Logical Argument
Give reasons before conclusions, and derive conclusions from what went before
Rationalization uses the intellect to argue backwards, from a formed conclusion to the reasons for it, i. e. an already known conclusion comes first, and the reasons for it come second, e. g. after making a mistake the mind quickly finds many reasons to "explain" it, usually none of them our fault. These excuses are justifications thought up "after the fact", in perhaps evolutionarily our brain was designed to do this in social settings. However in rationalization the arrow of thought goes backwards, from present to past, and so this form of thinking adds little new. Academic argument tries to use the intellect to argue forwards, from present "facts" to unknown conclusions. Socrates called this approach the dialectic and it is the basis of modern research. His conversations began with agreed facts, and then bravely "followed the logic" wherever it led. Academic thinking seeks to drive the arrow of thought forward, to create new ideas and predict the future.
Example(s)
(Use a descriptive name, e. g. "ITExample". Or click on an existing collection and edit it.)
