logic and critical thinking freshman course chapter 5 pdf

A Concise Introduction to Logic

(4 reviews)

Craig DeLancey, SUNY Oswego

Copyright Year: 2017

ISBN 13: 9781942341420

Publisher: Open SUNY

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by David Jacobs, Adjunct Professor, American University on 6/1/21

This volume is a well-constructed introduction to logic for undergraduates. It’s depth and breadth are appropriate. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This volume is a well-constructed introduction to logic for undergraduates. It’s depth and breadth are appropriate.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The author writes with care and leaves little room for misunderstanding.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Logic is not a perishable subject. Using intellectual history as a foundation gives the book enduring relevance.

Clarity rating: 5

The author is painstaking in his quest for clarity,

Consistency rating: 5

Logical consistency is the sine qua non of a book of this kind. The style and structure are consistent throughout,

Modularity rating: 5

The text can be assigned by individual chapter. The chapter order is approved and cannot be altered. The book concludes with a look forward to advanced topics.

I think I can use the volume as a reference for the occasional coverage of formal logic in my Business Ethics course,

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

It is a concise volume and proceeds logically.

Interface rating: 5

I see no errors. The negation symbol used is not the one I thought was standard but apparently I was wrong!

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I have encountered no serious grammatical errors, or any really.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The volume is clearly written within the “Western” intellectual tradition. It would be fascinating if the author were to consider alternative logical approaches and probably would be unique among texts.

I intend to use this book as a refresher so that I can add more formal consideration of arguments as an element of my teaching.

Reviewed by John O'Connor, Associate Professor, Colorado State University - Pueblo on 2/1/18

This text provides a thorough and responsible introduction to symbolic logic from sentential calculus through first-order predicate logic with identity and its application to specific numbers in arguments. While there is no index, this is hardly... read more

This text provides a thorough and responsible introduction to symbolic logic from sentential calculus through first-order predicate logic with identity and its application to specific numbers in arguments. While there is no index, this is hardly necessary in a digital text. In place of a glossary, the text offers a very effective and detailed summary section for each of the two logical languages developed.

I found no errors or biases in the text; it accurately presents its field of logic. Potential readers should be aware, though, that this is a text in symbolic / deductive logic, as such it reflects the conscious decision to exclude informal logic. Closely related to this is the equating of ‘good argument’ with ‘valid argument’ (using the traditional definition of the latter). A ’bad argument’ is, then, simply any invalid argument. While that's fine given that the text concerns only deductive logic, students or faculty expecting discussion of a wider range of logical ‘goodness’ (e.g. strength) may find this jarring.

The portion of logic introduced by this text is very stable. The systems presented are up-to-date and necessary revisions to the core ideas and techniques are unlikely for some time.

The text is well-designed and clearly written for its intended audience. For instance, most of the major concepts are introduced through discussion of concrete examples from the history of philosophy and science. The author is thus able to introduce concepts and techniques while demonstrating their value. Furthermore, instead of burdening the main text with sidebars or esoteric developments of the material, the author relegates these to footnotes, where they are no doubt useful to more advanced students without risking distracting the less well-prepared.

This is a text in logic; as such it makes a virtue of its consistency.

Modularity rating: 4

This text is as modular as a systematic introduction to logic can be. One could, for instance, teach/learn the sentential calculus on its own. That said, the nature of the discipline requires careful sequencing of material. A modular deductive logic text is unlikely to be as usable as this text. Furthermore, it is not clear that rearranging the material would be helpful. For logic, I’d call this a feature, not a bug.

In addition to the expected logical sequencing mentioned above, this text presents its material against the backdrop of history. Frederick Douglass, Hobbes, Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Hume, Frege, Russell, Peano, Meinong, Tarski and Carnap all make an appearance. Many students will find this structure helpful in putting flesh on the logical bones.

I found no problems with the interface, navigation or text/image rendering in the pdf version of the text (the only version I read). Any reader comfortable navigating pdf files should have no concerns.

The text is written in student-approachable professional English. I found no grammatical or typpgraphical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

I do not think the content or its presentation is likely to be found culturally insensitive or offensive at all (disclosure: I am a Caucasian male). That said, with only a single exception that I could find (Frederick Douglass) the historical examples are representative of the European male dominated philosophical canon.

Reviewed by Shaeeda Mensah, Professorial Lecturer, American University on 2/1/18

The text is very comprehensive. It covers each of the main connectives separately, proofs, and an introduction to propositional logic. The index covers each aspect of the text in explicit detail. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The text is very comprehensive. It covers each of the main connectives separately, proofs, and an introduction to propositional logic. The index covers each aspect of the text in explicit detail.

The text is accurate, error-free, and unbiased.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The content is up-to-date but there are areas of logic that go largely uncovered. In particular, there is no explicit instruction on the construction of truth table and the usage of truth tables to assess consistency, tautologies, contingencies, and soundness.

The text is clearly organized. A student is able to learn about each main connective in its own chapter. The language in the text is accessible to a wide variety of audiences while ensuring that students become familiar with the technical terminology of logic.

The text is internally consistent.

The text is divided into chapters that individually address each main connective. Additionally, each chapter includes approximately three practice problems. It would be valuable to include additional practice problems given that logic is best learned through solving a wide variety of practice problems. Additionally, it would be helpful to have more problems that teach students how to use the main connectives together and not just independently.

The organization, structure, and flow of the text is impressive.

The text makes great use of colors and charts. It includes a combination of both logical equations and word problems. The problems within the text are presented in a multiple choice format.

The text is free of major spelling and grammar errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

The text use a variety of contexts for the problems. The problems include both historical figures and contemporary figures, and examples from a variety of cultural contexts.

Reviewed by Tony Russell, Associate Professor, Central Oregon Community College on 8/15/17

The text begins with basic definitions and mapping tools for representing propositional logic and for creating truth tables. It then moves through first order logic, quantification, and proofs. It ends with a look forward to more advanced... read more

The text begins with basic definitions and mapping tools for representing propositional logic and for creating truth tables. It then moves through first order logic, quantification, and proofs. It ends with a look forward to more advanced applications. There is neither index nor glossary, but terms are easy to find using the table of contents. Moreover, the chapters are brief, and terms are relatively easy to identify within them.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

DeLancey's work is careful and meticulous. Exercises and examples reflect a diversity of situations, viewpoints, and authors. I observed no glaring errors or bias.

The foundational principles of propositional logic aren't particularly new, but as the final section of this volume suggests, there a several advanced and creative ways to apply them. Some early sections point out what current thinking on certain topics is. While these points are unlikely to change, the text is written in such a way that it would be easy to modify later. Also, Part III: A Look Forward is written in a such a way that it could be edited easily to reflect further modifications, changes, or developments.

This book is what it says it is: a concise introduction. DeLancey's writing is brief and methodical. Paragraphs are small and somewhat minimalist. This, however, is not a criticism. Explanations are short and effective. Terms build upon terms and concepts upon concepts. There are not examples for every single instance, but there are always examples to show how the concepts discussed in the chapter work together. Chapters are well-organized and short. Exercises are interesting and challenging (for that matter, the content matter is, too), and they reflect what is discussed in the chapters. I regularly review online course design and textbooks, and while I always find these reviews stimulating, this is the first time in a long time where I really wanted to take a course in this topic and ask questions about the content and application.

The formatting style, complete with chapter and section numbers, is consistent throughout. There is not much color—nor does there need to be—but for what there is, it is also consistent. DeLancey warns the reader of terminology that has different names but refers to the same concept. He even states that he may use certain terms interchangeably; however, these terms were not difficult to follow, and the interchangeable use was minimal.

Most chapters are about ten pages. They include explanations, examples, and problems (exercises). These chapters could be easily assigned to students. It is conceivable that one might assume sections in order to introduce students to certain concepts, but the text is written in such a way that concepts build on one another. In addition, a method for representing logic, which includes signs and symbols, is introduced. With that in mind, unless students had prior experience with the material, it would not be advisable to reorganize the chapters. In my mind, the chapters and sections are very much dependent on their ordering.

The Reviewer's Notes provide an accurate overview of the text's organization. This is also reflected in the Table of Contents. From start to finish, the text introduces concepts and builds on them to move from basic to more advanced applications.

The text is in a Pressbooks style. The PDF was easy to navigate. There appear to be two primary typefaces, a serif and sans serif font. Both were easy to read. Charts, tables, and images have rendered well. I observed no distracting pixelation, blurring, or alignment errors with these visuals.

DeLancey's style is easy to read. I observed no significant errors in grammar or punctuation.

DeLancey has been careful to include examples from various persons, both male and female, from a variety of cultures, races, and backgrounds. He also varies his use of pronouns, sometimes using he or she, sometimes he, sometimes she.

The conciseness of the chapters, sections, paragraphs, and sentences is to be commended. The organization and structure is also easy to follow. I came to this book on the Open Textbook Library looking for a text for my introductory composition and rhetoric students. While I found some things that would be applicable to them, I found that the text was more in line with a philosophy or more traditional course in rhetoric than what I would typically present to first-year composition students. That said, I found the style and content of the book fascinating. I enjoyed doing the exercises, and I can visualize how students could use this text to confidently develop fundamental skills in using logic and representing it in truth tables and proofs.

Table of Contents

Part I: Propositional Logic

• 1. Developing a Precise Language
• 2. “If…then….” and “It is not the case that….”
• 3. Good Arguments
• 6. Conditional Derivations
• 8. Reductio ad Absurdum
• 9. “… if and only if …”, Using Theorems
• 10. Summary of Propositional Logic

Part II: First Order Logic

• 11. Names and predicates
• 12. “All” and “some”
• 13. Reasoning with quantifiers
• 14. Universal derivation
• 15. Relations, functions, identity, and multiple quantifiers
• 16. Summary of first order logic

Part III: A Look Forward

• 17. Some advanced topics in logic

Ancillary Material

About the book.

A Concise Introduction to Logic is an introduction to formal logic suitable for undergraduates taking a general education course in logic or critical thinking, and is accessible and useful to any interested in gaining a basic understanding of logic. This text takes the unique approach of teaching logic through intellectual history; the author uses examples from important and celebrated arguments in philosophy to illustrate logical principles. The text also includes a basic introduction to findings of advanced logic. As indicators of where the student could go next with logic, the book closes with an overview of advanced topics, such as the axiomatic method, set theory, Peano arithmetic, and modal logic. Throughout, the text uses brief, concise chapters that readers will find easy to read and to review.

About the Contributors

Craig DeLancey is Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at SUNY Oswego. He received his Ph.D. from Indiana University. His publications include Passionate Engines: What Emotions Reveal about the Mind and Artificial Intelligence, with Oxford University Press. He has been a fellow of the Center for the Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, a fellow of the National Endowment of the Humanities, and has received research funding from the Army Institute of Basic Research. When not teaching philosophy or doing research, he writes science fiction.

Contribute to this Page

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Chapter 5 Logical Fallacies

Related Papers

Informal Logic, 24, 2004, 71-103.

Douglas Walton

Fallacies of relevance, a major category of informal fallacies, include two that could be called pure fallacies of relevance –wrong conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, wrong conclusion, missing the point) and red herring (digression, diversion). The paper offers a method to classify examples of these fallacies so that they clearly fall into the one category or the other.

Virtues of Argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 22–25, 2013, Dima Mohammed & Marcin Lewinski, edd.

Andrew Aberdein

If good argument is virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of fallacies to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through case studies of several fallacies, with particular emphasis on the ad hominem.

claudia cuadro

Argumentation

Christoph Lumer

What should a virtue theory of argumentation say about fallacious reasoning? If good arguments are virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of bad argumentation to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through analysis of several fallacies, with particular emphasis on the ad misericordiam.

Journal of Coastal Research

Jean-Daniel Stanley

Manajemen Perubahan_Wahyuni_C1B019121_Tugas 4 Makalah

Cancer research

Sjoerd Klarenbeek

In human cancers, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) signaling is frequently hyperactivated by deregulation of FGF ligands or by activating mutations in the FGFR receptors such as gene amplifications, point mutations and gene fusions. As such, FGFR inhibitors are considered an attractive therapeutic strategy for patients with mutations in FGFR family members. We previously identified Fgfr2 as a key driver of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) in an in vivo insertional mutagenesis screen using the Sleeping Beauty (SB) transposon system. Here we explore whether these FGFR-driven ILCs are sensitive to the FGFR inhibitor AZD4547 and use transposon mutagenesis in these tumors to identify potential mechanisms of resistance to therapy. Combined with RNA sequencing-based analyses of AZD4547-resistant tumors, our in vivo approach identified several known and novel potential resistance mechanisms to FGFR inhibition, most of which converged on reactivation of the canonical MAPK-ERK signali...

L'HOMME ET LA SOCIÉTÉ. Faculté de Sciences Humaines et de Sciences Sociales. Tlemcen. Algeria

Magdalena Valor Piechotta

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Surface Science and Engineering

Alexandra Pekarovicova

Deborah Greenspan

Maribel Pallanez Murrieta

Omar Barraza

PATRICIA JACQUELINE MUNOZ VERDEZOTO

Opuntia Brava

Carlos Verdecia

Nutrición Hospitalaria

Fulgencio Soto Méndez

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

Lucas de Oliveira

Interpretasi: Communication & Public Relations

vivi oktaviani

Antoine Guicheteau

Ars und scientia

Sabine Seelbach

Clinical genitourinary cancer

Stephan Kruck

Scientific Reports

Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety

Ram Mereddy

Atasan Brukat Cantik by Rumah Jahit Azka

rumahjahitazka kebumen

How would you integrate Lewin´s Field Theory into ballet education

simona noja

Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation

phyllis diosey

Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery

Oğuzhan Gökalp

jhgjfgtf hgjfgdghf

SIL Proceedings, 1922-2010

patricia marchant

Shamaila Mahmood

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

PHIL102: Introduction to Critical Thinking and Logic

Unit 5: fallacies.

Now that you have studied the necessary structure of a good argument and can represent its structure visually, you might think it would be simple to pick out bad arguments. However, identifying bad arguments can be very tricky in practice. Very often, what at first appears to be ironclad reasoning turns out to contain one or more subtle errors.

Fortunately, there are many easily identifiable fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) that you can learn to recognize by their structure or content. In this unit, you will learn about the nature of fallacies, look at a couple of different ways of classifying them, and spend some time dealing with the most common fallacies in detail.

Completing this unit should take you approximately 3 hours.

Upon successful completion of this unit, you will be able to:

• explain fallacies of inconsistency, irrelevance, insufficiency, and inappropriate presumption;
• identify common fallacies, including the straw man, gambler's fallacy, begging the question, red herring, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, appeal to people, complex question, loaded question, and non-sequitur; and
• describe the nature of a cognitive bias and identify examples of cognitive bias.

5.1: Introduction to Fallacies

Read this tutorial, which introduces the notion of fallacious reasoning. Fallacies are arguments that are frequently accepted as valid but contain subtle reasoning errors. It is important to know how to catch fallacies.

5.2: Types of Fallacies

Read this section to learn the difference between formal and informal fallacies and learn two key formal fallacies that look like good logic but are not: denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent. There is a popular joke among philosophers about Descartes (the French philosopher who famously wrote, "I think, therefore I am") walking into a bar and, when the bartender asks if he'd like a drink, replying "I think not" and vanishing in a puff. While delightful to share among your philosopher friends, this joke actually falls prey to one of these fallacies – see if you can tell why.

Read this tutorial, which defines the most common fallacies. This list narrows down some of the fallacies in the previous text and is enough to get us started. We will look at a wider sample of fallacies later in this course. For now, focus on defining each fallacy and identifying the differences between the fallacies on the list.

Read these sections to review three important fallacies you probably come across without realizing it: false dichotomy, causal slippery slope fallacy, and appeal to authority.

All three of these fallacies can be disguised as something that looks logical, but these readings will help you identify when that is not the case.

Read these tutorials, which introduce four major classifications of fallacies. Although there are many possible ways of categorizing fallacies, the four major groups discussed in these tutorials are fairly standard.

Complete this quiz, which will help you identify common fallacies.

5.3: Ten Common Fallacies in Detail

5.3.1: straw man fallacy.

You may have heard criticisms of a "straw man" argument before and not known what that meant. This section walks you through a straw man argument and gives examples. After reading this section, try to come up with a few examples of straw man arguments, and look for straw man fallacies in your own life.

Watch this video, which explains a fallacy commonly known as the straw man fallacy. After watching this video, you should be able to define the fallacy and identify examples of the fallacy.

5.3.2: Gambler's Fallacy

Watch this video, which explains a fallacy commonly known as the gambler's fallacy. After watching this video, you should be able to define the fallacy and identify examples of the fallacy.

Read this introduction to the gambler's fallacy and the example of how it works.

5.3.3: Begging the Question

Read this section on the fallacy of "begging the question". When we formalize the examples in the premise, they are not substantively different from the conclusion. Look out for "question begging" arguments in your life.

5.3.4: Red Herring

Read this article to learn about the red herring fallacy. If you think bringing up colorful fish sounds out of place when discussing logic, then you're right! The red herring fallacy operates by bringing up irrelevant information. Often when we have arguments in our lives, though, people throw in "red herrings".

5.3.5: Ad Hominem (Against the Person)

You have doubtless heard ad hominem attacks before – though you may not have known they were an informal fallacy. Read this section on the ad hominem fallacy for a definition and examples of these attacks. After reading, you should be able to identify ad hominem attacks when you encounter them.

5.3.6: Ad Ignorantium (Appeal to Ignorance)

Read this brief description of the "ad ignorantium" (or "appeal to ignorance") fallacy. This common fallacy insists on placing the burden of proof on whatever side opposes it.

5.3.7: Ad Populum (Appeal to the People)

Read this article for a quick explanation and examples of the logical fallacy  ad populum , or "appeal to the people". This fallacy relies on our social inclinations and is popularly seen in advertising. Despite the effectiveness of these kinds of appeals, they nonetheless are not logical arguments.

5.3.8: Complex Question (Double-Barreled Question)

Read this article, which defines the double-barreled question fallacy and identifies examples of it.

5.3.9: Loaded Question

Read this article, which defines the loaded question fallacy and identifies examples of it.

5.3.10: Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)

Read this article, which defines the non sequitur  fallacy and identifies examples of it.

5.3.11: Review of Fallacies

Consider the passages below. If the passage contains an argument, identify the premises and main conclusion. For each passage, assess whether it contains a fallacy. If it does, identify the fallacy and explain why you made your assessment.

• God exists because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.
• Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), the British philosopher, said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to many people. 
• Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.

Share your thoughts on the discussion forum. Make sure to review and respond to other students' posts, as well.

5.4: Cognitive Biases

Read this tutorial, which describes some examples of cognitive biases. These biases are ways of thinking that lead us to make poor inferences. Being able to identify cognitive biases helps us to improve our reasoning and helps us to assess other people's reasoning.

Watch this video to learn about availability, representativeness, and confirmation biases. Note that there are many other cognitive biases, including anchoring bias, availability heuristic bias, bandwagon bias, choice supportive bias, ostrich bias, outcome bias, overconfidence, placebo bias, survivorship bias, selective perception bias, and blind spot bias. Try to identify some examples of cognitive biases in your life.

Philosophy 110

Chapter 5 Fallacies

Points to remember for each fallacy, slippery slope, questionable dilemma, straw person, hasty conclusion, questionable cause, questionable analogy, suppressed evidence, exercise list, final thoughts.

Again due to time constraints, we will focus on only a sample of the fallacies in Chapter 5.   For the exercises and exam, study carefully and write down the recipes for:

Slippery Slope Questionable Dilemma Straw Person Hasty Conclusion Questionable Cause Questionable Analogy Suppressed Evidence

Note that the key SS premise is an assertion of a causal chain of events - A will cause B, B will cause C, C will cause D.   The first video for C5 notes that students will often confuse this fallacy with Questionable Cause due to the causal chain in the premise of SS.   But QC always has the causal claim in the conclusion and not in the premise.

Hence, unlike QC (see below), the problem with SS is that no evidence for the SS premise is given and that should then be the focus for the AA.   Although the argument is valid, the premise is unfair, questionable, and probably (with a little argument) false.

Example from a previous exam: (Argument by a U.S. senator in 2010)

"We should not repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for gay service men and women in our military.   If we do, it will lead to a decadent atmosphere brimming with alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art.   It will just be a matter of time before we have an explosion of homosexual assaults in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators.   It will weaken our ability to fight our enemies and destroy our military."

Notice the prediction of all the bad things that will allegedly happen if the policy on same sex orientation in the military is changed.   The argument is valid, but at the time no evidence was presented that these events will occur or that they were even probable.

Study the AA in the SS recipe.   To make a case that this is a SS fallacy, we need to not only point out that no evidence is presented for the controversial premise but also argue that the causal links predicted are unlikely .   That usually requires some critical thinking and information.   Have other countries allowed gays to serve openly in their militaries?   If yes, have bad things happened?   Yes and No.   Canada, Britain, and Israel allow gays to openly serve in their militaries, but no it has not weakened their militaries.

Students will ask, "What if this one was on the exam and I did not know this information!?"   In life if you are not well-informed, you will be taken advantage of with any fallacy of questionable premise.   We need more than logic.   Information is power.   But you should at least now see the underlying form of SS in the above argument and if this issue was important to you, you would have a focus to do some research.

For the example above, this note was on the exam:

"Note: The policy, in effect since the early 1990s, essentially says that gays can serve in the military provided that they not advertise their sexual orientation.   The military will not ask and gays should not tell or advertise their sexual orientation.   If it does become known that they are gay, they will be discharged from the military.

Those who support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy claim that it has not been perfect but it has worked, and it is not the time to have a social experiment in the military as we attempt to fight two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).   It will make the military less unified and effective.   Some also argue that homosexuality is not a civil rights issue like skin color; it is a lifestyle choice that is potentially disruptive to the military.   Those who support repealing the policy claim that discrimination in the military against gays serves no useful purpose.   That many gays face death daily and are rewarded with the fear that they could be kicked out of the military if anyone finds out they are gay.   They also point out that many gays have been kicked out of the military that have had valuable skills, such as the ability to speak Arabic and Farsi.   Plus, Canada, Britain, and Israel allow gays to serve openly and this service has not weakened their militaries, and the armed forces need every qualified person."

For a humorous use of SS in advertising see the Direct TV ads .

Not the only choices, but notice one would have to be informed that the Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of 9/11 and that there were many different views on how best to fight terrorism, including non-military intervention and smaller militrary covert options.   Again, we need more than logic.   Information is power.

Another questionable premise fallacy.   In this case, IF the premises were true, the argument would appear to support the conclusion well.   From the recipe and examples in the textbook, notice the highlights.   Similar to Ad Hominem circumstantial, a person or group is attacked in the conclusion as being wrong about a position on an issue.   But unlike Ad Hominem, the premise is relevant to the conclusion - there will be an attempt to describe the person's or group's position on an issue.   However, the attempted description will be false or at least very questionable, being an exaggeration or distortion of the person's or group's true position.

Again, the burden is on us to be informed that the premise or premises is an exaggeration or distortion of the person's true position.   At least after studying the trick behind this fallacy, one would be wise to be cautious when anyone is describing a position of someone else you know the person disagrees with, as when a Democrat describes what a Republican believes or a Republican describe what a Democrat believes.

See the Dukakis example, Ex. II, #8, in Chapter 5.   A single Trident II submarine has enough nuclear weapons on it to destroy about 200 cities.   A "slingshot"?

For some recent whopper SPs, see this segment on the the Daily Show .

So, fallacies of weak induction (HC and QC) provide some evidence for their conclusions but the argument in the AA will be that the evidence provided is very weak.

Example of HC:

"Legalizing gay marriage will be very bad for children.   Jasmine and Mikayla are horrible parents to their daughter Madison.   They are crystal meth addicts and often do not even take six-year old Madison to school or feed her regularly."

Notice the generalization.   One gay parental example generalizing to all gay parents.   One example is "some" evidence and so unlike a fallacy of relevance this one example is relevant to the conclusion.   The AA focus should be an application of the C3 concepts - not a representative sample, no statistical comparison with heterosexual parents, or use of induction by enumeration.

Study the recipe.   Note the highlights - a "before and after" time sequence in the premises (A happened, then B happened) and always an "A caused B" in the conclusion.

In the brief description, be sure to copy correctly: causal connection in the conclusion, not a casual connection!

In the AA, almost everything can be copied from the recipe except we must make some attempt to describe other possible causes , other possible events happening at the same time.   Students will complain about #1, Ex. II in C5.   If you were not even born yet when our military was in Vietnam, how can you be expected to know all the events happening at the same time as the college demonstrations?   No excuse.   We have had two other wars recently (Afghanistan and Iraq).   One should know the possible dangers of having our country invade another country.   Will our troops understand the culture and language?   Will the local people support us or resent us being there?   Won't a local insurgency have a huge advantage?

Did our political leaders understand the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and their history of religious disagreement and violence against each other before invading Iraq?

Technically the book classifies this argument as fallacy of presumption - a type of questionable premise.   A questionable analogy occurs in the premise and hence we should not presume evidence has been offered for the conclusion just because a creative analogy has been used to get our attention.   Key point: creative analogies can help us understand arguments, but they are not direct evidence that the conclusion is true.   For example, "Evolution of life on Earth is just like a huge bush of developing branches of life."   This analogy is often used in science to help people understand the concept of evolution, but what should convince us that evolution is true is a vast amount of anatomical, fossil, geological, and genetic evidence showing that the past branches really occurred.

Highlights: (see the recipe in C5)

• The analogy is always in a premise, X is like Y.
• A second premise will state (or be implied) that Y is good or bad, true or false.
• If Y is good, the conclusion will be that X is good; if Y is bad, the conclusion will be that X is bad.

"Saying that women should be free to choose to have an abortion or not is just like saying one should be free to rob a bank"   Robbing a bank is bad, so pro-choice on abortion is wrong.   For the above evolution example, a bush is something we see; we know it exists.   So, evolution exists.

Notice the recipe requires that we argue against the analogy .   We not only point out that we should not presume any evidence has been offered yet, but argue that the analogy is questionable - that there are differences in the two things being compared.   Abortion is legal, bank robbing is not.   Although a bush grows, the branches exist all at once, visible at the same time; the branches of evolution do not exist all at once.

Some infamous analogies on Iraq.

"Establishing democracy in Iraq will work.   If the seeds of democracy can be planted and then the tree can be allowed to grow, democracy will be able to reign.   It may not be within this generation but definitely in the next two.   Think of the bamboo plant.   It spends most of its life underground and you think it's dead.   Then, it shoots up in the air, growing 15 to 20 feet tall in one year.   Patience is what Iraq needs."

"Invading Iraq to establish democracy is like trying to fix a broken plane during takeoff."

Students need to be careful using this fallacy.   Too often some think it applies to just about every weak argument. No. The premise is true and appears to offer a good reason for the conclusion.   Remember the simple Crest toothpaste advertisement of the 1950's.

"Buy Crest toothpaste for your children, because it has fluoride."

True premise and having fluoride containing toothpaste is a good reason to buy it since the fluoride will help prevent cavities.   So we don't argue that the premise is false or questionable and we don't argue that the reasoning is weak.   Instead we point out a simple omitted fact - other brands of toothpaste also contained fluoride.   When this suppressed fact is known we see that we really have not been given sufficient reason to buy Crest rather than another brand.

The Bush example in the SE section of Chapter 5 shows that politicians are very good at spinning the facts and using suppressed evidence.   Fact - Massachusetts did lose 26,000 jobs while Dukakis was governor.   But these were old manufacturing jobs and the state gained over 250,000 new high tech jobs during this time.

Here is an example from the 2012 presidential election.

Obama is anti-business.   In a recent speech he claimed that if you built a business in this country, "you didn't build that.   Well who did? The government?"

Here is what Obama said in a speech.

" There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back.   They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. . . . Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.   If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.   There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.   Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.   Somebody invested in roads and bridges.   If you've got a business - you didn't build that.   Somebody else made that happen.   The Internet didn't get invented on its own.   Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.   The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.   There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.   I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.   That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "

Students will often confuse Suppressed Evidence with Straw Person.   Remember that the premise in SP is false, but the premise in SE is true.   Again, see the Dukakis example, Ex. II, #8, in Chapter 5.   SP is best for that argument because it is easy to make a case that the premise is false - Dukakis did not oppose every new weapon's system since the slingshot.   He supported some very powerful military weapons.

But what about the Obama example above?   Isn't the premise false that Obama said if you built a business in this country you did not build it, the government did?   Isn't it true that he was referring to the infrastructure (roads and bridges) that businesses need to thrive?   Good point.   If this was the explanation in the AA, the SP would be better. (Notice the Daily Show treatment of this example linked above seems to focus on SP.)   But conservative media news reports at the time quoted Obama directly (and of course selectively and out of context), " If you've got a business - you didn't build that. "   See this video .   Notice the editing at the beginning to include no reference to government supported infrastructure.

Put this way, it is true Obama made that exact statement.   Showing then that the statement was selected out of context would

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1: Basic Concepts

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 223680

The most important thing we do as human beings is learn how to think. This is important in two senses of the word: it’s important to human beings because it is the most distinctively unique fact about our species—we think rationally and abstractly—but it’s also important because it the most wide reaching capacity we have—it touches virtually all aspects of our lives. Having a heart that pumps blood or a body capable of certain physical activities might be more fundamental meaning more crucial to simply surviving, but thinking underlies a broad range of activities without which we would be living less than full human lives.

The common title of this course is “Logic and Critical Thinking.” So, we can think about the course as having two main components: the study of formal logic and the study of the tools and strategies of critical thinking. This text is structured in a bit of a “sandwich”. Units on critical thinking and then formal logic, and then units on more critical thinking topics.

First, Logic. We’ll define logic more fully later, but for now: logic is a sort of reasoning that is mathematical in its precision and proofs. It’s like math with words and concepts, in a sense.

Oh no! Not math! I'm no good at math.

Don’t worry, dear student. Logic is more straightforward than a lot of the complex concepts that get discussed in math classes. Even better, all of logic can be broken down into simple, step-by-step processes that a computer can do. You just need to follow the steps carefully and you’ll be guaranteed the right answer every time. There’s no magic to it, no special skills or abilities needed. You just need to follow directions carefully and put a bit of work into it.

Next, let’s get a bit of a definition of critical thinking going. Critical thinking is primarily the ability to think carefully about thinking and reasoning—to have the ability to criticize your own reasoning. ‘Criticize’ here isn’t meant in the sense of being mean or talking down or making fun of. Instead, I mean the word in the sense of, for example, how a coach might take a critical stance toward her players’ skills—he throws high every time, she doesn’t lead with her foot, they ride too forward in the saddle, etc. ‘Critical’ here means something more like ‘reflective’ or ‘careful’ or ‘attention to potential errors’.

So to engage in critical thinking is to engage in self-critical, self-reflective, self-aware thinking and reasoning—thinking and reasoning aimed at self-improvement, at truth, and at careful, deliberate, proper patterns of reasoning.

There are many definitions of what critical thinking is, but here’re my thoughts:

As you can see, being a critical thinker involves training yourself to have a lot of good habits and dispositions. It involves developing rational virtues so that when the time comes to think about something complex, you are naturally disposed to think well. It doesn’t happen overnight and it certainly doesn’t come for free—no one is born with it. We all need to train ourselves and educate ourselves to stay guarded against errors in reasoning.

• 1.1: Vital Course Concepts
• 1.2: Kinds of Inferences
• 1.3: Chapter 1 - Key Terms
• 1.E: Chapter One (Exercises)

First time to EOPCW?

• +251921035701
• [email protected]
• Opening: 12:00am - 12:00am
• Logic and Critical Thinking (I Year I Semester)

Course Materials

• Course Home All
• Course OutLine 1
• Lecture Note 0
• Video Lecture 0
• Reference Book 1
• Assignment 0
• WorkSheet 0
• Download Course Materials 2

About Logic and Critical Thinking (I Year I Semester)

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING MODULE COURSE

Course Highlights

The videos section of this course features a selection of video lectures and interviews of Logic and Critical Thinking (I Year I Semester) faculty from various Departments at KIoT.

PHIL 110: Logic and Critical Thinking

Students will develop rational thinking skills through a combination of theory and practice. They will discuss good and bad thinking habits, learning to apply the former and to avoid the latter. This class includes an introduction to truth-tables and rules of inference in symbolic logic. The aim is to improve students' capacity for rational reasoning, question widely held beliefs, resist empty rhetoric and propaganda, distinguish relevant from irrelevant considerations, and construct sound arguments. PHIL 110 satisfies the math requirement for some majors.

Logic and Critical Thinking

Jul 27, 2014

750 likes | 1.12k Views

Logic and Critical Thinking. CCC8001 2 nd Term 2013. introduction. Course Particulars. Instructor: Dr. Michael Johnson Office: Room HSH219, Ho Sin Hang Building Office Hours: Monday s 15:00 to 16:00 Email: [email protected] Office Telephone: 2616 7052.

Share Presentation

• ccc8001 2nd term
• homework assignments
• important background
• regulations governing university examinations

Presentation Transcript

Logic and Critical Thinking CCC8001 2nd Term 2013

introduction

Course Particulars • Instructor: Dr. Michael Johnson • Office: Room HSH219, Ho Sin Hang Building • Office Hours: Mondays 15:00 to 16:00 • Email: [email protected] • Office Telephone: 2616 7052

Course Website Go to http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com/logic-and-critical-thinking-2013/ All of the powerpoint slides will be posted there, along with reading assignments and homework assignments.

Meeting Times Monday 13:30 to 14:50 Leung KauKui (LKK) G01 Thursday 13:30 to 14:50 LKK 107

Assessment • Attendance: 10%. • Four homework assignments, each worth 5% of the grade, for a total of 20%. • One in-class midterm on 11 March, worth 30%. • One cumulative final exam, worth 40%.

Attendance Attendance is required and accounts for 10% of your final grade. You cannot get an ‘A’ in this course if you do not attend classes. Every day you don’t attend, you lose 0.5 points off your final grade, up to a maximum of 10.

Final Exam The final exam will occur during the scheduled exam period (TBA). It will consist of multiple choice and short-answer questions. It is worth 40% of your final grade. More details will be announced as the date of the final approaches. There will be a review (2/5).

Important Note Students shall be aware of the University regulations about dishonest practice in course work and the possible consequences as stipulated in the Regulations Governing University Examinations.

What is Critical Thinking? There are two basic decisions to make in life: 1. Decide what to believe: What do I believe? 2. Decide what to do: What do I do?

Deciding What to Believe The things you believe (or disbelieve) are claims. Examples of claims include: • Aliens exist. • 2 + 2 = 4. • Pocari Sweat is better than Aquarius. • You should kill children for fun.

Claims Claims can be: General or specific True or false Plausible or implausible Reasonable or unreasonable Supported by evidence or not…

Example: Theories Scientific theories are claims that are supported by lots of evidence, that integrate lots of our knowledge, and that explain and predict lots of phenomena.

Example: Guesses Guesses are claims that the guesser only believes might be true, or are probably true.

Example: Lies A lie is a claim that is known to be false and is made to deceive you into believing something false.

Claims Scientific theories, guesses, and lies are all claims. There are lots of other types of claims: hypotheses, deductions, considerations… A claim is something that is presented as true. Sometimes good reasons are given for accepting it, sometimes no reasons are given, and sometimes misleading reasons are given.

Critical Thinking Is there any evidence to support the claim? Is the evidence reliable and trustworthy? How reliable is it? Should you accept it? Does the evidence actually support the claim? Is there other evidence you should consider?

Critical Thinking Critical thinking involves asking these questions at the right times, knowing how to answer them, and knowing how to use those answers to accept or reject a claim. This is a skills-oriented class. These are the skills we will learn.

You Already Do It You are already a critical thinker. You use critical thinking skills all the time, even if you don’t know it.

Is there any evidence? On a lot of airlines, you are required to turn off your cell phones and other electronic devices during takeoff and landing. Claim: Keeping your devices on poses a danger. But is there any evidence that this is true? Are there studies? What do scientists say?

Is there any evidence? Flu season comes and it’s really bad. You should probably get a flu shot. Or should you go to the traditional Chinese medicine shop? They say their medicine can prevent the flu too.

How reliable is the evidence? Here’s a common story you’ll hear: Claim: Oh, you have a cold? You should get the doctor to prescribe antibiotics for you. Evidence: I got a cold and after a couple days was feeling really bad. I got some antibiotics and two days later, I felt great!

How reliable is the evidence? But this can’t be true. Colds are caused by viruses, and antibiotics only work on bacteria. The story you heard is a case of regression to the mean. People go to the doctor when they’re feeling worst. Of course they feel better later, they would feel better later anyway. Colds usually take care of themselves in 6 days.

Does the evidence support the claim? Companies often pay celebrities and other public figures to endorse their products. Claim: You should buy/ use this product. Evidence: Celebrity X buys/ uses this product. But is it any reason to buy something that some other person is paid to say they like it?

Does the evidence support the claim? But what do those doctors know about the health effects of cigarettes? Have they done studies? Maybe they smoke Camels because they’re cheaper, or because they’re “cooler” or for some other reason.

Is there other evidence to consider? Claim: Prayer heals the sick. Evidence: My mother had cancer, but then I prayed for her. Her cancer went into remission. But how many people were prayed for and not cured? How many people were not prayed for, but still had their cancer go into remission? Does prayer work or was this just an accident?

Critical Thinking Becoming a better critical thinker involves exercising these skills, asking these questions and finding out the answers, more often and more effectively and in a wider range of circumstances.

Logic This course is called Logic and Critical Thinking, and we will be learning about logic. Logic is a helpful tool for verifying the quality of arguments.

Philosophical Arguments In ordinary English, an argument is where two or more people have different views, and they heatedly or angrily discuss them. In philosophy, it’s when we present certain claims as evidence for other claims. So critical thinking is about evaluating arguments– are the claims presented as evidence true? Do they support the conclusions?

Validity An important concept in logic is validity, a particularly strong sort of evidential support. An argument is valid = if the claims presented as evidence in the argument (the “premises”) are true, then the claim that evidence supports (the “conclusion”) of the argument must be true (cannot be false).

Formally Valid Arguments Ancient philosophers (both Western and Chinese) discovered that you can tell that some arguments are valid by looking at their form alone.

Example Here’s an example of a valid argument form: Evidence: If A is true, then B is true. Evidence: A is true. Claim: Therefore, B is true. Notice that even if you don’t know what the claims A and B are, you know that if the evidence is true, then the claim is true.

Logic Logic is the study of formal validity. We try to find all the valid logical forms. That way, if we ever find an argument that has one of those forms, we will know for sure that it is valid. It wasn’t until recently that we (or a German mathematician named Gottlob Frege) found a way to find all the valid logical forms. This is the logic we learn about today.

The Limits of Logic Logic isn’t the entire story. It doesn’t have anything to say about the good arguments that are not formally valid, and it can’t identify bad arguments. There’s also another kind of “goodness” for arguments: a sound argument is valid and its premises are true. But logic alone can’t tell us what’s true.

Deciding What to Do But critical thinking does not end there. Notice that we still do not know what to do. Should I turn off my cell phone on an airplane? Should I smoke Camels? Should I eat shark fin soup if I want to avoid cancer? What do I do?

Choices A choice is a decision between two or more actions. Sometimes choices lead to the outcomes we desire with certainty. Sometimes they only likely lead to the outcome we desire. Sometimes our choices are very unlikely to get us the outcome we desire.

Choices Choices can be: Important or unimportant Easy or difficult Rational or irrational Successful or unsuccessful…

Critical Thinking What outcomes can my choice lead to? Does the outcome of my decision depend on factors other than what I choose to do? What is the likelihood that deciding to take a specific action will lead to a specific outcome? Which outcomes do I most prefer?

What outcomes can my choice lead to? Here’s an example from the United States: A lot of religious conservatives in the U.S. campaign to make abortion illegal, and elect government officials who say they will try to make it illegal. (Important background: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws against abortion are unconstitutional.)

What outcomes can my choice lead to? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJh6frpykQk But if abortion is illegal, presumably women who get abortions will go to jail. So do the campaigners who want to make abortion illegal want these women in jail? In the video, we see a woman who’s quite confused as to what outcome her position leads to.

What do the outcomes depend on? Sometimes, when we make a choice, the outcome depends not just on what we’ve chosen to do, but also on what others have chosen. Suppose I have a scholarship that I can offer to exactly one student to come to my school. If they don’t accept it, I cannot offer it to anyone else…

What do the outcomes depend on? If I offer it to the best student, she is most likely to decline it (she has other scholarships to other schools, she may decide to go somewhere else). If I offer it to the worst student, she is most likely to accept it (she probably has no other scholarships and no other admittances). But I don’t want to give money to the worst student!

How likely is this choice to effect this outcome? Sometimes the same action can result in different outcomes with different likelihoods. If I decide to have unprotected sex, there is some probability that I will get AIDS, some probability I will get syphilis, some probability I will not contract any STI, etc. These facts clearly matter to my decision.

Which outcomes do I most prefer? Taking different actions (making different decisions) can often lead to different outcomes. But it’s not always obvious which outcomes to prefer. Obviously $50 is better than $10. But suppose it costs the same to keep someone in jail as to pay for a student to go to college. Do you let criminals out and educate more people?

Framing and the Flu Suppose a new type of flu is spreading through China and experts predict it will move to Hong Kong soon. If nothing is done, it will kill 600. The government is deciding which of two plans to implement. They come to the following rigorous, scientifically certain evaluations of the plans:

Version 1 • If Plan A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. • If Plan B is adopted, there is a 1-in-3 chance that all 600 will be saved, and a 2-in-3 chance that no one will be saved.

Version 2 • If Plan A is adopted, 400 people will die. • If Plan B is adopted, there is a 1-in-3 chance that no one will die, and a 2-in-3 chance that all 600 will die.

Which outcomes do I prefer? Version 1 and Version 2 describe exactly the same plans. Plan A in Version 1 = Plan A in Version 2. Plan B in Version 1 = Plan B in Version 2. Yet 70% of people go with Plan A in Version 1, while only 41% choose Plan A in Version 2.

For Next Class Go to the course website: http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com/logic-and-critical-thinking-2013/schedule-and-readings/ Read the reading for next time.

• More by User

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking Some notes on the midterm If you think we missed credit, please submit your defense by email to [email protected] by Nov. 1. Please address each question separately according to the grading criteria . We do make mistakes, so don't be afraid to address your concerns.

820 views • 17 slides

CRITICAL THINKING

CRITICAL THINKING. The Discipline The Skill The Art. Assumptions . Purpose -Teach critical thinking process as it applies to completing WIC nutritional counseling Assumes audience knows: Basic nutrition and risk factors

1.08k views • 19 slides

Critical Thinking. Introduction to the Unit Keith Jones. Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking 10 Credit Point M Level Dr Keith Jones Core Unit for all the MSc/MA Pathways. Introduction & Rationale.

1.58k views • 19 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Logic and Critical Thinking. Available at http://www.radicalacademy.com/logiccritthinking.htm. TRUTH AND THINKING. Truth is the object of thinking. Some truths are obvious; others are difficult to acquire.

1.03k views • 26 slides

Critical Thinking. Foundations of Science. Let’s think about it. What makes people effective critical thinkers?. Critical Thinking. Critical Thinkers… Are flexible Identify biases & assumptions Maintain an air of skepticism Separate facts from opinions Don’t oversimplify

443 views • 4 slides

Critical Thinking. Richard M. Schwartzstein, MD Executive Director, Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research Faculty Associate Dean for Medical Education Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School. Critical Thinking. Do you do it?. Critical Thinking. Do you do it?

844 views • 47 slides

Critical Thinking. The Brain. One trillion cells compose the brain. 100 billion of them are neurons. This makes the number of possible journeys through the brain almost infinite. Your Comments…. “The unexamined life is not worth living.”. Socrates. Plato.

823 views • 32 slides

Critical Thinking. Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the finest computers on the earth. But, like any other muscle in your body, it needs to be exercised to work its best. That exercise is called THINKING. I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes. What is critical thinking?.

1.1k views • 17 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. The Way to the Good Reasoning and Making Good Argument. 時間： 92 年 10 月 18 日 地點：東吳大學外雙溪 主講：米建國 東吳大學哲學系. What Is Critical Thinking?. Think it twice: Don’t take things for granted so easily.

2.84k views • 19 slides

Critical thinking

Student Services . Critical thinking. Orientation 2011 Angela Dierks. www.bbk.ac.uk/mybirkbeck . Student Services . Critical thinking in everyday life. You think critically all the time for example when deciding not to buy a particular product

713 views • 13 slides

Critical Thinking. GEA 101 Fall 2012. introduction. Course Particulars. Instructor: Dr. Michael Johnson Office: Room HSH219, Ho Sin Hang Building Office Hours: Wednesdays 15:00 to 16:00 Email: [email protected] Office Telephone: 2616 7455. Course Website.

661 views • 44 slides

Critical Thinking and our Inclination Toward Faulty Logic

Critical Thinking and our Inclination Toward Faulty Logic. Arendt. Critical Thinking & our inclination toward Faulty Logic. You have the right to question what you see, hear, and read.

667 views • 35 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. Lecture 11 – Scientific Reasoning I. REVIEW. First, let’s go over homework from last time. REVIEW. Last time we talked about the relationship between correlation and causation.

701 views • 43 slides

Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Logic and Logical Fallacies

Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Logic and Logical Fallacies. Lecture II. Truth Tables and Logical Operators. Face it…some things are either true or false (specifying this formally is called “propositional calculus”) A “proposition” is a meaningful statement

713 views • 23 slides

Critical Thinking. “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing” - Albert Einstein. Critical Thinking in Your Life. Personal Life What constitutes a healthy diet? Which investment is better for my family? Why? Professional Life

1.23k views • 17 slides

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING by Karey Perkins

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING by Karey Perkins. RHETORICAL APPEALS: USING LOGOS, ETHOS, PATHOS. LOGOS = LOGIC and REASON= Soundness of facts, evidence, statistics, and reasoning; soundness of authority’s statements outside self; well-documented evidence

892 views • 71 slides

PHIL 002, Section 5 Logic and Critical Thinking

PHIL 002, Section 5 Logic and Critical Thinking. About this course. About this course. There’s so many of us!!!. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff

275 views • 15 slides

PHIL 102-01 Logic and Critical Thinking Fall 2006

PHIL 102-01 Logic and Critical Thinking Fall 2006. About this course. About this course. There’s so many of us!!!. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff. About this course. There’s so many of us!!! Instructional staff

323 views • 20 slides

Dr. Andreas Yumarma. LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING. First Meeting. Sense of Logic. Study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (Irving M. Copy & Carl Cohen, 1990)

485 views • 11 slides

Critical thinking about critical thinking

Critical thinking about critical thinking. Paula Owens and John Hopkin. Workshop description Based on two practical activities, this workshop will explore what critical thinking means in the context of geography, apply it to some examples and consider how to apply it in the classroom

944 views • 28 slides

Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking

Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking. DEFINITION. Definitions. A definition is an attempt to explain the meaning of a word by using a different word or phrase that has the same meaning. The word being defined is called the definiendum (Latin for “to be defined”).

469 views • 32 slides