RESPECT

FOR Reason

 

 

Respect for Reason is about providing logical reasoning to support a point of view. Good reasoning often has a logical flow and is backed up by evidence. For example, you are considering to change to a vegetarian diet with the reasoning being for environmental reasons and the welfare of animals.

To understand Respect for Reason in greater detail, we can apply different contexts and scenarios to observe how we can use these skills in our every day learning.

Let’s take the video below as an example. Watch the video below and on your own, write down all the good reasoning and all the bad reasoning. At the end, compare with other students and discuss your answers. You may also choose to share ideas together as a class.
When asked “What do you think of people who ride scooters?”, Brenda replied “I hate them with every fibre of my being.”  When Brenda was asked why she had this opinion, she replied “because scooters are dumb.” This is an example of bad reasoning because an opinion was given by Brenda, without knowing why she had this opinion. 
When Georgia (AKA Sharon) was asked “What do you think of skaters?”, she said she did not like them, however gave three very good reasons behind her belief & opinion. These were:

They verbally abuse her

They do not let her use the skate bowl

They kick their skateboards at her, causing her to faceplant to the ground

Georgia makes good points to support her belief that she does not like skaters. This is an example of good reasoning as it is backed up three logically appropriate points.

BAD &

GooD

REASONING

Lets take a look at another example below. Take notes of good logical reasoning and bad logical reasoning on your own. After the video, come together as a group with other students and share your answers. Once again, you may also choose to share ideas together as a class.
The video example above portrays James on his way to the office. He reaches the car park and must make some important decisions. The first decision is whether or not James (a healthy individual) should park in a disabled parking space. The video then progresses to showing inside James’ head which is controlled by a bouncer, who only lets good arguments and logic pass through. 

Learning Outcome 1

Use logic to check if an argument has good reasons for it’s conclusion

“If there are no other parks nearby, James will have to pay for a space in a carpark building which could cost a sizeable sum of money”

This in itself seems like a reasonable argument to make. It may cost James significantly more money if there aren’t any nearby parks available and added time to find a park in the carpark building.
When giving reasons, we must apply logic and ask ourselves:

Does this argument have good reasons for its conclusion?

The bouncer asks this question to himself as he evaluates whether the first argument is an example of good or bad reasoning, to which he states the following counterarguments:

“Isn’t parking here without a disabled pass likely to land you a higher fine than the cost of paying for parking?”  

“Has James actually looked around the carpark for other available spots?”

The bouncer concludes that the answer to both of these questions is no, and concludes the first argument is bad logic. This is because the counterarguments made by the bouncer outweigh that of the first argument which is primarily based off the assumption of there being no other parks available.

Learning Outcome 2

Some people may not have the correct information,

so always check the truth of an argument before accepting it. 

We are hearing:

“Since cake is good for a healthy diet, James should eat Margaret’s birthday cake”

The bouncer contemplates this argument to himself and concludes the following is good logic:

“If cake is good for a healthy diet, then James should eat the cake”

However,

It is important to evaluate the validity of arguments made with appropriate research and evidence, before it has been accepted. 

Although this second argument appears to be good logic, this information is not correct. This is because of the following:

There is no evidence that cake is good for a healthy diet.

Cake has sugar in it and has high calories, which are actually bad for a healthy diet. 

The following guide on checking Validity of Evidence is a useful resource for this purpose.

Learning Outcome 3

Achieve a strong, well reasoned argument by applying logic and truth.

In the third scenario, we see that James is contemplating whether to purchase plastic pens for his colleagues and himself or pens made from recycled materials. From this we hear the following third argument:

“If plastic takes many years to break down and has a negative effect on the natural environment, and buying a recycled pen will have less of a negative effect, those seem like great reasons to choose the pen made from recycled materials”

There is strong reasoning behind this argument, however the truth of this argument still needs to be evaluated to confirm the validity of the information. This is seen by the bouncer’s evaluation, to find that this information is in fact correct. Recycled materials do have less of a negative effect on the natural environment and break down faster than plastic pens, which have a greater negative effect on the natural environment, and take years to break down. 

“Respect for Reason is fundamentally about giving good reasons for your point of view. It involves making strong arguments by applying logic and further evaluating this information, to see if it is true.”  

ACtivities

Complete the following activities from the topic selected in the Respect for Self component in the Street Smarts model. Alternatively, you can choose to select a topic from the list of topics.

A printable version of this activity can be found in student resources.

On your own

  • Write down your argument for what you think.

  • Your argument must include your reasons that support your view.

  • Write down what has influenced your view the most.

In your group face-to-face

  • Each person has a turn putting forward their argument. 
  • You must include your reasons that support your view.
  • Acknowledge what has influenced your view the most.

In your group online

  • You can video record or audio record your responses and ideas to share with a group. 

Questions for the group

  • Whose argument was the most convincing?
  • Which evidence presented should we check?
  • What is the best source for checking this evidence?
  • Is one person in the group closer to a solid argument or should we combine arguments?

Collectively

  • Write up the collective argument with the reasons.

  • Justify your argument by explaining how you checked the validity of the evidence. 

OBSTACLES TO RESPECT FOR REASON

The following are obstacles which hinder our ability to think critically and logically. They particularly affect the Respect for Reason component of the Street Smarts model.

A

Logical Fallacies

A

Ad Hominem

A

Heuristic Bias

Reflection

GOOD or bad Reasoning

QUIZ

In this activity, write down whether the following examples are good or bad reasoning. Apply the Respect for Reason component of the Street Smarts model by examining each argument below to conclude whether or not the reasoning is strong. Check that the information is correct by evaluating the information provided in each statement and doing your own research.

Check your answers below.

Ostrich cannot fly, therefore they are not birds.

Bad reasoning.

Although it is true that an ostrich cannot fly, they infact are birds.

If you miss practice, it means you were probably goofing off. People who goof off drop out of school and end up penniless.

Bad reasoning.

This is an example of a slippery slope logical fallacy where it is believed that a particular course of action will result in a series of future events.

If you are a confident driver and have never been in an accident, then driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for you or others. You are a confident driver and have never been in an accident. Doubtless, then, driving over the speed limit is not dangerous for you or others.

Bad reasoning.

Speeding is well known to be one of the main causes of accidents, regardless of the skills and confidence of the speeding driver. Indeed, there are other drivers on the road, not all of which are confident drivers that have never been in an accident, and they might react in dangerous ways to the presence of the speeding driver. 

You should believe John because what he says is the truth.

Bad reasoning.

It is based on dubious premises, what proves that John is saying the truth? 

All whales are mammals. All mammals are warm-blooded. So all whales are warm-blooded.

Good reasoning.

Research can conclude that whale are mammals and mammals are warm-blooded. Therefore, this must mean that whales are warm-blooded since they are mammals. 

Show Next