Reason

"Why is the claim justified?"

Hank Greely, a leading bioethicist at Stanford University, has taken a keen interest in investigating the ethical and legal implications of de-extinction. And yet for Greely, as for many others, the very fact that science has advanced to the point that such a spectacular feat is possible is a compelling reason to embrace de-extinction, not to shun it.

“What intrigues me is just that it’s really cool,” Greely says. “A saber-toothed cat? It would be neat to see one of those.”

In a nutshell

  • A reason is a 'because' statement that supports the claim.
    • Claim: "We should ban cars from downtown Beaverton..."
    • Reason: "...because other cities with car bans have thrived."
  • Claims in complex arguments often have multiple supporting reasons:
    • Reason: "...also because it will be better for the atmosphere."
    • Reason: "...and also because it fits the eligibility criteria for grant funding to convert downtown roads to entertaining hedge mazes."
  • The 'because' doesn't have to be explicit; it can be left to the audience to infer.

UNICEF Like us and we vaccinate zero children

Reason types

Reasons also reflect issues and argument types:

  • Causal reasons: "...because other cities with car bans have thrived."
  • Proposal reasons: "...because we should be trying to create walkable neighbourhoods."
  • Evaluational reasons: "...because it's the best of our available options."
  • Definitional reasons: "...because it fits these legal criteria."
  • Ethical reasons: "...because it's a moral imperative."

Credit card plastic

Going deeper

  • A reason is not evidence.
  • A reason is essentially another claim—but ideally a less-contested claim that supports the more contentious claim you're trying to get the audience to accept.
    • For example, "Other cities with car bans have thrived" is a claim, but hopefully one that has enough evidence that it is easily accepted by the audience.
  • This is an insight into how arguments work: they use less-contested claims to build a bridge towards more contested claims, so that by the end the audience can stroll to the desired conclusion without being forced to make leaps that they might reject.
  • Once you realise that an argument is claims all the way down, you understand why we have to make assumptions.

In Frankenstories

  • In a standard game, players give reasons and evidence in R2 & R3.
  • That means describing the issue and making a claim in R1, then inventing at least two reasons and providing evidence over the next two rounds.
  • Players can come up with more reasons, but that doesn't leave much time for evidence.

FS Nutshell arguments troll

What types of nutshell arguments can you make from this general trend? | R1 Causal | R2 Proposal | R3 Valuational | R4 Definitional | R5 Ethical