Which of the following primarily depends upon ideological reasoning?
Why is comparative, ideological, and empirical reasoning important
2. Do we characterize ideology in terms of its substance (e.g., distortion or mystification), the purposes it performs (e.g., furthering the interests of the dominant class), its triggers (e.g., cognitive bias, reduction of cognitive dissonance), or its consequences (e.g., establishing or maintaining unequal social power relations)? This is the issue of the proper description mode.
Some ideologic theories describe their subject matter in terms of values held by individuals or groups. For example, Jon Elster describes ideology as individuals’ false or distorted conscious views about the social world. 1st Other theories of ideology are concerned with linguistic or cultural products, as well as social practices of meaning, that do not actually exist in people’s heads but that they use to comprehend the social world. As a result, John Thompson and Clifford Geertz see ideology as the analysis of “symbolic types.” [two] Language, icons, literature, traffic signals, television shows, and commercials are all examples of this type of speech. This option, in Geertz’s case, is a deliberate effort to externalize the object of study–to shift the focus away from internal mental processes and toward externally recognizable entities such as written symbols, verbal utterances, creative artifacts, and behavioral behaviors. [three]
What is another term for empirical reasoning?
According to the moral foundations theory, political liberals and conservatives differ on five distinct origins of moral intuition. The current research program aims to place this taxonomy in the light of the larger research literature on political ideology as motivated social cognition, including the finding that conservative decisions often serve system-justification functions. The motivational underpinnings of ideological disparities in moral intuitions were investigated in two experiments using a combination of regression and path modeling techniques. The “binding” foundations (in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and purity) were linked to epistemic and existential needs to reduce uncertainty and danger, as well as system justification tendencies, while the “individualizing” foundations (fairness and avoidance of harm) were unrelated to epistemic and existential motives and were in the minority. Taken together, these findings support Hatemi, Crabtree, and Smith’s contention that moral “foundations” are themselves the product of motivated social cognition.
Empirical reasoning is a process of thinking that
“Perceptions, opinions, and attitudes toward truth” is a typical colloquial usage, as in “My reality is not your reality.” This is sometimes used simply as a colloquialism to indicate that the participants in a discussion accept, or should agree, not to argue about profoundly divergent views of reality. “You might disagree, but in my fact, everybody goes to heaven,” one might say (jokingly) in a religious discussion between friends.
Reality can be described in terms of worldviews or sections of worldviews (conceptual frameworks): All objects, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present), and phenomena, whether measurable or not, make up reality. It’s what a world view (whether based on personal or common human experience) tries to explain or map in the end.
Various theories of truth are formed by concepts from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields. One such conviction is that there is no truth other than our individual expectations and assumptions about reality. Such attitudes are summed up in the common phrase “Perception is truth,” “Life is how you interpret reality,” or “Reality is what you can get away with” (Robert Anton Wilson), and they signify anti-realism – the belief that there is no objective reality, whether expressly recognized or not.
Which of the following statements about empirical reasoning is true?
The main political parties in the United States are widely thought to be mirror copies of each other, but the two sides actually have significant and underappreciated differences. The Republican Party is essentially an intellectual force whose adherents value doctrinal integrity, while the Democratic Party is a coalition of social movements pursuing meaningful government intervention. This asymmetry is exacerbated by public sentiment in the United States, which supports left-of-center views on most particular policy concerns while still favoring a smaller, less involved government. As a result, each political party faces a specific governance challenge in balancing the demands of its core constituency with the need to retain broad public support. This fundamental ideological divide between the parties also explains why the rise of the Tea Party movement among Republicans has not been matched by an ideological revolt among Democrats in recent years.