can tell you something is right or wrong about something related without being
able to articulate why it is right or wrong.[3]
Such
insights usually prove to be spot on.
Related to such abilities are examples of heuristic thinking. These are “rules of thumb” one develops from
not so formal processes, but purely from unreflective observations.[4]
This is a form of historic sources.
Of
course, formal historic studies are a form of reported experience. This is not the place to review all the
advantages and disadvantages of historic study, but it should be noted that
professional historians go through rigorous peer review, like scientists go
through, which question the reliability and veracity of their work. Again, this is supervised by professional
organizations. But no matter how formal
one is, arguments based on experiences have the advantage over inspiration or
emotions in that they can be tested by other researchers.
Future
postings will point out that when formulating an argument, one specific skill
will be to cite facts (or what is taken as facts). This will be basically the reporting of
experiences – they are the “wherefore-s” and “since-s” before the “therefore-s”
in an argument.
In
the next posting, the remaining disciplines, prudence and dialogue, will be
explained.
[1] Philip
Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community
(Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1992).
[2] Philip
Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community,
59.
[3] Michael Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking
without Thinking (New York, NY: Bay
Back Books, 2005).
[4] See Daniel Kahneman, Thinking,
Fast, and Slow, (New York, NY:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment