BLOG POST #2 - Reasoning Cogently vs. Being Right In Fact

"A forcible argument tells strongly, but may not convince; cogent reasoning is more apt to be conclusive or to compel assent." (http://www.answers.com/topic/cogency)

When utilizing cogent reasoning to come to a conclusion, it is based solely on fact and clear evidence, emotion and common values and mores play no role when arriving at a conclusion utilizing cogent reasoning. Because emotions play no role in this kind of reasoning, one could easily argue that although the conclusion is true (as it is based on facts and concrete evidence), it may not be correct because the reasoning utilized in arriving at the conclusion is incorrect (i.e. someone allowing emotions to play a role in the reasoning would have arrived at a different conclusion).

I can’t help but think of the television drama Bones when addressing the issue of reasoning cogently and being right in fact. In this show the extremely intelligent anthropologist, Dr. Brennan, has a near impossible time of looking at things the way other people do, i.e. reasoning well to a false conclusion. The way she see’s thing is solely through cogent reasoning. She therefore cannot accept religion, love, and many other subjects which require anything but concrete facts to be reasonable, as no such concrete facts exist for such subjects. For example, she regards love as a chemical reaction in the brain which triggers certain feelings to emerge in the human body.

Being right in fact means one is reasoning well to a false conclusion. In this situation, a person arrives at an incorrect conclusion, because their form of reasoning often entails taking into consideration emotions and popular values and mores opposed to using concrete facts and evidence only. In these circumstances a person is using a false premise to arrive at their final conclusion. Because of this (i.e. the lack of evidence and concrete facts used in the reasoning process) the conclusion arrived it is false.

I think it much better to reason incorrectly to a true conclusion, rather than to reason correctly to a false conclusion. This is because to reason correctly, in my opinion, one needs to use concrete facts and evidence solely to base their decision off of, thus arriving at a conclusion which must be true. Humans are full of emotions and values that influence their decision making and rationale in everyday life. When allowing these characteristics to cloud one’s judgment, you effectively arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

“Good argument, as used by philosophers and many others, means simply a sound or strong argument. If one has offered a sound or strong argument in defense of one's conclusion, then one has stated a true view, or at least a probably true view. The premises of one's argument support, or, with some sophisticated complications aside, justify one's belief in the conclusion.”

Sources of information:
- http://www.answers.com/topic/cogency
- http://books.google.com/books
- http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Cogency.html