This article explores how conversation and deliberation enhance practical reasoning in problem-solving, indicating effective collaboration.
Problems are generally defined as barriers to goals. Consequently, it is a form of practical reasoning, understood as figuring out the means by which such barriers are to be removed. The general form of practical reasoning suggests three processes that would be involved in problem-solving. The first is coming to an understanding of the problem, which involves the process of conversation. The second is a matter of inquiry – figuring out the practical hypotheses, the means of solving the problem. Since problem-solving requires cooperation of others, it also requires deliberation among those affected by a problem as to which of the practical hypotheses will work best, ending in some agreement. Using the work of pragmatists, such as Peirce, James, Dewey, Addams, Wallace, Kitcher, among others, the aim of the article is to show a normative framework for each of these processes that can best lead to effective problem solving.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Liszka (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: