Page 134 - Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd Ed
P. 134

PLANNING AND CREATING YOUR REASONING 12 1

      The key analytical questions

      Context: analysing the external dimensions of
      reasoning
      Throughout this book, we have seen how context is all-important in determining
      many of our judgments about effective reasoning. When planning and creating
      (and then presenting) an argument or explanation, the particular context in which
      this reasoning occurs must be actively considered. The nature of context—a mass
      of implied or assumed knowledge and expectations—makes it impossible for us to
      develop precise guidelines for its consideration. Instead, we must explore the three-
      way relationship between the person or people creating reasoning (the author), the
      people receiving this reasoning (the audience), and the knowledge that this
      reasoning uses and develops.
         Reasoning is about the use, expression, and formation of knowledge, and
      involves innumerable judgments about the 'truth' of claims and the 'truth' of the
      way they link to one another in various reasoned ways. Knowledge does not exist
      objectively in the world (literally in the 'objects' that claims represent). Rather it is
      created intersubjectively, that is, between people such as authors and their audi-
                                     1
      ences (known, technically, as 'subjects').  Knowledge (consisting of claims and their
      relationships) does have an objective element, since it represents, in another form,
      the actual reality of objects. However, the medium of that representation—the
      form in which knowledge is expressed—is language, which (unfortunately,
      perhaps) is not a perfectly representational medium. Whenever we write or talk
      about things ('objects'), we add to or subtract from their essential nature through
      the particular choice of words we use. Hence claims, and all knowledge built from
      those claims, are always something more or less than what 'really' happens.
         All humans share a common reality and appear, through the words they use
      (when properly translated), to have a common language to discuss and think about
      it. But remember that language consists not only of the descriptive or denotative
      characteristic of words but also of their connotative function (the way in which they
      carry implied meanings). These connotations ensure that we cannot assume that
      knowledge always and perfectly matches up to reality. Knowledge will always be
      constrained by and, in part, created from the words in which it is expressed.
      Moreover, the implied values and assumed knowledge that make words meaningful
      exist through the interactions of people—the authors and audiences of reasoning.
      That is why knowledge is intersubjective. Moreover, it is not simply a question of
      thinking about individuals: who 'we' are as subjects depends very much on the
      culture and society in which we grow up and, indeed, the knowledge that we
      already possess. Hence, whenever we think about ourselves as authors of reasoning
      or about our potential audiences, we are thinking about cultural and social assump-
      tions and expectations about knowledge and reasoning.
         The aim here is not to gain a detailed understanding of the philosophical
      arguments for or against objective or intersubjective knowledge; it is to understand
   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139