Incorporating a Critical Reasoning Component into the ICT–Ethics Methodological Framework

Herman T. Tavani
{"title":"Incorporating a Critical Reasoning Component into the ICT–Ethics Methodological Framework","authors":"Herman T. Tavani","doi":"10.29297/orbit.v1i2.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Is the standard/classic applied–ethics model used by philosophers adequate for analyzing issues in information and communication technology (ICT) ethics? A number of critics have argued that it is not, claiming instead that we need to revise and possibly also expand upon that model. In the various proposals advanced so far, however, no one has questioned whether we need to include an explicit critical reasoning (CR) component as part of an adequate ICT–ethics methodological framework. The purpose of the present study is to show why having such a component is not only useful but perhaps critical to ICT–ethics analysis. After defining what I mean by CR, and describing how it differs significantly from both formal logic and critical thinking, I show why incorporating a CR component can help us to achieve four of our key objectives as ICT–ethics professionals/instructors. First, CR provides us with a clear and systematic method for spotting logical fallacies, some of which might not initially seem either obvious or intuitive, in the various arguments that have been advanced to influence social policies affecting ICT. Second, CR provides us with techniques for testing our own arguments to ensure that they do not contain any logical fallacies. Third, CR provides us with a clear and fairly rigorous methodology for not only avoiding fallacies but also for constructing strong arguments to defend the views we advance. Finally, infusing a CR component into ICT–ethics courses will aid instructors in teaching their students how to detect and avoid logical fallacies, as well as teaching them how to construct strong arguments to defend their own positions on issues.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101247,"journal":{"name":"The ORBIT Journal","volume":"1 2","pages":"Pages 1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2515856220300523/pdf?md5=427ad8c87a415048381ac9667118a5ee&pid=1-s2.0-S2515856220300523-main.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The ORBIT Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2515856220300523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Is the standard/classic applied–ethics model used by philosophers adequate for analyzing issues in information and communication technology (ICT) ethics? A number of critics have argued that it is not, claiming instead that we need to revise and possibly also expand upon that model. In the various proposals advanced so far, however, no one has questioned whether we need to include an explicit critical reasoning (CR) component as part of an adequate ICT–ethics methodological framework. The purpose of the present study is to show why having such a component is not only useful but perhaps critical to ICT–ethics analysis. After defining what I mean by CR, and describing how it differs significantly from both formal logic and critical thinking, I show why incorporating a CR component can help us to achieve four of our key objectives as ICT–ethics professionals/instructors. First, CR provides us with a clear and systematic method for spotting logical fallacies, some of which might not initially seem either obvious or intuitive, in the various arguments that have been advanced to influence social policies affecting ICT. Second, CR provides us with techniques for testing our own arguments to ensure that they do not contain any logical fallacies. Third, CR provides us with a clear and fairly rigorous methodology for not only avoiding fallacies but also for constructing strong arguments to defend the views we advance. Finally, infusing a CR component into ICT–ethics courses will aid instructors in teaching their students how to detect and avoid logical fallacies, as well as teaching them how to construct strong arguments to defend their own positions on issues.

将关键推理成分纳入信息通信技术伦理方法框架
哲学家使用的标准/经典应用伦理学模型是否足以分析信息和通信技术(ICT)伦理问题?一些评论家认为,事实并非如此,相反,他们声称,我们需要修改,并可能在该模型的基础上进行扩展。然而,在迄今提出的各种建议中,没有人质疑我们是否需要将明确的批判性推理(CR)组成部分作为适当的ict伦理方法框架的一部分。本研究的目的是说明为什么拥有这样一个成分不仅有用,而且可能对信息通信技术伦理分析至关重要。在定义了我所说的责任,并描述了它与形式逻辑和批判性思维的显著区别之后,我将展示为什么纳入责任组成部分可以帮助我们实现作为信息通信技术伦理专业人员/教师的四个关键目标。首先,社会责任为我们提供了一种清晰而系统的方法来发现逻辑谬误,其中一些谬误最初可能看起来不明显或不直观,这些谬误存在于影响信息通信技术的社会政策的各种论点中。其次,CR为我们提供了测试我们自己的论点的技术,以确保它们不包含任何逻辑谬误。第三,CR为我们提供了一种清晰而严谨的方法,不仅可以避免谬误,还可以构建有力的论据来捍卫我们提出的观点。最后,在信息通信技术伦理课程中加入社会责任的组成部分,将有助于教师教学生如何发现和避免逻辑谬误,以及教他们如何构建强有力的论据来捍卫自己在问题上的立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信