1.8 Modes of Reasoning: Dialectical versus Analytic
What is Dialectical Reasoning?
- The process of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis based on concrete possibilities, and combining them into a coherent synthesis, often after numerous variations and iterations.
- A method of “argument” or exposition that systematically weighs an idea with a view to the resolution of its real or apparent contradictions.
How to Engage in Abstract or Analytic Reasoning
Analytic argumentation differs markedly from Dialectical. The following pertains to the Analytic method only. Keep it in mind.
- Analytic reasoning commences with a first principle or assumption. On this foundation, an “argument” is built.
- Assumptions must be reasonable and generally true.
- An argument is not a debate. Do not start with an oppositional counter-statement. It is not about “winning.”
- Do not spar with the argument. First try to understand it.
- Taking a contrary position will not assist you in understanding the proposition or argument better.
- Arguments are often nuanced, not black and white.
- An argument is not an opinion. The latter is subjective.
- In college (and later in life), an opinion is not necessarily a “right” to which a student is “entitled.” Sound reasoning, i.e., a good argument, trumps opinion.
- Any position you take must be based on sound argument.
The Talmudic method invariably prefers to pose questions in a
concrete rather than an abstract form.
–Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Reference Guide to the Talmud, p. 131 (2014)
We can safely assert that if one applies a lit match to a piece pf paper, the paper will burn. This is true in general and assumes that all else is equal. BUT what IF it is raining? What IF the paper is treated with a fire retardant? Do these, somewhat absurd violations of our ceteris paribus postulate negate the veracity of the general principle that paper burns? Here the word “BUT” is oppositional. The word “IF” creates a concrete context, a narrow circumstance, with the, often unconscious, purpose of finding reason to deny a generally sound principle, e.g., that paper burns.