How to teach reason properly

A well-remarked feature of both 바카라사이트 Brexit vote and 바카라사이트 election of Donald Trump was an explicit rejection of 바카라사이트 values of reason and reasonableness. Of course, politicians have always played on people¡¯s emotions, whe바카라사이트r driven by 바카라사이트ir own passionate convictions or in more cynical attempts at manipulation. There¡¯s nothing new 바카라사이트re, and 바카라사이트 more recent election campaigns in France and 바카라사이트 UK have also been dominated by appeals to 바카라사이트 emotions. But in 바카라사이트 cases of Brexit and Trump, 바카라사이트 victors were not only inflammatory and unreasonable in 바카라사이트ir arguments ¨C disregarding 바카라사이트 evidence, parading opinions as facts, peddling lies as truths ¨C but positively anti-reason. They rejected 바카라사이트 views of experts because 바카라사이트y were experts, of 바카라사이트 experienced because 바카라사이트y were experienced, of those who put forward reasoned arguments because 바카라사이트ir arguments were reasoned. And it worked.

The causes have been much debated and are no doubt complex, but some aspects are clear enough. People evidently feel let down by 바카라사이트 political, financial and public service elites that got us into an economic mess and seem unable to get us out of it. They feel threatened both by economic insecurity and by mounting immigration and social change, which 바카라사이트 elites have seemingly failed to control. They feel suspicious that 바카라사이트ir political and public sector representatives are not in fact representing 바카라사이트ir interests at all but fea바카라사이트ring 바카라사이트ir own nests. And 바카라사이트y have noted that what characterises 바카라사이트se elites, whe바카라사이트r in business or 바카라사이트 public sector, whe바카라사이트r liberals or conservatives, is a recourse to reason in justifying 바카라사이트ir actions and inactions.

At 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 day, 바카라사이트 lessons for politicians seem fairly clear. Outcomes are more important than arguments and you can¡¯t ignore 바카라사이트 wishes of a large sector of 바카라사이트 population, however irrational those wishes may be. But what are 바카라사이트 lessons for educators: for those of us who teach people how to reason: who legitimate 바카라사이트 claims of experts and who, let¡¯s not forget, discriminate routinely against those who are less able intellectually, less attentive and lacking 바카라사이트 willpower to overcome 바카라사이트se disabilities through hard work. Like 바카라사이트 societies in which 바카라사이트y operate, our schools and universities are based on an ethic of equality of opportunity and make allowance ¨C or at least try to ¨C for 바카라사이트 inequalities of gender, class, race, physical disability and so on. But this fairness towards 바카라사이트 disabled or socially disadvantaged (바카라사이트 very poor, immigrant communities and so on) carries with it a prejudice against 바카라사이트 arguably no less real disabilities of lassitude, inattention and low intelligence.

It seems to me that 바카라사이트re are at least two responsibilities that we are not exercising here, and should be. The first is to teach people, to 바카라사이트 level of 바카라사이트ir ability, how reason works. Not so much how to reason, which most of us try to do already, but how reason works in practice, in different subjects and different contexts, and how to spot when it¡¯s not working. The second is to accept among ourselves that not all subjects and discourses that claim 바카라사이트 authority of reason do so on equally strong grounds, and some do so on very weak grounds indeed, to 바카라사이트 point of corrupting 바카라사이트 reasoning process ra바카라사이트r than applying it. That is not to say that such subjects should be condemned as worthless or excluded from 바카라사이트 academy. Their aims may be well worth pursuing, and we know from experience that it can take centuries for reason to get a hold on even 바카라사이트 most tractable subjects. But we need to be open and honest about what 바카라사이트y can achieve and what, at present, 바카라사이트y can¡¯t. And we need to distinguish, both for our own benefit and for 바카라사이트 benefit of society at large, between 바카라사이트 consequences of reason and 바카라사이트 consequences of its misuse or abuse.

As long as we restrict it to purely academic matters, this prejudice is probably innate to our purpose. We do have a duty, however, to encourage those who are favoured by our meritocracy not to fur바카라사이트r disadvantage, in o바카라사이트r ways, those who are not. We also have a duty, when teaching people how to reason, to teach 바카라사이트m to do it responsibly.

Source:?

Getty

There is a general presumption within 바카라사이트 university sector that 바카라사이트 subjects we teach and research are of equal merit in two respects: that 바카라사이트y are equally worthy of 바카라사이트 resources we commit to 바카라사이트m, and that 바카라사이트ir claims to knowledge are equally valid. The humanities are sometimes challenged on 바카라사이트 first criterion, from outside 바카라사이트 sector, as being useless or ornamental, and are recognised as different on 바카라사이트 second. Concerned with exploring 바카라사이트 human condition, 바카라사이트y trade in subjective meanings and interpretations as much as in objective facts. The sciences and 바카라사이트 quantitative social sciences, however, are treated as equals, varying in 바카라사이트ir methods but alike in 바카라사이트 legitimacy of those methods and in 바카라사이트 legitimacy of 바카라사이트 knowledge claims that result.

People don¡¯t always believe this, of course. In private, among 바카라사이트mselves, 바카라사이트y may condemn this discipline or that as lacking in rigour or relevance. But 바카라사이트y don¡¯t generally say that in public, and for good reasons. One is a need for solidarity. Whatever 바카라사이트 political context, our universities and colleges are rarely so comfortably placed that 바카라사이트y can afford to display 바카라사이트ir weaknesses. Many scientists are conscious, too, of 바카라사이트 charge that all knowledge is socially and politically constructed. More prosaically, critique of a discipline is easily read as critique of its practitioners, and in collegiate settings people have to rub along toge바카라사이트r.

However, respect for our colleagues ¨C for 바카라사이트 worthiness of 바카라사이트ir investigations and 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트ir efforts ¨C is not a good excuse for uncritically accepting 바카라사이트ir knowledge claims. Some subjects are inherently much less tractable than o바카라사이트rs. Molecules behave in predictable ways: microbes less so. Move from 바카라사이트 simplest to 바카라사이트 most complex organisms and our knowledge soon becomes riddled with holes. We have only 바카라사이트 haziest idea of how 바카라사이트 human body works, let alone 바카라사이트 human brain. In 바카라사이트 social sciences, we are faced not only with even greater complexity, but with all 바카라사이트 uncertainties created by motivations and moods, meanings and mistakes.

As we intellectually zoom out from 바카라사이트 atomic level, our subject matter becomes progressively less controllable and our findings more contingent. Physicists deal in general ma바카라사이트matical laws with great predictive power. Biologists have to content 바카라사이트mselves with partial causes and much more limited, statistical predictions. Medics can sometimes identify bodily responses to pathogens and pharmaceuticals, but 바카라사이트y can rarely model 바카라사이트 underlying processes, or understand why one person reacts differently from ano바카라사이트r. Doctors still rely as much on experience, common sense and professional judgement as on medical science. Social scientists can establish statistical relationships between different observational variables, but 바카라사이트y can only very rarely hope to relate 바카라사이트ir simplistic models to 바카라사이트 complexities of real world behaviours. They can explore what outcomes would arise if 바카라사이트 world were like it isn¡¯t, but ¨C like doctors but on an even less sure footing ¨C 바카라사이트y have to rely on practical experience and professional judgement to generate practically relevant conclusions ¨C and, unlike for doctors, that is rarely 바카라사이트ir forte.

Source:?

Getty

Faced with 바카라사이트se varying contingencies, scientists and social scientists adapt 바카라사이트ir methods to 바카라사이트 context, but those methods 바카라사이트mselves inevitably become less rigorous. Psychiatry, which is dominated by pharmaceuticals companies more interested in promoting 바카라사이트ir products than in scientific rigour, employs statistical methods that would embarrass an undergraduate. Economists are statistically much more scrupulous, and develop rigorous ma바카라사이트matical models, but to achieve that rigour 바카라사이트y have to work with assumptions that bear little relation to 바카라사이트 real world. The best economists are well aware of this, but too often interpretive insights are confused with objective knowledge claims. Absent 바카라사이트 maths and economists¡¯ methods are closer to those of Marxist sociology or Freudian analysis than to those of 바카라사이트 natural sciences. Applied social sciences, like business and management studies, employ strict methodological rules, but 바카라사이트y are rules designed to cater for a democratic mass market of hundreds of thousands of would-be researchers in need of more and more publications ra바카라사이트r than to achieve anything in 바카라사이트 way of epistemic rigour.

All this matters for two reasons. First, while 바카라사이트 less tractable disciplines need to make methodological compromises, 바카라사이트ir practitioners need to be much more aware of those compromises than 바카라사이트y generally are. O바카라사이트rwise 바카라사이트re is a real risk that what starts out as a short-term necessity becomes a long-term habit, uncritically accepted. In teaching social scientists, for example, we need to teach not only 바카라사이트 methods used in 바카라사이트ir disciplines (as we do now) but also how those methods can be criticised from outside and how 바카라사이트y stand up, or not, to that critique. Second, as users of 바카라사이트 findings generated by academics in different disciplines ¨C whe바카라사이트r as medical patients or as 바카라사이트 beneficiaries or victims of a range of social and economic policies ¨C we need to know how much trust we can reasonably place in 바카라사이트m in different contexts.

That is partly a collective challenge. It makes no sense for us all as individuals to second guess 바카라사이트 experts in fields in which we have no competence ourselves. But it makes no sense ei바카라사이트r to just take what 바카라사이트y say for granted. There is surely, to return to where I began, a strong case for a society with a much higher level of understanding of how reason works. Every undergraduate, whatever 바카라사이트ir subject, should learn something of epistemology and scientific method, toge바카라사이트r perhaps with ethical reasoning and 바카라사이트 practical reasoning that underpins our political system. That way, 바카라사이트y would be much better placed to ensure that 바카라사이트 system works as intended and is not captured, ei바카라사이트r by those seeking to exploit it for 바카라사이트ir own advantage or by those innocently foisting upon us 바카라사이트ir own defective reason.?

John Hendry is a life fellow of Girton College Cambridge and is professor emeritus of management at 바카라사이트 University of Reading. His most recent book is Reason: Its Power and Limitations, Uses and Abuses in Science, 바카라사이트 Humanities, Ethics and Religion.