Talk:Reasoning

message: That page claims that reasoning must be either deduction or induction, which I think is unjustifiable.
:since there is already a page dedicated to logical reasoning which actually divides up reasoning into the three classical ways in/de/abductive this is clearly a good candidate for a disambiguation page with links to both objective/logical r. and subjective r.. comments? -- Kku 22:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Shadowboxing 

message: Maybe some merging would be in order ? We have :
*Reasoning
*Logical reasoning
*Deductive reasoning
*Inductive reasoning
*Abductive reasoning
*Defeasible reasoning
*Retroductive reasoning (a redirect)
*Dialectical reasoning (also a redirect)
How do all those ideas interrelate ? Is defeasilble reasoning the same as abductive reasoning, or as retroductive reasoning ? If not, how can we make the differences clearer ? Flammifer 18:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lotta pages talking about the same things 

message: That's all pretty much better than nothing. In reality there are only three areas of reasoning which match the three existing human reasoning capabilities:
* Logical Reasoning 
* non-Logical Reasoning (languages, feelings and so on)
* Mathematical Reasoning
"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. ... Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
reasoning is the understanding of one bound and forces.
----
**Three things you should know about this post.  One is that you did not sign it, do so for all future posts, please. See, you could have posted this today or maybe months ago, but I have no way of knowing because you didn't sign it.
The next thing is this random Einstein quote. What relevance does anything pertaining to Einstein hold to a discussion of reasoning? I'm not familiar of the exact context of that quote of yours, and the context of it is not provided (Which, ironically, is a fallacy in and of itself--to provide a quote without providing context is to provide a positive claim on conjecture. Pure conjecture, at that. That is, pure conjecture, as in, expecting the reader to just assume that the context allows the quote to hold relevance without any evidence at all to suggest that.
One explanation (And the one I'd wager on) is that it is a non-sequitur based on Einstein's fame. The non-sequitur being the premise, "Einstein is a smart guy and smart guys make correct statements," and the consequent being "This statement is made by Einstein, and is, therefore, correct." Does not follow.  This does not follow.  Non-sequitur.
Let's review. Two things that you should know about this post, and should remember to take into account in the future, include...
-Sign your posts.
-Do not try to use fallacies as arguments, especially not when you're trying to make a claim about reasoning itself. Unless you're trying to be ironic... If that's the case, then you should make the deliberate nature of the irony more apparent, and also keep in mind that although absurdism does not carry the negative connotation that a fallacy does, it still doesn't carry a point.
So, what's the third thing we need to learn from this post? Simple. Don't make positive claims of "fact" when what you're discussing is abstract scientific theory, an abstract concept of philosophy, or, as it is in this case, both.
One last thing of note--your actual post was just... It was just this side of unreadable. I sympathise with you if you're not a native speaker of English, as it is my third language and it took me years of practise to attain fluency. I tried to figure out your meaning and revised it, to make your post easier to understand. If I was mistaken in any of those revisions, then I apologise. 162.40.241.39 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphysical explanation of human reasoning included. 

message: It's not a branch of philosophy. However, it should be under logic. There is a group whose purpose in life is to pare the logic project to nothing. They have removed dozens of articles out from under logic. That's why it's not there. Gregbard 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I removed the following statement from the opening paragraph:
Although reasoning was once thought to be a uniquely human capability, other animals also engage in reasoning.
My reasons for this excision are:
* The statement reads as being quite definite, yet the paragraph in the linked Wikipedia article is far from conclusive.
* The majority of the discussion in the linked WP article is unreferenced. The only reference given is of research that speculated there might be "casual reasoning" in crows.
* There is no discussion of animal reasoning anywhere else in the article, as would normally be expected from a statement made in the opening paragraph.
I searched for evidence sufficient to justify its inclusion but thus far came up empty handed. Hence I think it should be excluded until a stronger case can be made for its inclusion.Manning (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal reasoning 

message: is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. I searched the page history, and found one edit by Jagged 85 in February 2008. Tobby72 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: I think this is crap. Come and have a look at my comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Genezistan
Genezistan (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put your comment here rather than on your talk page. pgr94 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want to take up much space from here and also, my points are general, not limited to this entry in the lexicon. My criticism concerns the whole method of presenting "knowledge".Genezistan (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have suggestions to improve this article, please go ahead and discuss.  If not, this is not the right place. Please see WP:FORUM.  pgr94 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crap 

message: Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board. There are also a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines
Where did I break the rule?
Genezistan (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: You mean this?

message: This article is either way out of date, playing dumb or ignorant of the state computer reasoning has reached. 96.252.218.253 (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: computer reasoning