Printer Friendly

Analysis of ethical intellectual reasoning: paradigm of lotus blossom thinking.

INTRODUCTION

"To think or not to think?" is at its heart a question of inquiry in all aspects of life. In other words, the question is related to the nature of existence or non-existence. Following beneath every human thought is the state of rational reasoning; wisdom. Admittedly, to seek the truth through intellectual reasoning and to follow it, wherever it leads, involves in depth intellectual thinking. Philosophy, biosophy, technosophy, and theosophy are known as the in dept summative and descriptive foundations of intellectual thinking. Paul and Elder (2002) have identified six types of thinking: unreflective thinking, challenged thinking, beginning thinking, practical thinking, advance thinking, and master thinking. Gardner (1983) has identified seven types of intelligences: cognitive, linguistic, musical, logical, spatial, bodily- kinesthetic, and interpersonal. Parhizgar has found seven types of thinking: convergent thinking, divergent thinking, deductive thinking, inductive thinking, critical thinking, thinking critically, and synthesized thinking. Nevertheless, lotus blossom thinking is the essence of all taxonomical types of thinking. Intellectual thinking is the highest level of deliberated constructive wisdom to have assurance that our thinking is truthful, worthy, and right. Expressing causes and effects of types thinking and assessment of viability and reliability of thing through communication requires to apply both qualitative and quantitative syllogistic and enthymeme reasoning to discover and state the status of truth. Within such a paradigm of inquiry, words, numbers, and statistics are known as philosophical and scientific tools to be used to express truthful causes and effects (See Table: 1).

TAXONOMY OF INTELLECTUAL THINKING MODELS

Intellectual thinking requires seven major tracks of fostering knowledge within contextual boundaries of our minds. Those are: (1) divergent intellectual thinking (2) convergent intellectual thinking, (3) intellectual critical thinking (5) intellectual thinking critically, (6) synthesized intellectual thinking, and (7) Lotus Blossom thinking. Societies that promote and reward global humanistic progressive trends and values of the intellectual thinking foster independent and innovative trends of intellectual thinkers. It is very dangerous for humanity if academicians to be manipulated by political and religious leaders to convert science and technology into objectively oriented hideous ideas and opinions and promote their inhumane ideologies. Let us through lenses of ethical and moral responsibilities define and analyze those seven pathways of intellectual thinking.

Divergent intellectual thoughts involve generating several alternative ideas concerning how to study our deliberated thinking? Divergent intellectual thinking searches for finding possible alternative solutions within the conceptual structure of our core concepts of inquiries. Within the contextual boundaries of divergent intellectual thinking, we need to diversify our inquiries concerning our thinking as following: (1) What have we learned? (2) What information do we have and value? (3) What assurance do we have concerning accuracy, reliability, and validity of our information? (4) Are there other thoughts or alternatives that we are not aware of them? (5) How do we value, evaluate, analyze, synthesize, or reconstruct our thinking? (6) Do we have scientific, ethical, and moral criteria for evaluating our thinking? (7) What are rightful, truthful, worthy, fair, and just thinking? (8) What are differences among good, better, best and excellent thinking? (9) What are bad, worse, worst, and vicious thinking? (10) What are well thinking and poor thinking? (11) What are differences between wishful thinking and willable thinking?

One of the most important tracks of fostering intellectual knowledge within contextual boundaries of moral fair self- mindedness and ethical societal self-enhancement is convergent intellectual thinking. It focuses on one core idea, or an issue, or a problem from an assortment of possible ones. In other words, we are better able to think in depth about a concept in order to find core ideas, issues, or problems in our thinking when we are able to take our thinking apart and realize the central focal point of importance. In other words we need to understand different parts or segmented thinking and then select the most important and/or peripheral part as the core concept of our thinking. This is because it highlights the intellectual dimension of thinking. Within the process of convergent intellectual thinking, reasoning provides the rational dimensions of thinking. Reasoning draws thinkable conclusive directions whenever we make sense of things. Reasoning draws the mind to be directed towards conclusive ends. There are two methods of reasoning: (1) classical and (2) Rogerian. In both classical and Rogerian analytical reasoning, there are four types of conclusive methods which researchers may use them in their convergent thinking. These are: (1) inductive logical reasoning, (2) deductive logical reasoning, (3) analogous logical reasoning, and (4) holistic logical reasoning (Parhizgar & Parhizgar, 2008).

When intellectual thinkers use induction within the domain of convergent logical reasoning, they can draw general conclusions based on specific experimental evidence in advance. Their pragmatic scientific reasoning rests on a methodological foundation of procedural details that they have been accumulated for their reasoning support. This type of reasoning is based upon predictable judgments concerning conclusive results. For example, when we listen to the weather forecast before leaving our house, we hear the range of cold, mild, or warm temperatures. If the sun is shining, the temperature is higher consequently the weather is warmer and if it is cloudy the temperature is cooler. By this type of convergent thinking reasoning, we have not proven that the day will be pleasant and/or unpleasant. We have concluded that it will be within a certain range of temperatures. This is a kind of reasoning that we can do it in inductive logical reasoning. Therefore, in inductive logical reasoning, we arrive at a conclusion that seems likely to be true. Ultimate and positive proof is usually beyond reaching at the time of judgment.

Deductive logical reasoning is based on proven fundamental truthful values, or rights rather than specific pieces of new evidence. In deductive logical reasoning, evidence is of secondary importance. Such a logical reasoning argument will be based upon declaration of conceptual values or beliefs that will prepare the way for presenting the concrete reasoning. In deductive logical reasoning we first, must create a foundational right, value, or belief from which we wish to deduce our premise. What we mean by a premise? A premise is the most effective attribute when we think about values. Those values are viewed as foundations for building our reasoning. A good premise should satisfy three requirements: (1) Your audience should accept those pragmatic values as fundamental beliefs in their disciplines. This indicates that you and your audience possess a common ground for pursuing your reasoning. (2) You need to structure a scientific mechanism to prepare the way for your reasoning so that you will follow on the same path of experimental reasoning mechanism on top of those values and beliefs. (3) You need to conclude with a careful consideration to frame a good premise within the domain of your scientific reasoning by illustrating the expected results of your hypothesis. Within contextual boundaries of deductive reasoning, there is another type of analysis. That is enthymeme. An enthymeme is a syllogistic reasoning which has lost its major premise. Enthymeme usually results in deductive understanding when the major premise is obvious. What is obvious to someone trying to convince us with an enthymeme is not necessarily obvious to those that who are trying to understand it.

The analogous logical reasoning is based on speculation. We need to be careful of using analogous reasoning in proving some final conclusions because it is often misused. A type of reasoning from analogy that reaches a strong conclusion could be fallacious. Therefore, bioresearchers need to be careful in their animal experimental experiences not to use analogous logical reasoning if they find that the analogy itself is inappropriate. Although all three inductive, deductive, and analogous logical reasoning, philosophical, biosophical, tecnosophical, and theosophical, methods suggest concrete judgmental assessments that they also have their limitations. Within the contextual boundaries of biosciences, bioresearchers should not bind by a predetermined biomedical procedure and regard the syllogism, in particular, as unnecessarily rigid. They need to generalize their logical reasoning with combined inductive, deductive, and analogous reasoning to get to an effective result. We should indicate that logical experimental reasoning is concerned with statistical probability more often than with mathematical certainty. Accordingly, we need to be concerned with three factorial types of analytical reasoning in order to holistically generalize our bioresearch conclusions. Those are: (1) Hypothesis is defined as the equivalent of the conclusive result or whatever it is a bioresearcher wants to try to prove. (2) The gathered qualitative value laden defined and quantified data-based information or experimental statistical evidence that a bioresearcher offers in support of the hypotheses. (3) A general conclusive, viable, and reliable statement that establishes a trustworthy relationship between the data and the hypothesis. The holistic warrant should be explicit, especially when bioresearchers believe that the warrant is effective in repetitive similar conditional and situational circumstances. Analytical intellectual critical thinking can be perceived as breaking down large, complex concepts into understandable simplicity of reasoning. It categorizes the whole picture of focal points in terms of four domains of inquiries: (1) problem solving, (2) judgment and decision-making, (3) reasoning, and (4) creativity and innovation. Although these four domains overlap somewhat in all types of thinking, the objective of thinking in each domain is different. or to evaluated opportunities. The objective of reasoning is to draw conclusions from evidence. The objective of creativity and innovation is to produce something novel, original, and valuable. Within contextual boundaries of intellectual critical thinking, there are two major types of analytical arrangements: (1) Classical and (2) Rogerian (Parhizgar & Parhizgar, 2008).

The theories of classical analytical reasoning emphasize upon the importance of scientific persuasion concerning assertion of a novel scientific procedure with purposive objectives. Because these theories have been historically developed at a time when most scientific arguments were oral an audience could easily understand the reasoning processes and conclusions. If presenters follow essentially the same formulated traditional analytical arrangements, audiences will be able to follow long, complex analytical reasoning because the main components are easily recognizable. Classical analytical reasoning composes as follows: (1) Introduction: State the issues that the presenters hope to tackle. By presenting issues as major problems need solutions through reviewing possible variable alternatives and choosing the best one. (2) Executive Summary: Presenters state as accurately and neutrally as possible the briefing description of their distinctive dimensions of their presentations. (3) Statement of the Self Interest: Presenters may provide their scientific interests. They may be different from audiences' views that do not share their views.(4) Benefits: Presenters may start their reasoning to respect causes and effects of analytical solutions. Then, they may generalize their statements as new evidence of solutions and add them into the body of literature. (5) Alternative Views: Views of previous scientific relevant reasoning with which presenters disagree. By doing this, presenters provide an opportunity for the audience who think differently from presenters to review literature with a fair and deep understanding. Presenters show that they understand that there are situations in which these views are valid. In other words, they are offering a kind of concession. (6) Statement of Issues: Presenters need to summarize their own scientific views differently. (7) Understanding Others: Presenters are not conceding that other views are always right, but they recognize that there are conditions under which presenters would share their comprehensive views of their opponents.(8) Analytical Assessments: Having won the attention of the audience concerning opponent's scientific views. (9) Statement of Points of View: Presenters scientifically explain their syllogistic reasoning to validate their findings. (10) Presenters' Views: Presenters generate an interest for hearing further analytical scientific reasoning of others. Now that the audiences have discovered the presenters' scientific fair considerations, they will be prepared to listen fairly to presenters' innovative views. (11) Using Analytical Reasoning: Analytical statements of presenters' views could be perceived as a final view in problem solving either through mathematical or statistical reasoning or correlated combination of both. (12) Conclusive Results: Presenters conclude their analytical reasoning by appealing to audience to challenge their findings and/or to assert their views concerning problem solving.

Rogerian Analytical Reasoning summarizes all scientific procedures and freely emphasize on any part of analyses that can be expanded. RAR is effective in situations where presenters address their reasoning to a scientific community who are divided as to the result of different values or perceptions. RAR emphasizes more on methodological procedures, random sampling, conclusive quantitative assessments, and holistic evidential conclusions. RAR makes presenters as a kind of scientific negotiators that may allow professional authorities to move forward even though some differences remain. For example, one of the crucial ethical and moral issues in biotechno-scientific deliberations is related to bioethics in cloning. To think critically in the mode of strong cognitive sensing requires tendencies towards self- enhancement. It requires criticizing ourselves within the context of conscience judgment. No part of thinking will be left over without criticizing by ourselves and/or by others. It has been a question of "how to survive in the rapid changing world?" It is a debatable transformation of thinking critically. Thinking critically is not a popular social contest in many societies. If we scientifically don't rationally and logically criticize our own ideas and reform our cognitive judgments we will be lost. Intellectual thinking critically is known as the process within which the contextual domain of existing in depth knowledge needs to be retested, reevaluated, and up dated. It is a process to reexamine the validity and reliability of reasoning. It is either to criticize and/or reaffirm the validity of affirmation of truthful ideas, opinions, formulas, or concrete statements about specific and defined issues and problems or it is inaccurate assessment of our reasoning. Thinking critically is questioning ourselves what have we learned about how we have thought? How have we reexamined the modes of our thinking? What type information do we have? How that piece of information is accurate and how that process occurred in our mind concerning accepting/rejecting a type of reasoning and why? More to the point, perhaps, what do we really know about the truthful meaning/interpretation of a scientific thought? How much of it qualitatively is of truthful? However, to maximize the quality of thinking, people need to learn how to become an effective critic of their own and others' thinking and why? In addition, intellectual thinking critically is known as a criticizing process to reexamine our own and/or others' level of reasoning. In other words, it is affirmation of how much of our reasoning is of rich/poor quality? Finally, how much do we know that we know and how much we don't know that we don't know? In reality, most people don't know much about their own thinking. They assume more or less taken the modes of their thinking for granted. Nevertheless, the study of knowing is the real thinking about our thinking. Synthesized intellectual thinking is viewed as a complete process that complements perceptive rational thinking. It is a process that involves integrating component parts of all types of reasoning into wholes. It combines two or more solvable concepts, formulas, or reasoning methods into a more complex logical form of thinking. Synthesized intellectual thinking is not simply the result of segmented intellectual skills. It is the true state of thoughtful deliberations to search for intellectual excellence. It is a systematic understanding to believe that what we want to believe. It is internalizing and externalizing harmonious type of reasoning that fits our reliable and viable cognitive judgments. It promotes unbiased views concerning enhancement of fair self-mindedness. It avoids egoistic or selfish ill-fated thoughts that are related to self-centeredness. It integrates all viewpoints into a unified rational end resulting to be acceptable by all people. It removes all weaknesses of thoughts and promotes holistic superior thinking concerning problem solving. Synthesized thinking is complementary processes, as can divergent and convergent thinking models to be integrated into a unified one.

PARADIGM OF LOTUS BLOSSOM THINKING

The intellectual lotus blossom is known as a scientific holistic creative thinking process in which a set of core thoughts will be established as the foundation of thinking. Then, those sets of core dimensional windows within the widening breadth of intellectual curiosity will be emerging as gateways to set sub-core inquiries in thinking. Subsequently, they appear as the basis for expansion of refined thinking into an ever-widening series of surrounding windows of thoughts. A few windows, each of which becomes the sub-core thought for another set of core windows, surrounding the original core thoughts. In other words, the process begins by using the core thoughts to trigger other thoughts, which are then placed in the same number of surrounding windows. Again, each of these new sub-core thoughts is brainstormed for related novel thoughts. Through application of the lotus blossom technique, the resulting ideas will be evaluated by subsequent sub-core thoughts. For example, university system chancellors and campus presidents develop ten major ideas concerning the mission of their institutions as follows: (1) What are our academic services concerning our system's academic aspirations, visions, and missions? (2) What are our geographical and demographical service areas? (3) Who could be our students? (4) What is our quantitative capacity in terms of enrollments? (5) What tuition is charged for different levels of academic services? (5) What is our faculty members' academic caliber? (6) In what industry and/or business our graduates will be able to find jobs? (7) How our academic services will liberate citizens' thoughts? (8) How academic services can promote individuals' freedom and civil liberty? (9) How our academic services can enhance young adults' intellectual critical thinking? (10) How our academic services can prevent exploitation and promote exploration through dynamic research activities?

For instance, the first window as we stated above is related to:

First Window: What are our academic core values concerning our system as valuable thinking?:

1.1. Aspirations

1.2. Visions

1.3. Missions

First Sub-Window: 1. 1. Aspirations:

1.1.1. Liberal arts oriented colleges

1.1.2. Humanity oriented knowledge

1.1.3. Literature oriented knowledge

Second Sub-Window:

1.2.1. General education oriented colleges

1.2.2. Paraprofessional oriented knowledge

1.2.3. Premedical oriented knowledge

Second Window: What are our geographical service areas?

Third Window: Who could be our students?

Each of the second, third, and consequent round of sub-window-core concepts would then be the subject of the brainstorming of the successive rounds until to reach to the final conclusion. In sum, intellectual thinking through applying lotus blossom system is a prerequisite to thinking within multiple perspectives. Intellectual clarity contains accuracy and relevancy of our thinking to the focal theme(s) of a subject or an object. Attention concerning intellectual clarity should be focused on establishing the sub-core questions by the following characteristics:

* What could it meant?

* What does it mean?

* What makes it relevant to the focal core point?

* What is this to be relevant to the subject matter?

* What are major and minor contributions to this matter?

CONCLUSION

In observing, understanding, analyzing, reasoning, and concluding, we apply words, numbers, and statistics. Without some measure of the strength of association of causes, processes, and ends the process of thinking is very weak. Words describe reading and interpreting tables and graphs in thinking. Numbers represent quantitative measures concerning superiority and inferiority of preferred modes of valuing systems. Statistical thinking is more about questions than answers. It doesn't have many answers, but it should help one to ask better questions and thereby make better judgments and decisions. Difficulties in thinking arise in the attempt to classify and synthesize the results of cognitive judgments to establish relationships among causes, processes, and effects in thinking to construct a paradigm of knowing. Through integration of seven modes of thinking; convergent thinking, divergent thinking, deductive thinking, inductive thinking, critical thinking, thinking critically, and synthesized thinking we will build up our paradigm of lotus blossom thinking. Consequently in the process of solid integration of experimental, experiential, and expediential proof contradictions between theory and paradigm become apparent. We may be able to generalize our cognitive syllogistic and enthymeme of judgment within the structural boundaries of the lotus blossom thinking.

REFERENCES

Gardner, H, (1983). Frame of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Heisenberg, W. (1927). Zeitscrift fur Phisik, 43.

Parhizgar, K. D., & Parhizgar, R.R. (2006). Multicultural business ethics and global moral managerial reasoning. Lanham, MD: University Press.

Parhizgar, S. S., & Parhizgar K. D. (2008). Multicultural biomedical ethics and global biosophical moral logic. Lanham, MD: University Press.

Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kamal Dean Parhizgar, Texas A&M International University

Fuzhan F. Parhizgar, UMC, Nevada School of Medicine

Suzan S. Parhizgar, North Texas Osteopathic Medical College
TABLE 1
Qualitative and Quantitative Tools of Thoughts in Reasoning

FOCUS        Primarily     Exclusively         Cognitive reasoning
             inductive     deductive

Words        Rationality   Critical thinking   Syllogistic thinking
Numbers      Logic         Thinking            Enthymeme
                           critically          thinking

Statistics   Informal      Formal              Lotus blossom
             practical     probabilistic       thinking
             reasoning     reasoning
COPYRIGHT 2011 American Society for Competitiveness
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Parhizgar, Kamal Dean; Parhizgar, Fuzhan F.; Parhizgar, Suzan S.
Publication:Competition Forum
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2011
Words:3478
Previous Article:Analysis of fraud in the Medicare system and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Next Article:Differences in marketing ethics attitudes between U.S. and western European undergraduates.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters