The Scope of Reason

I here describe a model of argumentation that places arguments at various points along a continuum rather in one of two categories: right or wrong. An argument is assessed to determine how close it lies to the middle of a one dimensional representation of reasonableness. If it is close then it is considered reasonable. If it is outside the middle area then it is considered unreasonable. The diagram immediately below shows the scope of reason. The diagram immediately below that shows an argument (represented as a blue circle) that lies within the scope of reason. The third diagram shows a less reasonable argument and the final one shows an unreasonable argument.




Sometimes several inconsistent arguments lie within the scope of reason. Given the human intolerance for cognitive dissonance, the inconsistent arguments are either reconciled in some manner or one or more arguments are chosen over the others.

It’s also possible that we process ideas in two phases: a low resolution phase that is simple and less detailed and a high resolution and more detailed phase. Using the aforementioned concept of argument, the first phase would be a ‘blurry’ categorisation based upon quick reasoning that involves stereotyping and appeals to consequences. Those arguments that pass this phase then move to a second and more detailed one. I am not sure how to visually represent this so I will leave that for a later post.

Related Posts

• Representing Arguments
• Information Transfer Efficiency
• Emotion and Argument
• Going Into Battle Half-cocked
• Prophetic Texts

Comments

• Blogroll

  • Andrew Norton
  • Bede’s Journal
  • Catallaxy
  • Crimson Catholic
  • Currency Lad
  • Fallacy Files Weblog
  • Farrellmedia
  • Hack WordPress
  • Humbug! Online
  • Lex Communis
  • Sentire cum Ecclesia
• 
•