KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES

UCU 103: INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

DRAFT MODULE
 INTRODUCTION
General overview of the module
Needed study skills
Equipment and text books required
Suggested support media
Nature of activities and ways of getting feedback
OBJECTIVES

This course has to do with thinking about thinking. It is an examination of thinking in

order to understand and appreciate the extent to which how we think and what we value
impact on who we become, what we believe, and what we do. Evaluation and generation
of ideas will feature significantly as we reflect on our identity, how we should live, and
how we relate to others. The course will attempt to enable learners to:
 Know themselves and take charge of their thinking;
 Evaluate whatever comes their way and generate new ideas;
 Support knowledge claims with reasons and evidence;
 Understand and use tools of evaluation which include: clarity, accuracy, precision,
relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and logicalness;
 Understand and use tolls of analysis which include: purpose, point of view,
problem, information, concepts, assumptions, implications, and inferences;
 Understand and cultivate tools of transformation which include: fair-mindedness,
humility, empathy, integrity, courage, autonomy, perseverance, and confidence in
reason;
 Understand and use argumentation;
 Think through content in varied disciplines and contexts and make good
judgments.

LECTURES

SUBSECTIONS

GLOSSARY

REFERENCES

LECTURE STRUCTURE
-Title
-Introduction-general statement of purpose, overview of main concepts and
requirements for the unit,
-Objectives-express learning outcome or expectations
-sections
-subsections
-Summary
-Self assessment, questions, activities
-further reading if applicable

PART ONE: THEORY

LECTURE 1: PHILOSOPHY

In this lesson I am going to introduce you to philosophy by inviting you to

think - to wonder, to reason, to question, to figure out, to speculate, and even
to doubt - while seeking to understand our universe and yourself as part of it.
There is no universally accepted definition of philosophy. This is partly
because philosophy does not have any content that students can merely read,
memorize, accept and believe. Instead, as Christian (1973) observes,
philosophy is a "do-it-yourself enterprise". It is a way of doing things - a
way of thinking that is systematic, disciplined skillful, responsible and
flexible. The best way to understand what philosophy is, therefore, is to
participate in it. However, for the sake of giving you at least some idea of
the subject, let us try to define and characterize it.

2.2 Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

 Define philosophy
 Debate the extent to which philosophy is beneficial to society
 Formulate and discuss philosophical questions.

2.3.1.0 Defining Philosophy

The term "philosophy" has various senses and uses. Wambari (1992)
distinguishes the following: ideological, stoical and technical or
professional usage.
2.3.1.1 Ideological usage

This is the sense in which we talk about "philosophy of life."

Philosophy, in this sense, is an attitude or approach to life, a guide to
action or a set of beliefs concerning morality, politics or life in
general. Ideological philosophies are helpful in religion, business and
politics in terms of mobilizing people psychologically towards some
desired goal. This is a narrow conceptualization of philosophy.
Properly understood, philosophy involves criticizing and evaluating
such ideologies in order to determine their meaning, underlying
assumptions, implications, justification and value.

2.3.1.2 Stoical usage

Stoicism was a philosophical school of thought which had its origin

in Athens in the third century B.C. stoicism taught the following:

- The universe is orderly due to the operation of a universal force

they called God.
- God was understood as a material but invisible substance
permeating all things and all beings.
- God determines the laws of nature and the orderliness of the
universe is natural and rational.
- Everything that occurs is inevitable and is governed by reason.
- Human nature and human life is governed by inviolable universal
force or law. Everything humans do or experience is inevitable.
- God assigns to all beings their particular place and role in the
universe. Life is therefore, a package.
- A wise person recognizes his/her role and accepts it.

Stoicism taught people to adjust their thought to reality as it is and

accept it in order to save themselves the agony of trying to change
what cannot be changed.

The stoical sense of philosophy reflects the teaching of stoicism.

When one is claimed to be philosophical, it is meant that one is
realistic and sensibly calm under trying circumstances.
2.3.1.3 The technical or professional usage

This is a special sense that transcends the popular usages

described above. It implies a way of thinking that involves
examining, questioning and doubting much of what we
normally take for granted. It is in this sense that the term
"philosophy" itself was coined by the Greek thinker Pythagoras.
The word itself means "love of wisdom". Wisdom is neither
inheritable nor instantly available. It is earned through diligent
and disciplined mental activity. One has to set the mind in
motion toward examining concepts, relating ideas, developing
new concepts and seeing through and beyond mere words and
facts. This is the sense in which we shall understand philosophy
as "a reflective and reasoned attempt to infer the character and
the content of the universe, taken in its entirety and as a single
whole, from an observation and study of the data presented by
all its aspects". (Fuller, 1955, 1).

2.3.2.0 Distinctive Characteristics of Philosophy

Philosophy, in the technical and professional sense, is an intellectual

activity characterized by among others, the following:

2.3.2.1 Inquiry based on philosophical questions. Philosophers ask

and attempt to answer difficult but important questions about
the universe and their experience within it. Such questions
include: what makes actions right or wrong? How can we know
that we know? What is real? Is reality one or many? What is
beauty? Are truth and beauty related? Lavine (1984) Calls these
questions stubborn, indestructible questions the kind of which
"time will not banish them or get rid of them for you. To be a
human being is to ask these questions. " (Ibid, 5) Philosophical
inquiry is based on such questions. It also generates them.
2.3.2.2 Analysis

This is the process by which complex concepts are broken down

into their component parts for the sake of clarification and
simplification analyzed concepts are easier to examine, relate and
understand.

2.3.2.3 Criticism

This is careful examination of issues, arguments, points of view

and claims in order to determine their foundations, assumptions,
meaning and implications. It is an assessment of the strengths as
well as weaknesses of an argument or a position taken in a given
issue. This assessment is based on reasons and evidence and is,
therefore, impartial and rational. Criticism, in philosophy, is not
merely looking for faults. It is impartial scrutiny geared toward the
pursuit of truth and understanding.

2.3.2.4 Discussion

Open minded discussion is central in philosophy. Dialogue enables

people to freely express their opinions and beliefs as well as
attempt to justify them. Through discussion, ideas are subjected to
criticism and review. New ideas are generated and subjected to
further discussion. In such discussions, persons address issues
instead of attacking persons.

2.3.2.5 Evaluation

This is the process of ascertaining the worth or worthlessness of

ideas or arguments on the basis of clear and reasonable criteria. It
involves the making of judgements regarding ideas.

2.3.2.6 Synthesis

This is reconstruction of ideas concepts and arguments in order to

develop better and well justified ones. Such synthesis is based on
reasoned thought.
NOTE:
There is no universal definition of
philosophy; neither is there a complete list of
its characteristics. What we have arrived at
so far is a working definition of philosophy
and a working list of distinctive
characteristics of philosophy.

Questions:
1. Why is it difficult to define philosophy?
2. How are philosophical questions different
from other questions?

Activities:

1. Discuss with your friends how the

characteristics of philosophy (taken
together) make philosophy distinct from
other disciplines.
2. Identify expressions used in your
surrounding that can be categorized as:
a) philosophy in the ideological sense
b) philosophy in the stoical sense
3. Find out more about stoicism. What are
its strengths and weaknesses?
2.3.3.0 Areas in Professional Philosophy

There are four main areas of study in professional or technical

philosophy namely: metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and
logic. In addition, there is applied philosophy or called "philosophy
of - "category as explained below.

2.3.3.1 Metaphysics: This is also called the study or theory of

reality. It is reasoned thought about reality. The main
question of metaphysics is: what is reality? Other related
questions include: Is reality one or many? How is reality
accessible if at all?
2.3.3.2 Epistemology: This is also called the theory of
knowledge. It is reasoned thought about knowledge. The
main question of epistemology is: what is knowledge?
Other related questions include: How is knowledge
attained if at all? How do we know that we know?
2.3.3.3 Axiology: This is also called the theory of value. Th
main question raised is: What is value as such. This
question is indifferent to any specific sort of values. They
may be economic, cultural, political or moral values.
However, greater focus has historically been given to
moral and aesthetic values leading to focus on ethics and
aesthetics.

 Ethics

This is reasoned thought about moral values. It is concerned

with value as it applies to personal actions, decisions and
relations. It raises questions such as: What is morally good?
What makes actions right or wrong? Are there any universal
moral principles?

 Aesthetics

This is reasoned thought about artistic values and our

experience of beauty. It raises such questions as: What is art?
What is beauty? What is the connection (if any) between beauty
and truth?
2.3.3.4 Logic

This is also called the study of reasoning and argumentation., It

is reasoned thought about argument action. The questions raised in
logic include: How can correct reasoning be distinguished from
incorrect reasoning? How are errors in reasoning committed?

2.3.3.5 The "Philosophy of - " category

In addition to the above fields of philosophy, philosophy relates

Itself to other disciplines as well leading to the "philosophy of - "
category. When reasoned thought is applied to religious concerns,
this leads to philosophy of religion, for instance reasoned thought
about education leads to philosophy of education. Other examples
include: philosophy of history, philosophy of law, philosophy of
biology etc.

In this category, a particular discipline is treated philosophically

questions are raised regarding the discipline's subject matter, the
adequacy of its methodology, the meaning and clarity of its
concepts and its relation to and implications for other disciplines.
(Miller, 1984, 4-7).

NOTE:
All philosophizing is characterized by reasoned
thought about some aspect of the universe or our
experience of it. The object of thought serves to
distinguish the different areas in professional
philosophy.

Questions
1. How is metaphysics related to
Epistemology.
2. Why is philosophy concerned
about other disciplines?
 Activity

Think of the important questions that

concern you in your life. Where do they
belong among the fields of philosophy and
why?

2.3.4.0 Functions of Philosophy

Olela (1988, 19-26) discusses the following functions of philosophy.

2.3.4.1 Integration of experience

The universe as we experience it is both diverse and unified.

Reasoned thought helps us to integrate and harmonize these
apparently opposed aspects of reality.

2.3.4.2 Nurturing of our awareness and sensitivity.

Reasoned thought assists us to not only understand the universe

but also ourselves as part of it. Self-examination enhances the
consciousness of our own limitations and capabilities. This
awareness and sensitivity is crucial in assisting us to adapt to the
challenging and complex situations of life.

2.3.4.3 Clarification and justification of belief

Beliefs are the basis of our actions. Reasoned thought about our
beliefs enables us to ensure that they are well-founded and thus
rationally justifiable. If our actions are to be effective in
enhancing our well-being, they should be founded on a clear and
rationally justifiable beliefs.
2.3.4.4 Bridging the gap between theory and practice

Philosophy raises questions regarding the meaning, foundations,

purpose, justification, verification and application of theories.
This is useful in ensuring that theories inform practice
appropriately. Philosophy also evaluates practice and raises
questions regarding the extent to which practice confirms to
theory and why.

2.3.4.5 Providing a condition for the freedom of the mind

Philosophy seeks to literate us from the slavery of ignorance and

irrationality. It helps us to examine our own beliefs, assumptions
and prejudices. It assists us to, act rationally and justly. This
broadens our realm of freedom and enhances our capacity to act
and respond responsibly, intelligently and creatively.

2.3.4.6 CONLUSION

Considering the above functions of philosophy "can you imagine

a world in which nobody any longer asked the philosophic
questions, nobody was philosophical?

It would be a world in which nobody penetrated below the facts

of everyday life to think about what is real, true, valuable, just
and meaningful in life. It would be a world of mechanical men,
women and children moving among physical objects; a world in
which we would have become hollow men going through
meaningless motions and speech would be empty chatter."
(Lawine, 1984, 5)

NOTE
Philosophy aims at enabling us to make sense
of the world and operate within it in such a
way that enhances our well being.
Question
1. What other functions does
philosophy serve?
2. Why is philosophy not primarily
aimed at making money?

Activity

1. Suggest ways in which reasoned thought

can enhance human well-being in Kenya
today.

2.4 Summary

In this lesson we have realized that philosophy involves thinking

rationally and critically about important questions regarding our
universe and ourselves as part of it.

We have also seen that philosophy is characterized by iniquity,

analysis, criticism, discussion, evaluation and synthesis. We have
also found that philosophy is significant because it helps us to
make sense of existence and order our lives and actions
appropriately as free, rational and creative beings.

2.5 Definition of key words and concepts:

1 Aesthetics

Reasoned thought about artistic values and our experience of

beauty.

2 Axiology

Reasoned thought about values in general.

3 Ethics

Reasoned thought about moral values.

4 Epistemology

Reasoned thought about knowledge

5 Logic

Reasoned thought about the principles of right reasoning and

argumentation.

6 Metaphysics

Reasoned thought about reality.

7 Philosophy

A critical and reflective attempt to understand our universe in its

entirety and as a single whole and ourselves as part of it.

2.6 Further Reading

a) Required Reading

Wambari, K. 19092. Reading in Introduction to Critical

Thinking. Kijabe: AIC Kijabe Printing Press.

b) Recommended Reading

Christine, J. 1973. Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of

Wondering. Corte Madera, CA: Rinehart Press.

Fuller, B. 1955. A History of philosophy. 3rd Ed. Revised by

 sterling M. Mc.Murrin. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winton.

Lavine, T. 1984. From Socrates to Sartre: The philosophical

Quest. N.Y: Bantam Books.

Miller, E. 1984. Questions that matter: An Invitation to

philosophy, N.Y. McGraw Book Company.

Olela, H. 1988. Philosophy of Education. Nairobi. Kenyatta

University, Faculty of Education.

Popkin, R. and Stroll, A. 1981. Philosophy Made Simple.

London: Heinemann.
LECTURE TWO: THINKING: CRITICAL AND CREATIVE
THINKING

Genuine education aims at transforming learners from a state of

dependency to that of autonomy to think for themselves, make good
judgements and get things done as decision makers and problem solvers.

Learning to reason effectively so as to cope with constant change in

our increasingly complex world ought to be the gone of any educative effort
to empower learners with necessary flexibility and adaptability to manage
varied demands of contemporary life.

Critical and creative thinking (CCT) occupies a central placed in the

subject of philosophy. Philosophy itself attempts, in a reasoned and
reflective way, to understand and make sense of the world and of us as part
of that world. As thinking beings, we distinguish ourselves individually by
the quality of our thinking and the level of assuming personal responsibility
for what we consider true or good; what we believe and what we do critical
and creative thinking is the heart of philosophy because it is thinking about
thinking to upgrade it and empower us to become better in; making
judgements based on reason and evidence.

In this introductory lesson of critical and creative thinking, I shall

attempt to initiate your to a way of thinking that is self-reflective to require
that your take charge of your mind and think effectively for yourself so as to
assume responsibility for your beliefs and actions. It is my hope that as you
for through the course you will take the first steps in a lifelong process of
thoughtfully interrogating whatever comes your way, generate new ideas to
meet the demands of everyday life for human well being.
1.3 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this lesson your should be able to: -

 Explain what critical and creative thinking (CCT) is and be able to
justify thinking for oneself in terms of added quality to learning
and living.
 Show that to be effectively educated, in addition to literacy and
numeracy one needs also to acquire operacy- the ability to get
things done.

 Discuss what constitutes individual transformation from

dependency to autonomy and clearly distinguish various stages in
that development.
 Argue for higher order thinking that is more clear, more accurate,
more precise, more relevant, deeper and broader.
 Demonstrate an upgraded thinking ability as a critical and creative
speaker, listener, reader and writer.
 Show evidence of heightened sense of self-assessment, self-
questioning and exercise of good judgement in decision-making
and problem solving.
 Explain how we acquire self-knowledge as thinking beings.
 1.4 CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING (CCT)

The term ''quality education'' is quite current. To commend or praise

education at present it is fashionable to qualify it with the adjective
''quality''. The implication is that quality adds wanted value to education. It
is for this reason that Totally Integrated Quality Education and Training
(TIQET) Report, otherwise called the Koech Commission Report, has
''Quality Education'' as part of the name and significantly appearing in that
name.

The current system of education in Kenya encourages rote-

memorization of massive information and facts by way of drilling at the
expense of understanding it by thinking through it carefully and
interrogating it to evaluate its worth. The purpose of education appears to be
merely passing examinations after ''vomiting'' that in formation through
simple recall. Clearly rote memorized information merely to pass an
examination has little value as it lacks lasting survival value. Good quality
thinking and understanding uniquely possesses that value.

Critical thinking is thinking that interrogates information to evaluate

in and judge whether it is true or false; whether it should be believed or not;
and how one should act on it. This type of thinking is of a higher quality as
it involves thinking about thinking in search of deeper understanding of
things. Critical thinking e powers the learner to think for herself or himself
and to have mental discipline to habitually evaluate knowledge and everyday
claims in search of truth and rightness. Critical thinking involves the learner
actively in search of understanding of the underlying ideas and principles. It
is in this sense that critical thinking in its own way adds quality to education.

To appreciate what understanding means, consider what it means to

know how to count up to a million. We know how to count up to a million
without actually having to count up to a million. It is enough to count up to
ten, twenty, thirty etc. to capture the insight of tens in the decimal system.
Even if we have to memorize counting in the first few sets of tens, sooner
than later, the principle involved discovered and we carry on with
confidence because we now understand what it means to count up to a
million. Clearly there is a marked difference between rote-memorizing
counting up to a million and understanding what it is to count up to a million
hence the distinction between rote memorizing and understanding.
 Creative thinking is on the other hand thinking that produces the
material that critical thinking evaluates. It is generative thinking. The
human mind has two phases of thinking operations. One phase creative
thinking produces ideas while the other phase- critical thinking judges them.
Creative people are dynamic, daring,resourceful, independent and hard
working. These characteristics enable them to solve problems in
unacceptable situation that challenge thinking without having any apparent
ready way out.

The two phases of critical and creative thinking (CCT) are

intertwined. The thinking moves back and forth especially in the process of
solving a problem each phase reinforcing the other. When critical thinking
judges that something wants in what is generated by creative thinking,
further generation is called forth to improve the situation. This goes on and
on many times. This continuous alternating activity between critical and
creative thinking is especially important in intellectual matters where
excellence is the goal.

CCT aims at realizing intellectual standards such as clarity, accuracy,

relevance, precision, depth, breadth and logically. It also strives to cultivate
such intellectual traits as integrity, open-mindedness, fair mindedness,
humility, empathy, perseverance and faith in reason.

CCT also attempts to develop reasoning skills such as clarification

by use of analogies, elaboration, producing examples and illustration;
relating ideas such as cause and consequences, parts and wholes to make
connections that enable us to make responsible decisions and judgements. It
is, for instance, important to be conscious of the fact that our decisions can
initiate causal chains with far reaching consequences affecting not only
ourselves but also the whole of the society of which we are only part. CCT
is also a good tool to enable us to make distinctions where differences exist.
We need, for instance, to distinguish between rote-memorization from long
term memory which constitutes the story of who we are to give us our
unique identity as individual human persons.
 NOTE:
Criticality and creativity are but two sides of the same
thinking coin. Neither can exist without the other.

QUESTION:
How does critical and creative thinking (CCT) add
quality to learning?

ACTIVITY:
Explain critical and creative thinking (CCT) and relate
it to understanding.

SUMMARY:
We have in this lesson clarified critical and creative thinking
(CCT), acknowledged it as the essence of philosophy and
contextualized it (CCT) in education as the central source of
good quality. We have traced development of rationality and
conscience in an individual human person to recognize their
contribution in transforming him/her from dependency to
autonomy as an individual thinking being at a higher level. We
have observed that CCT does facilitate learner's empowerment
to become judicious and a better problem solver.
1.5 DEFINiTION OF KEY WORDS AND CONCEPTS

CREATIVE THINKING:
Thinking that generates new ideas to solve problems and innovatively
produce things that are useful.

CRITICAL THINKING:
Thinking that facilitates good judgement (evaluation) because it:

a. Relies on criteria,
b. Is self-correcting, and
c. Is sensitive to context
(By Matthew Lipman)

CONSCIENCE:
Sense of right and wring and the motivation to pursue the right and
avoid the wrong.

AN INTELLECTUAL:
A person who has a keen interest in ideas and is equipped to manage
them.

AN INTELLIGENT PERSON:
A person who generates novel ideas that help solve everyday
problems and innovatively produce useful things.

INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY:
Having independent reasoning control of one's beliefs, values and
actions as a result of thinking for oneself.

INTELLECTUAL DISPOSITIONS:
Virtues of the mind and character needed for right thinking and action
e.g. fair mindedness, open-mindedness, humility, integrity, empathy,
and autonomy.

INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY:
Imaginatively putting oneself in the place of others to genuinely
understand them, thus resisting the egocentric tendency to identify
truth and reality exclusively with one's perceptions and understanding.
INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY:
Consciousness of the need to be true to one's own thinking and
honesty in acknowledging benefit from other sources.

INTELLECTUALL STANDARDS:
Standards by which good reasoning and understanding can be
evaluated, e.g. clarity, accuracy, relevance, precision, depth,
breadth significance, and consistency.

RATIONALITY:
Reasoning that enables one to choose the alternative or option that
yields the greatest value.

REASONING SKILLS:
Mental skills that enable persons to achieve intellectual standards and
dispositions, e.g. using anologies like biological vomit to explain
intellectual vomit- a result of rote memorization; relating ideas like
causes and consequences. Parts and wholes; distinguishing ideas such
as rote memorization and understanding; getting degrees and being
educated.

THINKING:
Any mental activity; or process that involves ideas.

1.6 REQUIRED READING

Wambari, K. (Ed). 1992. Reading in Introduction to Critical

Thinking. Kijabe: A.I.C. Printing Press.

1.7 RECOMMENDED READING

Borruso, Silvano; 1998. The Art of Thinking: Charts on Logic.

Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa.

Brown M. Neil and Kelley Stuart. 2001. Asking the Right Questions:
A Guide to Critical Thinking; upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
 Laugrehr, John. 2001. Become a Better Thinker, Revised Edition.
Bangalore, India: Master Mind Books.

LECTURE THREE

PERSONAL IDENTITY: SELF-KNOWLEDGE

Concern for who one is, that is, the problem of personal identity
arises because of the need to identify and re-identify things or
persons that are constantly undergoing change. It is the problem of
oneness and sameness of a person in spite of constant change.
How, for instance and I the same person I was a baby many years
ago?

They question''[who are you?'' is not satisfactorily answered simply

by providing your name '' I am Otieno'' or '' I am James''. This is
because a name is merely a label of identity not one's identity
itself. The asked question is much deeper than that. It is searching
for what makes you.

Is it your name?
Your body?
Your mind?
Your values?
Your beliefs?
Your character? Or what

As a thought experiment , consider an object like a car. Replace its

parts one by one. Replace one wheel, two wheels, all wheels. Do
you still have the same car? Continue with the parts exchange to
replace even the engine, the body color after replacing the minor
parts such as spark plugs, distributor, generator etc, at what point
should the Registrar of Motor vehicles demand new number plates
and a new log book because the present car is not the same car as
before it has a new identity.

Medical technology has successfully transplanted human body

organs from one individual to another routinely. One person has
another's heart or kidney or lung or stomach etc. is the beneficiary
 of another person's heart, for instance, the same person or a
different person? Think of a woman's heart in a man's body. Is the
individual still a man? Supposing person A's brain is transplanted
in person B's? How far can organ transplantation go without
interfering with ones personal identity?

An acceptable answer to the question, ''who am I?'' is to be found

in such consideration as being a thinking being: being moral,
rational, social, creative; long term memory and life history do
reflect my personal identity to a large extent. So do yours!

There are significant influences that affect our personal identity.

These are
1) Heredity
2) Social environment and
3) Personal individual initiative

Each one of us is largely who we are because our parents are who they are.
This is a given fact indicating predetermination of our identity. We are
additionally products of society. Our language and culture, values and
attitudes are also a heritage of our social contexts. Until we begin to think
for ourselves, we are fully at the mercy of our social environment.

For personal individual development of rationality and conscience from pre-

conventional through conventional to post-conventional stage - the highest
level of thinking for oneself see Wambari (1992, pp. V--vii)

The difference between one individual and the next has to do with one's own
initiative in thought and action. Critical and creative thinking is a tool of
liberation from cultural and traditional enslavement and can be quite
effective in facilitating personal initiative as agents of change with unique
identity.

For self-examination and self-knowledge see Wambari (1992, pp. vii-x)

NOTE:
Preconventional and conventional stages in
individual personal development manifest
heteronomy while post-conventional stage is a
manifestation of autonomy in rational and moral life.

QUESTION:
Why is personal identity a problem?

ACTIVITY:
Explain how you have become you by being
influenced by:
1) Heredity
2) Social environment and
3) Your own initiative

1.9 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Howard Gardiner (1999, pp. 42-43) has developed a theory of

multiple intelligence's to describe human mental faculties. He has
identified seven different intelligence's as follows: -

1. Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the capacity

to analyze problems logically, carryout operations-
mathematical or of other types and investigate issues
systematically.
2. Verbal-Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to
spoken and written language, the ability to learn
languages and the capacity to use language effectively to
do what we want done. Teachers, lawyers, preachers and
writers normally exhibit superior linguistic intelligence.

3. Intrapersonal intelligence involves the capacity to

understand oneself, one's own desires, fears abilities etc.
and to use such self-knowledge effectively to guide one's
own life.
4. Interpersonal intelligence refers to a person's capacity to
understand other people - their intentions, motivations
and desires and as a result to work effectively with them.
Sales people, teachers, doctors and leaders in general
need sensitive interpersonal intelligence.

5. Music/rhythm intelligence involves appreciation of

musical patterns, composition and performance. It is a
source of artistic enrichment of life.

6. Visual/spatial intelligence involves capacity in

visualization and imaging in three dimensions. People in
art and design are especially good at spatial intelligence.

7. Body/movement intelligence involves the capacity to use

one's whole body or parts of it (e.g. hands or mouth) to
solve problems or make products.
Each one of us needs to identify in which of the seven intelligence's we have
strong capacity and cultivate them for ones own development.

NOTE:
Critical and creative thinking runs through all seven
intelligence's. They help us make better judgements
using relevant criteria, and improve ourselves by
breaking away from familiar patterns and making way
for new approaches of doing things as intelligent
people.

QUESTIONS:

1) What are the seven intelligence's we

have?
2) Are they fixed for life?

ACTIVITY:
Compare and contrast Intrapersonal and interpersonal
intelligence's and show value in everyday life.
LECTURE FOUR

DECISION MAKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING

Students and even the rest of humanity face many important decisions: what
college or university should I attend? What should I study? Should I get
married? Should I have a baby? Should I resign from my job? etc. A theory of
practical reasoning should have something to say about how students and the
rest of us can improve our decision-making strategies.

In the book Elements & Pedagogy of Critical Thinking, (2007) I define critical
thinking as a tool, skill and process. I argued that as a tool, critical thinking is a
catalyst to problem solving. It is evident that the relevance critical thinking bears
to the endeavour of the human mind to evaluate knowledge is that knowledge
must be brought to answer to his daily encounter with existential challenges
which are evident in the world he inhabits. Hardly does a day pass in once life
without the question "why?" arising. In fact, the question has become so
prevalent that it has become a buzzword. Why am I unwell? Why did I come to
Kenya? Why is my supervisor slow with my work? Why do I have problems
with my friends? Why do I have a retake? why, why and why is this or that. In
fact, life has become full of "why’s" that the very purpose of harmony, trust and
inter-personal confidence has become a thing of the past and therefore
compromised by the WHY-FOBIA.

How, then, is critical thinking instrumental to problem solving? I believe that the
rules of logic prove important in the domain of critical thinking at this point.
Problem solving entails, as an end result, the formation of a decision that
answers to the purported problem. In fact, this proves to be the game of
dialectics, the result of which is to resolve the negations inherent in the
contradiction.

The general procedure for applying critical thinking to any problem can be
described as a cycle with five phases. This cycle should however not be treated as
a rigid procedure in which each phase must be complete before the next is
begun. In practice, you may have to go back to the earlier phase or work on
several phases simultaneously. But if you have to have any real assurance that
your ultimate decision is sound, then all phases must be complete.

PHASES OF DECISION MAKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING.

The first phase of problem solving involves recognition and definition of the
issue at stake. Generally speaking, a typical process of decision-making begins
with the recognition of a problem. And for the purposes of this book, the word
“problem” will be used in the broad sense: one has a problem when one has a
need or question but no obvious answer to it. In this case, all mental
insatisfaction and the quest to grasp the essence of the unknown; be it physical or
psychological all counts and falls within what is rightly defined as a “problem”.
In other words, the quest for knowledge in its totality signifies mental
comprehension of the physical and mental phenomenon definitive of human
existence. It is commonly true, that many problems are never solved because
they are not recognized soon enough or not recognized at all. For example, some
freshmen fail in college because they do not recognize soon enough that their
study habits are inadequate or that they are in an unsuitable curriculum.

Once a problem has been recognized, it should be carefully defined. Failure to

attain a clear definition of a problem will always result in obtaining unsuccessful
solutions. In fact, you may end up solving “some” problem but not the one that
you were trying to solve. Suppose, for example, that you are the sort of person
who is constantly running out of money and unable to meet expenses. You may
react in characteristically human fashion – by resenting your employer or those
responsible for your financial support for being stingy. And you may, without
realizing it, define your problem as how to get even with these people. You may
succeed in solving this problem only to realize too late that the real problem was
how to reduce your expenditure.

In many situations, defining the problem will be the most difficult phase in
decision-making. But once you have correctly defined the problem, the rest will
be relatively easy. In most cases, we start with the wrong definition. The thinking
you do in the last four phases can help you realise that your original definition
was wrong. In this event, be advised that it is ideal that you start all over again at
the beginning of the circle. At times, you may find it helpful to use the entire
five-phase circle to define the problem.

There are three rules that must be followed in defining the problem. The first is
that the definition should not be too general. This is true because if the definition
is too broad, the guidelines for a solution will be too broad, and the investigation
may flounder. Large problems can be very real, but their solution usually
requires breaking them down into smaller, clearly defined ones to be solved one
at a time.

The second rule addresses exactly the opposite of the above: the definition
should not be too specific. A definition of a problem is said to be too specific
when it unnecessarily restricts alternative solutions. When the definition of

the problem is too specific, it will always lead to temporary solutions because it
will have ignored other significant aspects contributive to the same.

Finally, the definition should not in itself constitute a “solution” to the problem.
Suppose that in each year, there is a problem of mass drop-out of doctoral
students in the School of Arts and Social Sciences at Kenyatta University in
Kenya, and the Dean of Faculty defines the problem as one due to lack of
scholarships and/or financial limitations on the part of the studying students.
His definition would in itself have contained the “solution” that more
scholarships and financial assistance be extended to doctoral students, the result
of which rule out other solutions for consideration. In fact, for this kind of
definition to be acceptable, one would first have to solve another problem: that of
whether to extend financial assistance viz scholarships. Very often definitions of
problems that are themselves solutions also have the fault of being too specific,
alternative answers tend to increasingly to be ruled out, until at last only one
remains. Let it be noted, however, that not all definitions that are too specific get
as far as dictating only one conclusion, and we will do better at defining
problems if we keep these two rules in mind.

The second phase in problem solving is the gathering of information. Once a

problem is explicitly defined, one should begin to gather information about it.
The information may be of many kinds. The detective may call his or her
information “clues”; the doctor speak of “symptoms”; the scientist, of “data”; the
layperson or government leader, of “facts.” Adequate and accurate information
is essential to sound decisions. In general, the more information you have on
which to base your decision, the more likely it is that the decision will be sound.

Let us call the third phase of decision-making formation of tentative conclusions

which represent solutions to the problem. This can be done as soon as we have
enough information to suggest some possible answers. We have to be cautious of
the fact that solutions at this stage can only be tentative and we should not allow
ourselves to be carried away by them. The objective in this phase is not to settle
on one conclusion but rather to formulate as many plausible ones as possible.
The more we produce, the more likely we are to conclude a sound one.
Furthermore, forming several tentative conclusions is the best safeguard against
the dangers of accepting or acting upon a proposed conclusion without adequate
evidence. In this phase, it is desirable to give attention to every idea that comes to
the mind. This is important because many a times, ideas you might impatiently
reject as wild or irrelevant turn out to be solutions of problems or important
clues to solutions.

Testing tentative conclusions. This is the fourth phase of problem solving. The
objective of this phase is to “criticize” all tentative conclusions by assessing their
reliability. All tentative conclusions are reached through some kind of inference, a
process of reasoning by which they are derived from evidence or available facts.
Suppose, for example, that a young man of seventeen reads this statement in
Nation newspaper: “ All males must register for the draft when they reach the age of
seventeen.” If he concludes that he is about to be drafted and put in the army, his
conclusion is the result of an inference. He combines two pieces of evidence, the
statement in the newspaper and the fact that he is seventeen, and infers that he is
soon to be inducted. If he immediately charges down to a recruiting office in
Nairobi to volunteer so that he can choose his branch of the service, he has
violated two cardinal rules of effective thinking: he has formed only one
tentative conclusion, and he has acted on it without testing it for reliability.
Although his conclusion could prove to be true, it is not reliable. A conclusion is
completely reliable only when it is known to be true. In order to know that a
conclusion is true you must know that (1) the evidence used is in itself
completely reliable, that is, known to be true; and that (2) all inferences involved
are logically flawless. (See Young 1988.p.34). The young man’s conclusion fails to
meet either test. He does not know yet whether the statement in the newspaper is
true; newspaper statements are often false. Furthermore, his inference is faulty:
even though registration for the draft might be required, it does not follow that
anyone is presently being drafted. The young man’s inference is therefore not
reliable at all; he has jumped to a conclusion. Although a completely reliable
conclusion that he was about to be drafted would be difficult, if not impossible,
to reach- even an order to report for induction could possibly be in error- he
should have investigated the situation more fully before acting so; he could
consider all the relevant evidence.

Throughout human history we have been notoriously careless in testing our

conclusions. Consequently, we have made countless blunders and accumulated a
vast amount of misinformation that has led to more blunders. Ideally, all
conclusions should be tested for reliability. And if you test some but not others,
you may be protecting your cherished beliefs by testing only the tentative
conclusions that displease you. In so doing, you defeat the purpose of critical
thinking.

Phase five, Evaluation and Decision. The objective of this phase is to determine
whether you have found any workable solutions to your problem and, if so, to
select the best of them. Thus this phase involves assessing the reliability of
solutions based on the testing done in phase four. When you begin testing
tentative conclusions by appropriating methods, you will soon discover that
completely reliable conclusions are rare. Usually there will be weakness either in
the evidence or in the inferences or in both. In practical matters, the best we can
hope for is high degree reliability. If we delayed making a decision until we
reached absolute reliability, we would dwell forever in the limbo of decision by
indecision.
The minimum degree of reliability you should have before accepting or acting on
a conclusion varies with the circumstances. A juror in a murder case who
believes that convicting an innocent defendant of murder would be a tragic error
should demand the high degree of reliability known as true beyond reasonable
doubt. A person trying to decide which is the best of two boxes of cereal can
afford to settle for a much lower degree of reliability since relatively little is at
stake.

When evaluation of your tentative conclusions shows that none of them is

sufficiently reliable, you should repeat the whole circle. Each time we repeat the
circle we are likely to discover new and more promising tentative conclusions. I
recommend that the process should be repeated until you have a conclusion with
a degree of reliability sufficient for your purpose. One may ask here, how do we
know when the degree of reliability is sufficient for our purpose? The answer is
that the decision so arrived at must be all lasting decision and should square the
problem for now and for the time to come.

By way of summary, we have proposed the following five phases as

instrumental to problem solving and decision making, and thereby proving that
critical thinking is not only instrumental to problem solving but also that its
tentacles extend beyond the domain of decision analysis.

1. Recognition and definition of the problem.

2. Gathering information.
3. Forming Tentative Conclusions.
4. Testing Tentative Conclusions.
5. Evaluation and Decision.

With the above observations, let me now turn my attention to the examination of
the types of decisions and factors that influence their nature.

Some people prefer making decisions simply by intuition. They trust their “gut
feelings” more than they trust the analytical methods that require a systematic
and mathematical comparative assessment of competing actions that satisfy
multiple criteria. Russo and Schoemaker 1989, Schick and Vaughn 1999
encourage people to avoid the use of intuition and instead to base their
judgements and decisions on reasoning strategies that are less likely to lead to
common errors in reasoning. From this perspective, decision-making should be a
matter of calculation, not intuition.

Intuition-based decision-making can lead to many problems, but also

calculation-based decision making of the sort recommended by psychologists
and economists has some serious pitfalls. A synthesis of these two models has
been developed recently to a theory of emotional coherence. Understanding
decision making in terms of emotional coherence enables us to appreciate the
merits of both intuition and calculation as contributors to effective practical
reasoning.
DECISION AS INTUITION

Suppose you are a student trying to decide whether to study liberal arts, in
which you have a strong interest or a subject such as economics or computer
science that may lead to a more lucrative career. To make this decision intuitively
is just to go with the option supported by your emotional reactions to the two
alternatives. In the end, the intuitive decision makers choose an option based on
what their emotional reactions tell them is preferable.

The advantage of intuitive decision-making is speed. An emotional reaction can

be immediate and lead directly to a decision. If your choice is between vanilla
and chocolate ice cream, it would be pointless to spend a lot of time deliberating
about the advantages and disadvantages of the two flavours. Instead, an
emotional reaction such as “chocolate-yum!” can make for a quick appropriate
decision. Another advantage is that basing your decisions on emotions helps to
ensure that the decisions take into account what you really care about. If you are
pleased and excited about a possible action, that is a good sign that the action
promises to accomplish the goals that are genuinely important to you. Finally,
decisions based on emotional intuitions lead directly to action: the positive
feeling toward an option will motivate you to carry it out.

But emotion-based intuitive decision- making can also have serious

disadvantages. An option may seem emotionally appealing because of failure to
consider to other available options. Intuition may suggest buying chocolate ice
cream only because you have failed to consider a low-fat alternative that would
be a healthier choice. Intuition is also subject to the intense craving that drug
addicts call “jonesing.” If you are jonesing for cocaine, githeri, or Mercedes-Benz
convertible, your intuition will tell you to choose what you crave, but only
because the craving has emotionally swamped other desires that you will be
more aware of when the craving is less intense.

Another problem with intuition is that it may be based on inaccurate or

irrelevant information. Suppose you need to decide whom to hire for a job. If you
are prejudiced against people of a particular race, sex or ethnicity, then your
intuition will tell you not to hire them, even if they have better qualifications. It is
difficult to determine introspectively whether your intuition derive from reliable
and relevant information. Finally, intuitive reasoning is problematic in-group
situations where decisions need to be made collectively. If other people disagree
with your choices, you cannot simply contend that your intuitions are stronger
or better than the intuitions of others. Defending your emotional reactions and
attempting to reach a consensus with other people requires a more analytical
approach than simply expressing your gut feelings.
DECISION AS CALCULATION

Experts on decision making recommend a more systematic and calculating

approach. For example, Bazerman (1994, p.4) says that rational decision making
should include the following six steps:

1. Define the problem, characterizing the general purpose of your decision.

2. Identify the criteria, specifying the goals or objectives that you want to
accomplish.
3. Weight the criteria, deciding the relative importance of the goals.
4. Generate alternatives, identifying possible courses of action that might
accomplish your various goals.
5. Rate each alternative on each criterion, assessing the extent to which each
action would accomplish each goal.
6. Compute the optimal decision, evaluating each alternative by multiplying
the expected effectiveness of each alternative with respect to a criterion
times the weight of the criterion, then adding up the expected value of the
alternative with respect to all criteria.

We can then pick the alternative with the highest expected value and make a
decision based on calculation, not on emotional reactions.

Some people dismiss this process and find it offensive that important decisions
in their lives might be made mathematically. Some notable advantages of
calculation over intuition method are: first it is set up to avoid neglecting
relevant alternatives and goals. Second it makes explicit the consideration of how
the various alternatives contribute to the various goals. Third, it puts the decision
making process out in the open, enabling it to be carefully reviewed by a
particular decision maker and also by others involved in a group decision
process.

However, the calculation method can more difficult and less effective
especially where the choices are equally relevant. For example, if one is trying to
decide what to study between philosophy and computer science, you list all the
criteria and estimate the extent to which each option satisfies them and then
proceed to a calculation of the expected value of the competing choices. Having
done this, you find that the expected value of one option, say philosophy,
exceeds that of the other. But what if you have the reaction “I don’t want to do
that!” it may be the numerical weights that you put on your criteria do not reflect
what you really care about.
 There is empirical evidence that calculation may sometimes be inferior to
intuition in making good judgements. People with mental problems do not know
what they care about hence cannot have emotional evaluations.

It seems, therefore, that we need a model of decision-making that is more

psychologically natural and more normatively effective than the calculation
model. We shall now consider decision making in terms of emotional coherence.

DECISION AS COHERENCE

Decision-making is a kind of inference, but what is inference? Many

philosophers have taken deductive logic as the model for inference. For example:

Whenever you want ice cream, you should order chocolate.

You want ice cream.
Therefore you should order chocolate.

Unfortunately, we rarely have general rules that tell us exactly what to do, so
deduction is not a good model for practical inference. A second familiar model of
inference is calculation. But there is a third general model of inference that
advocates the following rule: accept a representation if and only if it coheres
maximally with the rest of your presentations. Many philosophers have
advocated coherence theories of inference but have left rather vague how to
maximize coherence (see, e.g., Harman 1986, Brink 1989, and Hurley 1989). A
precise and general model of coherence based inference can b constructed in
terms of constraint satisfaction (Thagard and Verbeurgt 1998, Thagard 2000).

When we make sense of a text, picture, person or event, we need to construct

an interpretation that fits with the available information better than alternative
interpretations. The best interpretation is one that provides the most coherent
account of what we want to understand.

Coherence can be understood in terms of maximal satisfaction of multiple

constraints, in a manner informally summarized as follows:

1. Elements are representations such as concepts, propositions, parts of

images, goals, actions and so on.
2. Elements can cohere (fit together) or incohere (resist fitting together).
Coherence relations include explanation, deduction, facilitation,
association and so on. Incoherence relations include inconsistence,
incompatibility, and negative association.
3. If two elements cohere, there is a positive constraint between them. If
two elements incohere, there is a negative constraint between them.
 4. Elements are to be divided into ones that are accepted and ones that are
rejected.
5. a positive constraint between two elements can be satisfied either by
accepting both of the elements or by rejecting both of the elements.
6. a negative constraint between two elements can be satisfied only by
accepting one element and rejecting the other.
7. the coherence problem consists of dividing a set of elements into
accepted and rejected sets in a way that satisfies the most constraints.

Computing coherence is a matter of maximizing constraint satisfaction and can

be approximately accomplished by several different algorithms. The most
psychologically appealing models of coherence optimisation are provided in
connectionist algorithms. These are neuron-like units to represent elements and
excitatory and inhibitory links to represent positive and negative constraints.
Coherence can be measured in terms of the degree of constraint satisfaction
accomplished by the various algorithms .the computational problem of exactly
maximizing coherence is very difficult, but there are effective algorithms for
approximately maximising coherence in terms of constraint satisfaction (Thargad
and Verbeurgt 1998)

More exactly, deliberative coherence can be specified by the following

principles:

Principle 1: Symmetry- coherence and incoherence are symmetrical

relations: if factor (action or goal) f1 coheres with factor f2, then f2
coheres with f1.

Principle 2: Facilitation- consider actions A1…An that together facilitate

the accomplishment of goal G. then (a) each A1 coheres with G, (b) each
A1 coheres with each other Aj, and (c) the greater the number of actions
required, the less the coherence among the actions and goals.

Principle 3: Incompatibility- (a) if two factors cannot both be performed

or achieved, then they are strongly incoherent. (b) if two factors are
difficult to perform or achieve together, then they are weakly incoherent.
Principle 4: goal priority- some goals are desirable for intrinsic or other
non-coherence reasons. Principle 5: Judgement- facilitation and
competition relations can depend on coherence with judgements about
the acceptability of factual beliefs.

Principle 6: decision- decisions are made on the basis of an assessment

of the overall coherence of a set of actions and goals.
 Psychologically, decision as coherence is very different from decision as
calculation. Calculations are conscious and explicit, displayable to everyone on
pencil and paper. In contrast, if coherence maximization in human brains is
similar to what happens in the artificial neural networks, then assessment of
coherence is a process not accessible to consciousness. What comes to the
consciousness is only the realization that a particular action is the one I want to
perform. Hence deliberative coherence is closer to the intuition model of decision
making than to calculation model. Coherence is maximized not by an explicit,
consciously accessible calculation but by an unconscious process whose output is
the intuition that one action is preferable to others. There is however, a major
difference between the deliberative –coherence account of decision- making and
the intuition account. Intuitions about what to do are usually emotional,
involving feelings that one action is a good thing to do and that alternatives are
bad things to do.

EMOTIONAL COHERENCE

In the theory of coherence, elements have the epistemic status of being

accepted or rejected. In addition to acceptability, elements in coherence systems
have an emotional valence, which can be positive or negative. Depending on the
nature of what the elements represents, the valence of an element can indicate
likability, desirability, or other positive or negative attitude. Far example, the
valence of mother Theresa for most people is highly positive, while the valence
of Adolf Hitler is highly negative.

Just as elements are related to each other by the positive and negative
deliberative constrains, so they also can be related by positive and negative
valence constraints. Some elements have intrinsic positive and negative valences,
for example, pleasure and pain. Other elements can acquire valences by virtue of
their connections with elements that have intrinsic valences. For example if one
has a positive association between the concepts of dentist and pain, where pain
has an intrinsic negative valence, then dentist can acquire a negative valence.
However, just as the acceptability of an element depends on the acceptability of
the elements that constrain it, so the valence of an element depends on the
valences of all the elements that constrain it.

The basic theory of emotional coherence can be summarised in three principles

analogous to the qualitative principles of coherence:
1. Elements have positive or negative valences.
2. Elements can have positive or negative emotional connections to other
elements.
3. The valence of an element is determined by the valences and acceptability
of all the elements to which it is connected.
USING INTUITION AND EMOTION TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS

The theory of emotional coherence shows how people’s gut feelings about
what to do may sometimes emerge from integrative unconscious judgements
about the actions that might best accomplish their goals. But it also applies to
cases where people’s intuitions are too quick and uninformed. How can students
and other people be helped to ensure that their decisions are based on informed
intuition?

For important decisions, rather than leaping to an immediate intuitive choice,

people should follow a procedure something like the following:

INFORMED INTUITION

1. Set up the decision problem carefully. This requires identifying the

goals to be accomplished by your decision and specifying the broad
range of possible actions that might accomplish those goals.

2. Reflect on the importance of the different goals. Such reflection will

be more emotional and intuitive than just putting a numerical weight
on them, but it should help you to be more aware of what you care
about in the current decision situation. Identify goals whose
importance may be exaggerated because of jonesing or other
emotional distortions.

1. Examine beliefs about the extent to which various actions would

facilitate the different goals. Are these beliefs based on good
evidence? If not revise them.

2. Make your intuitive judgement about the best action to perform,

monitoring your emotional reaction to different options. Run your
decision past other people to see if it seems reasonable to them.

This procedure combines the strengths and avoids the weaknesses of intuition
and calculation models of decision-making. Like the intuition model, it
recognizes that decision-making is an unconscious process that involves
emotions. Like the calculation model, it aims to avoid decision errors caused by
unsystematic and unexamined intuitions. One drawback of the informed
intuition procedure is that it is not so inter-subjective as the calculation model, in
which the numerical weights and calculations can be laid out on the table for all
to see. It is important in many cases for people to go through the steps of
producing a calculation in order to provide some information about how
different people are seeing the situation. However, the individual decision
makers will have to make decisions based on their own intuitive judgements
about what is the right thing to do. Achieving consensus among a group of
decision makers may require extensive discussion that reveals the goals and
beliefs of decision makers to themselves as well as to others. It is easier to
identify emotional distortions in others than in yourself. The discussion,
including the exercise of working through a calculation together, may help the
members of a group converge on evaluation of goal importance and belief
plausibility that produce a shared reaction of emotional coherence. A crucial part
of this process is becoming aware of the emotional states of others, which may
benefit as much from face-to-face interactions involving perception of people’s
physical communication as from their purely verbal communication.

Informed intuition is a much more complicated process of decision making

than the practical syllogism commonly discussed by philosophers. Millgram
(1997, 41) gives the following example:

1. Delicious things should be eaten. (major premise)

2. This cake is delicious. (minor premise)
3. Eat the cake. (conclusion)

The practical syllogism gives an inadequate picture of decision making, both

descriptively and normatively. Descriptively, it fails to notice that the decision to
eat the cake is crucially influenced by the emotional value of the action of eating
the case. Normatively, it fails to see that deciding is a matter of deliberative
coherence that has to balance competing goals (e.g., eat something delicious, b
slim, be healthy) and to evaluate competing actions (e.g., eat the cake, eat an
apple, drink Perrier). On the coherence model of inference, reasoning and
inference are very different. Reasoning is verbal and linear, like the practical
syllogism and proofs in formal logic. But inference is an unconscious mental
process in which many factors are balanced against each other until a judgement
is reached that accepts some beliefs and rejects in a way that approximately
maximizes coherence.

This does not mean that practical and theoretical reasoning should be sneered
at. Reasoning is a verbal, conscious process that is easily communicated to other
people. People are rarely convinced by an argument directly, but the fact that
reasoning does not immediately translate into inference does not make it
pointless. Making reasoning explicit in decision helps to communicate to all the
people involved what the relevant goals, actions, and facilitation relations might
be. If communication is effective, then the desired result will be that each
decision maker will make a better informed intuitive decision about what to do.
 Improving inferences is both a matter of recognizing good inference
procedures, such as informed intuition, and watching out for errors that people
commonly make. Such errors are usually called fallacies by philosophers and
biases by psychologists. Psychologists, philosophers, and economists have
identified a variety of error tendencies in decision making, such as overrating
sunk costs, using bad analogies, and being overconfident in judgements.
Noticing the role of emotional coherence in decision-making enables us to
expand this list to include emotional determinants of bad decision making, such
as failing to perceive the emotional attitudes of other people.

The coherence model of decision-making allows goals to be adjusted in

importance while evaluating a decision, but it does not address the question of
how we adopt new goals. Millgrm’s (1997) account of practical induction is
useful for describing how people in novel situations can develop new interests
that provide them with new goals. A full theory of decision-making would have
to include an account of where human goals come from and how they can be
evaluated. People who bas their decisions only on the goals of sex, drugs, and
rock and roll may achieve local coherence, but they have much to learn about the
full range of pursuits that enrich human lives.
LECTURE FIVE

ARGUMENTS: DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE LOGIC

INTRODUCTION

This lesson concerns logic. Logic is described as the descriptive of

discourse. Discourse in its turn is connected thought (usually at this point,
why study logic at all?' The purpose to this concern lies simply in the
realization that, wherever people debate discuss or argue, logic is usually a
sort of court of appeal in the background; whenever, we debate matters in
our own minds, a silent logic usually arbitrates. No one in his or her senses
will willingly and persistently defy a clear verdict by logic.

Therefore logic trains the mind to draw the right conclusion, and to avoid the
wrong by formulating rules of inference to govern and guide debate (or
reason) and to promote discovery.

Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

a) Distinguish and relate inductive and deductive reasoning.

b) Identify good from bad arguments
c) Acquire clarity, precision and firmness of thought.

Logic is definable at this stage as the study of reasoning. This is

distinguishable from the way a psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist,
sociologist etc could study reasoning.

Reasoning in logic concerns the process in which we are able to move from
given fact(s) or statement(s) to draw another fact or statement. For example,
given that:

All human beings are mortal and that all Kenyans

are human beings, we can draw the conclusion
that All Kenyans are mortal.
Logic therefore is a study that investigates the connections (or lack of them)
between statements.

But logicians do not study statements merely put together haphazardly or

arbitrarily. Instead they concern themselves with statements joined together
in a structured form. Such structured forms in which statements are put
together are referred to as ARGUMENTS.

It is worth noting that the work "argument" has a broader usage in ordinary
English than in logic. For example, we normally say of two people
screaming abuses at each other in a local bar that they are having an
argument.

Again we say that one "is advancing on 'argument' in favor of position". In

this usage, we normally tend to understand "argument" as referring to the
reasons one is giving for holding the given position.

But in logic, an argument includes the reasons and the conclusion. So we can
define an argument in logic as:

A group of statements, such that one of them is

considered to be the conclusion. The conclusion
is statement intended to follow from the other
statements which are given as reasons (or permission)
for it.

This definition, however, requires us to distinguish statements from other

types of sentences. Ordinary language is made up of grammatically well-
formed sentences. These can be:
 Questions e.g. "what is you name?"
Wishes e.g. "May God bless you abundantly"
Exclamations e.g. "Wow, what a surprise!
Commands e.g. "Shut up"
Statements e.g. It is hot today"

What distinguishes statements from the rest of the sentences is that they are
capable of being True or False. We can not say of the question,

"what is your name?' that it is True or False. But we can say of the
statement, "It is hot today" that it is True, or False, depending on when and
where it is uttered. We therefore can say that only statements have Truth-
value and all the other sentences do not have Truth-value. The Truth-value of
a true statement is True and that of a false one is False.

NOTE:
All statements are sentences, but not all
sentences are statements.

ACTIVITY:

Which of the following sentences is a

statement?
1. May you die of hunger
2. Have you read Shakespear's Merchant
of Venice?
3. My name is Faust; in all things they
equal.
STANDARD FORM OF ARGUMENTS

In logic, arguments are presented in a certain standard form. This form

requires that we state the premises (or reasons) first and then the first
argument you encountered at the beginning of the lesson would be presented
thus:

All human beings are mortal All Kenyans

Are human beings. Therefore, all Kenyans
Are mortal.

ARGUMENTS IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE

In ordinary speech or writing we normally do not follow the prescribed

standard form of stating arguments above. Instead, we realize that our
conclusions might appear at the beginning or in the middle of the argument.
However, there are particular wards which are employed in ordinary
language that are referred to as ARGUMENT INDICATORS. Some of these
are precisely premise-indicators and conclusion-indicators, which tell us
what the premises and the conclusion are respectively.

For example:

"Peter is not a boy scout, since Peter does

not know how to tie a square knot and all bot scouts
know how to tie square knots'.

This can be put in standard logical form thus:

Peter does not know how to tie a square knot

All boy scouts know hot to die square knots
Therefore, Peter is not a boy scout.

The following is a list of some common premiss-indicators:

Since follows from

As because
In as much as may be inferred from
 For this reason is based on
For one Two
First Second

The following are some common conclusion-indicators:

Therefore so
Hence which shows that
Thus We can derive that
It follow that Consequently

ACTIVITY:
Put the following argument into standard
logical form:

Candidate X is certain to win the

general
election because his backers
have more
money than do candidate Y's and
furthermore
candidate X is more popular in
the urban areas

NOTE:
In identifying the premisses and conclusion of an argument, we first
look for our ordinary language argument indicators.

Why do we construct arguments?

We normally construct arguments for these reasons;

 To explain
 To predict
 To convince and persuade
This means therefore, that besides the premises-indicators, an examination
of the context in which the argument is constructed and the motives behind
its presentation can usually be helpful in interpreting arguments.
 LESSON SEVEN

7.0 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

Brian Skyrms
By S O OWINO

INTRODUCTION

When we arrange various arguments into the standard logical form, we

realize that there are typically two types of logical reasoning that we
normally engage in. Hence logic is conventionally divided into deductive
logic and inductive logic.

An argument is considered to be deductive when the premisses present

absolutely conclusive evidence for the conclusion. Thus, a deductive
argument can either be valid or invalid.

NOTE:
An argument is deductively valid if and only if its underlying
structure or form guarantees that: if its premises are all true, then
its conclusion is also true.

This means that in deductively valid argument, when its premises are true
then, it is IMPOSSIBLE that its conclusion is false. Otherwise, we involve
ourselves in a contradiction.

But an argument is deductively invalid if and only if its underlying structure

does not guarantee that; if its premises are all true, then so is its conclusion.

Notice that the above definitions of deductive validity or invalidity are not
about the truth of the premises but rather the structure of the arguments. It is
precisely the structure of the argument that guarantees that provided its
premises are all true, then its conclusion will not be false.

Let us take an example to illustrate our point:

All Senegalese are Africans.

President Moi is a Senegalese
 Therefore, President Moi is an African.

We observe that the second premise in the argument above, is false because
President Moi is not a Senegalese. Nevertheless, we are claiming that if
these premises were all true, then the conclusion would also be true.
Therefore, the above argument is a deductively valid argument.

In pure logic, the truth is not the major concern. Validity instead is the major
concern. However, as critical and creative thinkers we are constantly
concerned about whether an argument has true premisses.

Whenever an argument has all true premisses and deductive validity, we say
that it is a sound argument. Otherwise it is unsound.

NOTE:
An argument is SOUND if and only if it is both deductively valid and
has all true premisses.

The reason why it is impossible for the conclusion of a deductively valid

argument to be false if the premisses are true is that the conclusion makes no
factual claim that is not implicitly made by the premisses. What the
conclusion does is merely to lay bare (or explicit) what was initially hidden
(or implicit) in the premisses. So, the conclusion actually does not venture to
say anything more than what the premisses contain.

It is noticeable therefore that deductive logic regards argument correctness

as all or nothing, i.e. either it valid or it is invalid. Inductive logic on the
other hand, is concerned with connections from premisses to concussions
that allow for graduations. We can hence have a more or less strong
inductive argument.

NOTE:

An argument is inductively strong (or weak) in direct proportion to

the likelihood of its conclusion being true on the assumption that its
premisses are true.
This means that if the premisses of an inductive argument are true then it is
IMPROBABLE that its conclusion is false. The degree of inductive strength
depends entirely on how improbable it is that the conclusion is false given
that the premisses are true. Therefore, inductive arguments can be of varying
degrees of strength ranging from very strong inductive arguments to weak
inductive arguments.

The conclusion of an inductive argument asserts more than the premisses. It

therefore makes factual claims which lie beyond what the premisses claim. A
denial of the conclusion of an inductive argument does not lead us to a
contradiction since we can descriptive situations in which the premisses
remain true and yet the conclusion is false.

A typical example of inductive arguments are the weather forecasts of the

meteorological department. On the basis of the data and information
gathered during the day or throughout the week, they forecast what the
whether is likely to be the following day. The forecast certainly ventures
beyond what the premisses contain because it refers to a day which has not
yet arrived.

So in evaluating inductive arguments we should try to determine the

probability or likelihood of the conclusion being true if the premisses are all
true. If the conclusion is likely to be true if the premisses are true the we
consider the argument to be inductively strong. But if the conclusion is only
slightly supported by the premisses, then we consider the argument to be
inductively weak.

NOTE:

a) Arguments that are deductively invalid can possibly be

inductively strong or inductively weak, depending on the
strength of connection between the premisses and the
conclusion.
b) Arguments that are studied by inductive logic usually proceed
from what has been experienced to what has not been
experienced.
CONCLUSION

For analytical purposes, we have divided arguments into two categories

namely, deductive and inductive. But this poses the danger of understanding
the two types as separate and mutually exclusive.

Instead we should understand the two types of arguments as constituting a

single, continuous scale of varying degrees of strength of the link between
the premises and the conclusion.

We can diagrammatically represent this, relationship thus:

Arguments

Deductively valid

Degrees or inductive strength

Worthless

From the diagram we notice that deductively valid arguments have the
strongest possible link (of necessity) between the premises and the
conclusion. This is followed by the varying degrees of strength in inductive
arguments with the most worthless having the weakest link (if any) between
the premises and the conclusion.

At this juncture, we can therefore formulate a more technical definition of

logic

Logic is the study of the strength of the

Evidential link between the premises
And conclusions of arguments.
Definition of Key words:

Logic: The study of the strength of the evidential link between the
Premises and conclusions of arguments.

Statement: Any declarative sentences which can either be True or False.

Validity: The underlying structure of an argument that guarantees that if

its premises are all true, then its conclusion is also true.

Argument: A group of statements such that one of them is considered to be

the conclusion and the others are considered to be the premises

Soundness: The quality of an argument which has both validity and true
premises.

Required Reading:

Wambari, K. (ed.) (1992), Readings in Introduction to Critical

Thinking, Kijabe; A.I.C. Printing Press.

Recommended further reading

Sdyrms B. (1966) Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic,

Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Company.

THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC

At this juncture, I would like to draw your attention to one of the most
widespread and misleading conceptions in logic. It is the simplistic
contention that the distinction between deductive and inductive arguments
depends on whether they proceed from general or specific statements.
According to this view, a deductive argument is definable as an argument
that proceeds from general premises to specific conclusion so if we take a
valid deductive argument like

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal

We notice that the first premise makes a general claim about all men and the
conclusion makes a claim about a specific man, namely, Socrates.

On the other hand, an inductive argument is defined as one that proceeds

from the specific premise to the general conclusion. For example:

Water from Lake Victoria boiled at 1000C

Water from Lake Turkana " "
Water from the rainfall " "
Water from Indian Ocean " "
Water from River Nile " "

Therefore, water boils at 1000C.

We notice that the premises make claims about water from specific sources
and the conclusion makes a claim about water in general, irrespective of its
source. These examples can easily lend credence to this misconception about
deductive and inductive arguments. In the previous section we did
demonstrate that deductive and inductive arguments are not two types
(except for analytical purposes). Instead, they constitute a continuous range
of degrees of strength of link between the premises and the conclusion.

Perhaps some further examples can be employed here to demonstrate that we

do have arguments which are deductively valid and yet they process either
from general to general, or from specific to specific or even from specific to
general.
1. From general to general

All human beings are mortal

All Kenyans are human beings
Therefore all Kenyans are mortal

2. From specific to specific

The reader of this module is a student

This module is for students of critical Thinking
Therefore, the reader of this module is a student of critical Thinking

3. From specific to general

One is a lucky number

Three is a lucky number
Five is a lucky number
Seven is a lucky number
Nine is a lucky number
There, all odd numbers between 0 and 10 are lucky numbers

Likewise, we can get examples which illustrate that inductive arguments can
proceed also from general to specific, general to general; specific to specific.

1. From general to specific

All emeralds previously found have been green.

The next emerald to be found will be green.

2. From general to general

All students in this class are highly intelligent.

All students in this class are strongly motivated to do well.
No student in this class has a heavy workload.
No student in this has psychological difficulties that would interfere with
his course work.
All students in this class will do well.
3. From specific to specific

Hitler was a dictator and was ruthless

Stalin was a dictator and was ruthless
Castro is a dictator
Therefore Castro is probably ruthless

ACTIVITY

EXERCISES

1. Decide which of the following are arguments and which are not. If
arguments, indicate premises and conclusions.

a) The flight has been delayed by bad weather.

b) Did you say "Jack is coming

c) Political dissenters have no place in our society, for those who

criticize and disrupt a nation are its enemies.

d) Nobody will take advice, but everybody will take money. Clearly,
then, money is better than advice.
e) Jones cannot be the murderer because he was miles away when the
crime occurred.
f) Detective, make sure that you apprehend the thief who broke into my
house.

2. Indicate whether the following arguments are deductive or inductive.

a. Since more than half of all road traffic accidents involve drivers under
twenty-five, it follows that drivers under twenty-five are probably a
greater driving risk than those older than twenty-five.
b. No triangle is a square because all triangles have three sides and squares
have four sides.
c. Every class I have taught so far in Kenyatta University has had an even
male-female distribution in it. It is obvious, then, that the student
 population of Kenyatta University is evenly divided between makes and
females.
d. This argument is valid because its premises logically entail its
conclusion, and any argument whose premises logically entail its
conclusion is valid.
e. Jack missed work today. He must be ill because in the past he has only
missed work when he has been ill.
f. Sandy was either present or she knew someone who was present. If she
was present, then she knows more than she is admitting. Either way,
sandy knows more than she is admitting.

3. Arrange the following arguments in the order of the strength of the link
between premises and conclusion.

a. No one who is not a member of the club will be admitted to the meeting.
I am not a member of the club. Therefore I will not be admitted to the
meeting.

b. Brutus said Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus was an honorable man.
Therefore Caesar must have been ambitious.

c. My nose itches; therefore I am going to have a fight.

d. The weatherman has said that a low-pressure front is moving into the
area. The sky is Grey and very overcast. On the street I can see several
peop0le carrying umbrellas. The weatherman is usually accurate.
Therefore it will rain.
e. The last three cars I have owned have all been sports cars. They have all
performed beautifully and given me little trouble. Therefore I am sure
that the next sports car I own will also perform beautifully and give me
little trouble.
LECTURE SIX

FALLACIES: ERRORS IN REASONING

8.0 FALLACIES

8.1 INTRODUCTION

In this lesson, we are essentially going to discuss reasoning as a process.

This discussion will proceeding by an examination of what constitutes good
and bad reasoning proper and improper reasoning or better still, correct and
incorrect reasoning. In this regard, the lesson is going to provide an
exposition and explication of the logical notion referred to as "Fallacy" or
"Fallacies" in plural. This will be done with the objective of showing sources
of error in reasoning and the imperatives for good reasoning. The lesson is
thus going to provide the fundamentals for reasoning that entails inference(s)
that is/are logically warranted. In other words, the lesson will ultimately
present the gist for ensuring that conclusions arrived at in reasoning are
properly or accurately drawn. Here, the ideal of good or accurate reasoning
is going to be postulated.

8.2 Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Define what a fallacy is in the context of logic.

2. Explain the various was in which errors can occur in reasoning and how
they can be avoided.
3. Identify the various established instances of fallacious reasoning or bad
reasoning.
4. Appreciate the ideal of reasoning and distinguish in between good and
bad reasoning.

SUMMARY (At the end of the document but before definition of terms)

In this lesson we have discussed how reasoning proceeds, the goal of

reasoning, and how this goal may be achieved on one hand or fail to be
achieved on the other. In this light, we have shown particular kinds and
instances of error in reasoning, the sources of such errors, and how they can
be avoided. These errors are what have been referred to as 'Fallacies'.
However, the notion 'Fallacy' has been discussed in this lesson with a very
specific context, logic. We have shown that we can analyze an argument or a
piece of reasoning, and establish whether it is likely to be correct or not. It is
also important to note hitherto that although one does not need to know
expressly the rules and principles of correct reasoning (as conceived in
logic), for one to argue and even argue well, knowledge of these rules
enhances the ability of one to identify and avoid mistakes in reasoning.

8.3 Definition and Nature of fallacies

Richar Popkin and Arrum Stroll (1975; 248) define a fallacy as any sort of
mistake in reasoning or inference; it is a term used to denote anything that
causes an argument to go wrong. However, logicans use the word, not to
designate any mistaken idea or false belief, but rather typical errors,
mistakes that emanate commonly in ordinary discourse, and that render
unsound the arguments in which they appear. It is important to note that for
an argument to be fallacious, it must be such that it can easily be thought of
as good (valid or cognent). In other words, the argument has to be
psychologically persuasive notwithstanding the concealed structural or
technical error or error with regard to the actual content of the argument for
the argument to pass as fallacious. This is the sort of argument which, from
the face of it, appears valid or cogent (good, proper, accurate, correct).

Any argument regardless of its subject or sphere is generally constructed for

the purpose of providing that its conclusion is true. This is in line with the
essence of reasoning which is that on the basis of certain proposition(s),
certain other propositions or a certain proposition follows either of logical
necessity or probability. That the truth of the anteceding proposition(s) either
guarantees that of the consequent propositions(s) or that such truth logically
justifies, warrant or reasonably grounds that of the latter. The first category
of proposition(s) is what is called the premise(s) of the argument the second
or subsequent category of proposition(s) is what is referred to as the
conclusion. The first category thus provides or at least is believes to provide
evidence, grounds justification or warrant for the second category
(conclusion). This step-by-step process from premise(s) to conclusion(s) is
called inference. In inference, one starts with one or more propositions
which have been accepted (or at least assumed accepted); then those
propositions are used to arrive at a new proposition. If the inference is
accurate (valid or logically probable) that proposition should also be
accepted. That proposition can be used for inference later on. This, initially
one can only infer things from the premises of the argument but as the
argument proceeds, the number of statements or propositions available for
inference increases.

In the attempt to prove that its conclusion is true, any argument can fail to
fulfill this endeavor either by assuming a false proposition as one of its
premises or by its premises not implying its conclusion i.e., there not being a
logical relation between the premises and the conclusion. Regarding the first
possibility, it is imperative to appreciate that every argument involves the
claim that the truth of its conclusion follows from, or is implied, by the truth
of its premises. However, the strength of a logician does not lie in the ability
to establish the truth of propositions because the competent and reliable
authority to establish such truth is the respective or relevant scholar who
may be a sociologist, chemist etc. The competence, authority and strength of
a logician rests in the ability to evaluate the logical relations that exist or at
least claimed to exist between or among propositions. It is in this latter or
second context that logicians lack of fallacies.

There are, broadly speaking two kinds of fallacies; formal and informal
fallacies. The bottom-line of the distinction between formal and informal
fallacies. The bottom-line of the distinction between formal and informal
fallacies lies in the method of detecting the fallacy. If it is identifiable
through mere inspection of the form of the argument, then it is formal. If,
however, it is only identifiable throught analysis of the content of the
argument, then it is informal. However, the fact that an argument is
fallacious does not at all mean that its conclusion is false.

8.3.1 FORMAL FALLACIES

Formal fallacies arise from error or defect in the structure or form of an

argument. They are fallacies identified on the basis of the evaluation of the
form or structure of an argument i.e. arise from formal error in argument. A
formal fallacy is therefore to a great extent an error in deductive reasoning.
In this case, the conclusion asserted does not follow of logical necessity such
that despite the premises being true, the truth of the conclusion is not
guaranteed from the logical view-point. This is a case of an invalid instance
of reasoning, an invalid argument. In other words, when an argument which
has the form of a syllogism seems valid, but is not, it is said to be fallacious.
A syllogism is a two premised argument. There are five rules for determing
the validity/invalidity of a syllogistic argument and a violation of any of the
fine rules results into committing a fallacy. These rules are as follows:

Rule (1) In any valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be
distributed at least one.

No pries is corrupt
Some priests are policemen
-Some policemen are not corrupt.

In the above example, the term 'priest' acts as a middle term in that by virtue
of it a relationship or logical connection is established between the major
and minor terms, in this case 'corrupt' people and 'policemen'. On the basis
of an established link between the minor and major terms by the asserted
relationship or link between the major terms the middle term and the minor
term and the middle term, the implied relationship between the major and
minor terms can be asserted in the conclusion. On other words, when
reference is not made to all the members of the middle term either in the
inclusive or exclusive sense, it becomes logically impossible to ascertain
how the major and minor terms related to each other which means that
inference becomes logically impossible. A violation of this rule results to the
fallacy of the undistributed middle term or the fallacy of the undistributed
middle.

e.g. All human beings are clever beings .All dogs are clever beings
All dogs are human beings.

In the above example, the middle term 'clever beings' is not distributed.
Though in the first premise it is clear that all human beings are clever
beings, it does not follow that all clever beings are human beings, reference
is made to only a part of the class of clever beings who are human beings
and that is all the same way, although it is clear that all dobs are clever
beings,, it does not follow that all clever beings are dogs, in this
circumstances the relationship between dogs and human beings is not
certainly implied which make any conclusion with regard to how the two
terms relate to each other logically impossible; thus rendering any
conclusion uncertain. This makes the argument deductively invalid.
Rule 2. In any valid categorical syllogism, no term may increase its
distribution i.e. no term should move from being undistributed in the
premises to being distributed in the conclusion.

The rationale of this rule is that one cannot validly argue moving from some
members of a class to all members of the class. Rather valid movement may
be from all to some i.e. that since all are, some are. When this rule is
violated the corresponding fallacy is the illicit process of the major term or
minor term depending on the affected or relevant term which has a double
status with regard to its distribution in the same argument.

e.g. All trees and plants

No vegetables are trees
No vegetables are plants
_______________________
Illicit process
Of the major
Term. INVALID

In the above example, 'plants' is the major term. It is undistributed in the first
premise but it is distributed in the conclusion. This is invalid.

Rule 3. No valid categorically syllogism can have two negative premises.

This is because negative premises are by nature exclusionary such that they
deny class inclusion (separate minor from major term) either wholly or
partially and that is all. This means that there is no link that is stated of the
major and minor premises since all that is asserted is the exclusion of one
class from another either in part or in whole. Concluding from the premises
becomes logically impossible.

e.g.
No cats are dogs
No cows are dogs
Some cows are cats
_________________
INVALID. Fallacy of Exclusive premises.

The corresponding fallacy is the fallacy of exclusion premises.

Rule 4. In any6 valid categorical syllogism, if a premise is negative, the
conclusion must be negative. This is because a negative premise asserts and
implies class exclusion such whatever conclusion is drawn must assert class
exclusion also in part or in whole, as the case may be.

e.g.
All head-hunters are primitives
Some louderners are head-hunters
Some loudeners are head-hunters.
The above example is INVALID and commits the fallacy of drawing an
affirmative. Conclusion from negative premises.

Rule 5
Any valid categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion cannot have
two universal premises. This rule however has limitations. There are two
ways of interpreting categorical propositions, hypothetical and existential.
The rule only holds when the interpretation of the relevant propositions is
hypothetical not existential since in the latter case the argument is valid.

e.g. All P are M

No S are M
Some S are not P
___________________
INVALID in the hypothetical interpretation, though VALID in the existential
interpretation

The corresponding fallacy that results from a violation of this rule is the
Existential fallacy.

Other examples of fallacies that are identifiable by the evaluation of the

form or structure of an argument include:

1. The Fallacy of Affirming the consequent.

2. The Fallacy of denying the antecedent

E.g. (a) If P then Q } INVALID. Fallacy of affirming

Q } the consequent
Therefore, P }

If one contracts AIDS, then he dies John has died

Therefore, John had contracted AIDS

The above form of argument is fallacious because death can result from
causes or anticidents other than just contracting AIDS. AIDS is only a
sufficient condition for death but not a necessary condition for death. The
above argument confuses sufficient condition for necessary condition. The
argument can very easily deceive one to be valid because it appears or seems
to take the form of a valid argument.

1, P > Q
2, P
________
:Q

Modules Ponens (MP) is a valid argument form which proceeds by an

affirmation of an auticedent warranting thereby an affirmation of the
corresponding consequent. In other words, affirming the antecedent warrants
affirming the consequent does not warrant affirming the antecedent. The
consequent can only be denied on the basis of which the antecedent would
be validly denied. This latter argument form of denying the consequent and
on such basis denying the antecedent is called modus Tollens (MT) and it is
a valid argument form as shown bellow:

1.If P, then q
3. not-q / not-p

If P then q
Not P
Therefore, not Q
_______________
INVALID. Fallacy of denying the antecedent

If one contracts AIDS, then he will die.

John does not have AIDS
Therefore John will not die.

The rationale for the fallacy is that death can result from many causes or
antecedents such that by one not having AIDS, one is still subject to death
anyway. AID is just one of the causes for death i.e. the antecedent in the
conditional is just one of the possible 'causes' of the consequent or one of
the factors which precede the consequent, it is just sufficient condition for
the consequent, it does not need to hold for the consequent to be observed.
On this basis, by the move fact that one does not have AIDS as in the above
example, there is no guarantee for immortality. The argument easily deceives
because it appears as a valid argument form Modus Tollens (MT)

1. P > q
2. Q
3. P

MT holds because P>q is logically equivalent to (pvq) by the rule of

implication (Impl) (pvq) are the conditions under which a conditional is true
i.e. when either the antecedent is false or the consequent true. In these
circumstances. Denying of the dysjuncts (q) justifies one to affirm the other
distinct (p). such inference is valid by the rule of disjunctive syllogism (Ds).

8.3.2 INFORMAL FALLACIES

Informal fallacies cannot be identified by mere inspection of the argument

form, but by analyzing the content of the argument. Informal fallacies can be
divided into two namely, fallacies of
i. Relevance/irrelevance
ii. Ambiguity
iii. Fallacies of Relevance/irrelevance

These are errors in reasoning which have as their source the irrelevance of
the conclusion to the premis(es). The error or mistake thus rests on the
relevance of the conclusion to the premis(es) hence their description as
fallacies of relevance or irrelevance depending on the explanation given with
regard to the error. Examples of these fallacies are:

(a) Appeal to the people or masses (argumentum ad populum)

If numbers are quoted as evidence or justification for a certain position or

conclusion, the fallacies is said to have been committed. For example, if
someone is to argue that abortion, corruption, theft or murder is wrong
because most people think that it is wrong, this would be an instance of this
fallacy. The point to note is that the truth of falsity of something does not
depend on people's opinions or feelings, rather other objective facts. The
majority could believe that something is right or wrong yet all be mistaken.
Question of truth and falsity, rightness or wrongs are not settled by
conducting opinion polls, rather they are settled by appeal or consideration
of relevant facts.

(b) Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

This fallacy is said to have been committed when one accepts a statement
view or position merely because an authority, expert, or a famous person
accepts it or says he/she accepts it. The truth of falsity of a given statement
cannot be proved merely by the fact that someone, even an authority says so.
A statement is not made true or false by virtue of the prestige of an authority,
rather, it is the citing of relevant and accurate evidence to confirm or refute
the statement. The fact than an authority has made a statement cannot be
itself regarded as evidence; it is the facts which the authority produces that
constitute evidence. Such facts of course are quite different from a mere
verbal pronouncement e.g.

Killing is bad or stealing is bad not merely because God or the law says so,
rather because of the objective and cogent facts and evidence that points
reasonably or necessarily to the badness or goodness, rightness or wrong's of
the actions. Killing is bad for instance, presumably because of some good
reasons which form the basis of God or the law holding that it is bad not
merely because Gor or the law says so. Appeal to authority rests on trust and
confidence rested in authority (which is reasonable), but authority is fallible
and its only on the basis of the evidence presented that we should accept the
position of the authority not the mere fact of authority.

(c) Appeal to force (Argumentum and Baculem) or threat of force.

This fallacy is said to have been committed when assent is sought on the
basis of the use of force or threat of force. It is not might that makes
something right or true. Might or the threat of force is irrelevant when it
comes to matters of truth or rightness of an action. For example, it would be
fallacious if one reasoned that the United States of America war right in
1990 with regard to the Iraq Kuwait despite merely because Iraq was forced
into submission. A preacher who argues that salvation is imperative because
otherwise one would go to hell commits this fallacy because the threat of
hell may compel one to declare salvation without having any objective
reasons to justify the choice of salvation. The fear of the eternal suffering in
hell would in that case be the reason for adopting salvation not the more
reasonable grounds of love, peace, harmony and the general well being of
the individual and specify that come as a result of salvation such that
avoidance of hell is just an accident.

(d) Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum and Ignorantiam)

This fallacy is said to occur when it is argued that a certain view, opinion
belief or assertion is true just because it has not been proved false, or
conversely that it is false because it has not been proved true. This happens
when the premises of an argument state that a certain position or view has
into been proved (or disproved) while the conclusion makes a definite
assertion abort the position. This sought of reasoning is treacherous because
it apparently seems to follow and actually pretends to follow the justified
reasoning that a certain view is true because we have considerable evidence,
all of which shows that the view is true, and none of which shows that it is
false. Showing that a view is true simply because there is no contrary
evidence is not enough. It is imperative also to show positive evidence in
favor of it. Otherwise outrageous claims for instance of the existence of
mermaids may be 'proved' by this treacherous kind of reasoning which is
logically unacceptable.

(e) Argument against the person (Argumentum and Hominem)

The above fallacy is said to have been committed when a rebut to the
argument or position held is not directed to the basis, evidence or premis(es)
upon which the position rests but rather to the person against whom the
rebut is intended. The fallacy may appear in three ways:

I Abusive
Circumstantial
You too (Tu Quoque)

Abusive

For example arguing that Fredrick Nietzsche was mistaken in his

philosophical ideas on existentialism because he was a miserable immoral
man who eventually died of syphilis involves committing this fallacy. The
correctness or incorrectness' has got nothing to do with his morality. The
ideas are correct or incorrect on their own merit.
Circumstantial

An example is this when for example a person who works for a certain
brewing company says that one of their products is a very good bear of
course presumably on the basis of some objective sound reasons. However,
the fallacy is committed when one rebuts to the position by saying that the
earlier person, could not be right because what he is saying is just by virtue
of him being an employee of that brewing company. Important to note have
is that focus is made on the circumstances of the person who says that a
certain bear is good the person who happens by accident to belong to the
brewing company. The beer is good or bad regardless of whether the person
does or does not work for the relevant brewing company. To decide on
whether or not the beer is actually good rests on a consideration of other
factors such as taste, side effects and so on. However in this example, it is
the circumstances of the person that are being considered to decide on
whether his assertion is true or false. This is fallacious.

You too (TU Quoque)

In this fallacy, one tries to make his/her opponent appear to be arguing in

bad faith. This proceeds by a citing of instances in the life or behavior of his
opponent that seemingly contradict his (opponent's) conclusion. For
example, a patient who argues that the doctor's advice that he (the patient)
should stop drinking alcohol because alcohol is dangerous to his (the
patient's) health is consisting and therefore apparently acting in bad faith
(the doctor) because the doctor himself drinks commits this fallacy. This is
because the fact that the doctor drinks does not change the accuracy and
appropriateness of the advice of the doctor to the patient to quit drinking. So
long as the doctor gives such advice on the basis of objective medical
considerations, even if, the doctor himself is even an alcoholic, that does not
render the doctors advice wrong unless it is shown that the doctors
consideration are irrelevant, inconsistent or actually false.

(f) Appeal to pity (Argumentum and miserecordiam)

This fallacy is said to be committed when emotions of pity or mercy are

invoked for purposes of achieving or ensuring assent. For example, when
one reasons that a person should be exonerated from punishment for his/her
wrongdoing because he is an orphan widow or widower or has gone through
a certain traumatizing experience, not as mitigating facts but as sufficient
grounds, then such reasoning is fallacious. The fact that one is an orphan for
example does not make one not subject to punishment or blame for
committing evils, just the same way being an orphan would not be excuse
for committing evils.

(g) Fallacy of accident

The fallacy is said to have been committed when one reasons by applying a
general rule to a particular instance which is uniquely circumstances
rendering the general inapplicable. For example when one reasons that
because the constitution grants freedom of movement and association that
therefore it is not right to prevent public rallies held by some individuals or
group in the country, the fallacy would have been committed. This is
because although the constitution may quarantee the freedom of movement
and association there are certain conditions and assumptions under which
such guarantee holds, conditions and assumptions which may into hold in a
particular instance thus rendering the application of the general provision of
the constitution inappropriate. For example association and movement with
the objective of committing crime and disturbing the peace renders such
constitutional guarantees inapplicable.

(h) Fallacy of converse Accident

The explanation of this fallacy is just the converse of that of the presiding. It
proceeds by an inappropriate ascription of what holds for particular unique
case to the general cases which do not experience the same and unique
circumstances that the particular experiences that renders or justifies
whatever it is that holds for the unique particular. For example reasoning that
since cigarette smoking increases the chances of suffering from cancer by
predisposed or vulnerable individuals that then cigarette smoking should be
stopped or baned altogether.

Hitherto, the various examples discussed are sufficient to illustrate fallacies

of relevance/irrelevance. However, it is imperative to appreciate that the
examples provided are not exhaustive since there are many more examples
of such fallacies which may be seen in the references provided at the end of
this lesson.

ii. Fallacies of Ambiguity

(a) Fallacy of Equivocation:

This fallacy arises from making a conclusion in an argument, which has

an ambiguous word, or a word whose exact understanding is not clear.

E.g.
1. Men are the only rational creatures
2. No woman are men
3. Therefore, no women are rational.

There is no certain or clear connection between the two propositions (1,2)

i.e., actually there is 'almost' no middle term. This cannot be detected by an
evaluation of the form or structure of the argument since this seems to
present 'men' as the middle term although in evaluating the actual content of
the argument, 'men' has or at least seems to have been used in two senses, in
the first sense meaning all humanity (men and women) and in the second
sense meaning male human beings only. When reasoning proceeds in this
way where a word is used with varying meanings in the same argument and
a conclusion is drawn as if the word were used unequivocally, then the
fallacy of equivocation is said to have been committee

(b) Fallacy of Amphibly

This fallacy is committed when a reasoning is instance contains a statement

that could be understood or integrated in more than one senses and a
conclusion is drawn as if the statement or phrase had a definite
understanding or meaning. The worlds contained in the statement or phrase
may not be ambiguous, yet the whole sentence is because of its grammatical
structure. A common source of confusion in ordinary English stems for
example from the use of the word 'not'. A sentence that begins as 'All … are
not …" may be understood to mean (I) none are or (ii) some are not;
e.g. 'All politicians are not corrupt' may mean

1. No politician is corrupt or
2. Some politicians are not corrupt

The two possible interpretations become a source of confusion due to

ambiguity and this renders it inappropriate from the logical point of view to
draw any conclusion because of lack of certainty in the interpretation of the
phrase which means that no conclusion should be drawn. However, it is
important to note that the fallacy of amphiboli is committed when the
amphibolors premise is given the interpretation, which makes it true, and a
conclusion is drawn from it which makes it false.

e.g. All politicians are not corrupt so James who is a politician cannot be
said to be corrupt!!

What is meant by the amphibolous proposition is that some politicians are

not corrupt, but the conclusion is drawn as if the phrase means that no
politician is corrupt.

The grammatical error can also result from dangling participles i.e. when a
comma is not put in its proper place.

It should be noted at this point that the divisions and categorisation of

fallacies is usually never rigid because the gist of understanding fallacies
rests in the identification of the error in reasoning and how the error can be
addressed. In this case, more than the fallacy may be committed and
identified in one instance of reasoning. As the great logician De Morgan
reiterated, we cannot pretend to be able to exhaustively classify the various
ways in which mistakes can be made in reasoning.

REQUIRED READING

1. COPT, I. Introduction to Logic. New York: Mcmillan Publishing

Company, 1990.
2. Popkin, R and Stroll, A. Philosophy Made Simple. London: Allen, 1969.
3. Wambari, K. Reading In Introduction To Critical Thinking, Kijabe:
A.I.C. Kijabe Printing Press.

RECOMMENDED READING

1. Bittle, C. The Science of Correct thinking milwawkee: The Bruce

Publishing Company, 1950.
2. Rafalko, R. Logic for an overcast Tuesday Belmont: Belmont Publishing
Company, 1990.
3. Waller, B. Critical Thinking; Consider the Verdict New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1998.
DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS

1. Categorical syllogism. This is a two premised argument which asserts

class inclusion or exclusion either in part or whole.
2. Form/structure. These words refer to the logical arrangement of terms.
This constitutes the logical positioning or arrangement of the terms
involved in reasoning or an argument.
3. Premise. The word refers to the proposition(s) or statement(s) that
constitute or are/IS at least claimed to constitute the basis, evidence or
ground for a certain assertion or conclusion in a reasoning process.
4. Proposition. An assertion which has a truth value i.e. an assertion,
statement or sentence which can be said to be true or false.
5. Syllogism. Refers to an argument which has two premises.
6. Term. This constitutes a word or group of words which has/have logical
meaning or import.

PART B: APPLICATION

LESSON SEVEN

INDIVIDUALITY
Common to human persons is the problem of inadequacy in perfecting their characters to
such an extent that society benefits from their existence. Evidence abounds of people
who, despite being members of a wider society continuously look at themselves as the
centre of everything. Human ego, greed and personal desires have hindered man from
appreciating the worth of serving society and embracing those virtues that define a well
developed, perfected and endowed human character that is necessary for the human well-
being.

Individuality can be defined as the ability and capacity to exercise autonomy, ability to
stand out and think for oneself, creativity and productiveness, having independence of
thought, distinctive innovativeness as elements definitive of human persons as rational
beings. Individuality entails being considerate of others, restraint from selfish tendencies
(selflessness), ability to value greatest happiness for the greatest majority, honest of
purpose, integrity, benevolence, empathy, courage, respect for others and faith in reason
among others. These virtues can be contrasted against individualism which entails
selfishness, being driven by the self-ego, lack of appreciation for others and
unprecedented greed both in terms of our actions and ideas or opinions that we hold.

John Stuart Mills’ essay on Individuality is entitled “On liberty of thought and
Individuality as element of well being”. In the essay he discusses the degree to which the
government and society may interfere in the lives of the citizens. His argument is that as
human beings we are endowed with the ability to think and determine the destiny of our
own lives. As a result he argues that such interference by the government in the freedom
and liberties of individual persons is only necessary if it aims at preventing one person
from harming the other but such interference cannot be warranted where the government
has as its aim to appropriate and usurp the freedom and liberties of individual persons and
therefore gag their creative potentials.

The traits of individuality are essential for creativity and innovativeness. People who
embrace these traits are the ones who propel change, creativity and progress that leads to
development of any human society. In this respect the creative minority in any society
have always exhibited these scarce and unique characteristics that have led to the
emergence of great nations, inventions and civilizations worldwide.

Examples of minority creative minds abound; they have always stood out as the liberators
and innovators in history- epitomes of change. These are people who have stood for
ideals that have through history transformed the lives of their fellow human beings and
the world we inhabit. For example, Indira Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and
even Jesus Christ stand out as models of those who embrace individuality.

Individuality entails the liberties to hold opinion, expression, association and

choice among others. And since the people who embrace individuality aim at
improving and contribution to the wellbeing of society by way of their creativity
and innovativeness, they have always stood out as the role models in society. It
is by virtue of the uniqueness of their character that such people have always
emerged as heroes in history and architects of civilizations.
In conclusion it is evident that the character of those that embrace individuality
is unique in a way that delineated them from conformist majority in society who
are mere consumers of their innovativeness. In other word individuality does
not only lead to development of individual unique character but it also
enormously contributes to the wellbeing of society and the rest of its members
Indeed, individuality is the basic element of the wellbeing of human society.

REFERENCE

Internet Sources

Namwambah, T. N. 2006. Essentials of Critical and Creative Thinking.

Didaxis: Nairobi

Namwambah, T. N. 2005. Introduction to Critical and Creative Thinking:

Student Companion. Kenpak: Nairobi.

Wambari, K. 1993. Readings in Introduction to Critical and Creative

Thinking. AIC: Kijabe.

LESSON EIGHT
APPEARANCE AND REALITY

LESSON NINE
THINKING FOR ONESELF
LESSON TEN

PRACTICALITY OF CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

PRACTICALITY OF CRITICAL AND CRATIVE THINKING

INTRODUCTION

In the previous lessons, we discussed in detail aspects to do with the

description of what philosophy is in general, and in particular what critical
and creative thinking entails. In the process, we tried to indicate the meaning
of the concepts "critically", "creativity, and "thinking". We tried to show
how the above concepts greatly impact on every human endeavor, be it in
ethics, epistemology, logic and metaphysics, which as you may remember,
comprise the major divisions of philosophy.

There have, however, been unfounded and unjustified claims from some
quarters, that philosophy an hence critical and creative thinking is highly
abstract, not realistic and by implication impractical. We beg to differ with
this claim.

In this unit, therefore, we are going to try and demonstrate the practicality of
philosophy in general, and critical and creative thinking in particular, in
various endeavors, arguing very strongly that without a philosophical basis,
many practical issues in life do, infact go the wrong way. We are going to do
this by way of examining the views of one reknowned Ghananian
philosopher-Kwasi Wiredu- whose essay is entitled "what can philosophy do
for Africa".

Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

i) correctly sugggest or identify human situations in life where

philosophy is readily applicable.
ii) Evaluate various contexts in society with regards to the use or lack of
use of philosophy
iii) Appropriate and demonstrate, by way of several personal examples,
the practically of philosophy.

At this stage, we need, first to remind ourselves about the central concepts of
"philosophy", THINKING, CRITICAL THINKING and CREATIVITY" We
begin with the general definition of philosophy.

Philosophy may generally be taken to refer to a reflective and reasoned

attempt to infer the character and content of the universe, taken in its entirety
and as a single whole, from an observation and study of the data presented
by all its aspects (Wambari, 1992, p. ii).

Philosophy, it must be remembered, has athe function of critically examining

phrases and concepts impartially and reasonably to clasify their meaning and
use in daily human concern.

THINKING : Is any mental process or activity involving ideas. It ranges

from antomatic and unregulated dreaming in sleep, through day-dreaming to
reflective critical thinking where the activity is deliberately directed to
contemplate itself. The activity of thinking includes such acts as
remembering, having feelings, doubting, questioning, reasoning and making
judgements. It is a manifestation that some thing is going on in our heads.
There is a lowere and higher order thinking.

CRITICAL THINKING - Lies on the higher level of thinking. It is described

as the habit of carefully reasoned inspection of the way we evaluate, judge
and act with the aim of making ourselves wiser, more self-reflective and
therefore better men and women. A critical thinker thinks for him/herself as
an individual and accepts only what has been proved or demonstrated to the
satisfactiin of reason.

CREATIVITY - Has something to do with bringing forth something new. It

is an immediate result of critical thinking aimed as solving certain problems
or dealing with certain situations in everyday life. For example, where one is
unable to use a regular toothbrush, because he/she forgot it somewhere,
creativity demands that one looks for an alternative in order to bruch his/her
teeth.
NOTE:
It is very important to remember or carry along the above
meaning of the terms given above as you move to the next
stages of this lesson.

QUESTION:
Is it possible that small children of the ages 6 months - 1 year
think critically and creatively.

ACTIVITY:
Together with a friend, discuss and note down the various
contexts where thinking, critically and creatively is important.

Having reminded ourselves of the important concepts in critical and creative

thinking, we now move to the next stage where the ideas of Kwasi Wiredu
are examined.

-According to Kwasi Wiredu:

 man lives in a complex world
 Despite this complexity, man must understand the world in which he
lives
 This understanding is difficult, unfishable but an attempt is essential.
 Throughout history, therefore, philosophers, who are men and women in
this world, have been engaged in trying to understand the world.
 This understanding is not just an end in itself. It generally for the
practical good of man, for the improvement of society.
 This improvement of society actually implies change, which is
apparently inevitable in society.
 Now, whereas change is inevitable in society, the ideas leading to this
change have to be managed carefully and reasonably, otherwise we
could end up with half-baked ideas leading to change that is disastrous
to society.
  This is particularly so in Africa where we are under pressure to change
our political, ans social organization from modern conditions and
foreign influence.

NOTE:
The above brief is important for the philosopher because it is
here, as Wiredu suggests, that the philosopher comes in. But
how does the philosopher come in? The next stage shows us
clearly.

The philosopher, who is expected to be a thinker, must let his voice be heard
on what mode of organization is best suited for the society.
He must take an active part, leading in the praisal of our traditional culture.
The philosopher should be able to reveal the basic principles on which to
manage this change

Whereas change is inevitable, change for the sake of mere change could be
disastrous. The philosophers need to look critically and advise accordingly.

NOTE:

Wiredu insists that even though change is inevitable in society,

this change occasioned by emerging ideas need critical
examination. The critically examined and evaluated to check
their suitability for the society. It is here that the philosopher is
most needed.

QUESTION
Suggest reasons why you either agree or disagree with Wiredu
on the idea of critically examining ideas that lead to change in
society.
ACTIVITY
Try, together with friends, to identify and discuss areas
in our Kenyan independence where philosophy would
really have helped.

CHOICE OF A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM

 Wiredu argues that in case of a choice of a social and political system

for example, there is need for an ideology to be followed, infact people
ask for it.
 An ideology is a set of ideas about what form the good society should
take.
 Ideas, however,, need a basis in first principles, and it is here that
philosophy enters.
 Wiredu is worried that usually calls for ideology is seen as a demand for
a ready made set of ideas which are meant to be adopted - sometimes
even by force.
 The philosopher, according to Wiredu, needs to positively oppose the
emergence of forced dogmas-because ideology in this sense is a
negation of philosophy and a bar to development.
 Forced dogmas denies others the opportunity to think for themselves. It
renders others unable to think for themselves and this is the worst sin in
philosophy.
 Ideas need to be thought of by all individuals and where need be
contrary and competing ideas be expressed for purposes of choice.
 Philosophers need not issue social prescriptions but encourage people to
look critically at our cultures and where necessary acknowledge our
short comings. If possible, borrowing should be allowed but this should
also be done after retinal reflection.
 This initiative according to Wiredu, will not come from the people at
large, but must come from the thinkers. It is the thinkers that will give
direction to the society.
 Wiredu further suggests that the philosopher needs not fear discussing
issues that are thought of as abstract. This is because, it is sometimes
such abstract issues. They need to b analysed and people helped to think
critically about such abstract notions as "truth", which lie at the base of
ideological discourse.
SUMMARY

In this lesson, we have tried to show that philosophy-hence critical and

creative thinking is practical and necessary to society. We have noted that
ideas are sources of change which is inevitable in society. However, change,
unless viewed critically, where ideas are analyzed and dissected, this change
that ought always be for the good, could end up being disastrous. Philosophy
provides this criticality in every aspect of the society's endeavors. This
clearly demonstrates that, far from being impractical, philosophy is perhaps
the most practical of all subjects.

DEFINITATIONS OF KEY WORDS

- Refer to stage 1 of the lesson content.

READING LIST

i) Required reading
a) WAMBARI, K (Ed.) 1992: Readings in Introduction to Critical
Thinking, A.I.C. Kijabe Printing Press, Kijabe.

ii) Recommended Reading

a) John-Terry C. 1994: For the love of wisdom: An explanation of the
meaning and purpose of philosophy. Alba house-New York.
b) Wilson, J. 1968: Philosophy: Thinking about meaning. Heineman
Educational Books-London.
c) Clark, M: 1973: The need to question. An introduction to
philosophy Prentice-Hall in New Jersey.

LESSON ELEVEN

PURSUIT OF TRUTH
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this lesson, I am going to discuss the notion of truth. I will proceed by
examining different attempts by philosophers to define truth. These efforts
have resulted in many theories of truth but I will concentrate on the three
main ones: the correspondence theory, the coherence theory and the
pragmatic theory. As you go through this lesson, carefully consider the
nature of truth. Find out whether truth is provisional absolute or self-evident.
Try also to distinguish between truth and opinion.

3.2 Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Demonstrate that no one person or a group of people has a monopoly of

the truth.
2. Explain the basic tenets of the correspondence coherence and pragmatic
theories of truth.
3. Identify the strength and weaknesses of each theory.

What is the TRUTH?

"Answer to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

(In a court of law)

Jesus: Mu task is to bear witness to the truth

Pilate: What is the truth?

Jesus: You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.1

You definitely have heard somebody talk about the 'truth'. You, at one point
or another, have asked a friend or relative to tell you the truth about some
matter. The above statements are just but a selection of occasions where the
question of truth has been raised.

Coming back to you, have you ever stopped to ponder over Pilates question
to Jesus? Before we go any further, please try to answer, in your own way,
this question. Elaborate on each and suggest some activities to reinforce
understanding.

3.3 Truth as a Relation

Whenever one talks about a relation, the idea that comes to one's mind is
that of a link or connection between two or more parties. In all, a relation
involves at least two entities, for convenience sake let me name them A and
B. A and B can be anything, man stone, dog, clouds, and so on.. They are
said to be related if they interact in some way.

For our purposes in this lesson, the kind of interaction that defines a truth
relation is that of cognition. By cognition, I simply mean the process by
which we come to know or acquire our knowledge. In this process of
knowing, there are two parties involved; the subject (or the knower) and the
object of knowledge (or the thing - to be known). When you know, you are
the knower and what you know is the known. There is therefore a
relationship between the knower and the known especially when you express
those objects of your knowledge.

I want to emphasize here that the objects of our knowledge in themselves are
neither true nor false, they just are or are not. Truth has to do with the
assertions or claims we make about these objects of our knowledge or
things.

NOTE:
Things in themselves such as man houses, dogs, rainbow etc are
nothing but just that. They tell us nothing about truth. However
when one says something about these things then one introduces
a relationship. Hence it is important to note that truth as a
relation involves a claim about something.
Questions Activity

That house is ours, Rainbow will win the elections etc.

Stage III - Correspondence Theory

The correspondence theory is the most widely accepted theory of truth. This
is because many people regard it as obvious. According to this theory, truth
is taken as fidelity to objective reality. This is to say that truth is that which
conforms to fact or agrees with the actual situation. An idea, belief,
statement etc is called 'true' if it agrees with a fact. Hence truth is defined as
the agreement between the statement of fact and the actual fact. If a
statement corresponds with the facts, it is true, if it is not, then it is false.

Example:

i) The statement, "All vegetables are vertebrate" is true only if in actual

fact all vegetables are vertebrate. This can be ascertained by empirical
investigation.
ii) The statement "Snow is white" is true only if snow is white.

The above examples illustrate an important feature about correspondence

theory. The idea that the truth or falsity of a statement or belief or idea
depends on how faithfully that statement or belief mirrors reality. This
observation has made some philosopher to refer to the correspondence
theory as the copy theory of truth.

Question:
Is the correspondence theory itself true? If so, what does it
correspond to?

NOTE:

1. This theory assumes that our sense data are always clear and accurate,
and that they disclose the nature of the world just as it is. But this is not
quite true. There are many occasions where the mind (experience) tends
to enter into and modify our views of the world. As a result, many critics
of this theory do not think that it is clear and self evident as its supporters
 affirm. They wonder how one can get outside her experiences so that she
can compare her ideas with reality as it actually is.
2. We have knowledge of meanings, relations and values as in mathematics,
logic and ethics. We clearly desire to know the truth about these
disciplines. Unfortunately, they do not have an objective reality (outside
the realm of human thought) with which we can make comparisons and
check to see whether they correspond. In such areas, the correspondence
theory is irrelevant and of little assistance.

Question:

According to the correspondence theory, how do we tell when

our belief or idea is true or false?

3.4 Coherence Theory

In the last section I showed that there is a problem with the correspondence
theory of truth. Since we cannot directly compare our ideas with the world
as it is, the coherence theory places its tusk in the consistency or harmony of
all our ideas or beliefs or statement. An idea or belief is true if it is consistent
with other ideas or beliefs that are accepted or known to be true. You will
realize, here, that the conception of agreement with fact is replaced by that
of consistency.

By now I hope you are aware that consistency is a logical property which
concerns the relations of ideas with one another. Ordinarily, we judge an
idea or beliefs or statement to be true or false on the ground that it is or is
not in harmony with what we have already discovered to be true. On this
basis we reject many ideas which do not 'fit in' with what ha sharpened in
the past. In other words, we accept new ideas or beliefs as truths on the basis
of the manner in which they cohere with knowledge we already posses.
NOTE:

1. Consistency is not a sufficient guarantee of factual truth. It is extremely

difficult for one to prove the truth of a simple factual statement with this
theory.

Example: Juliet loves Brian. How can we determine the truth of such
a statement.

2. A belief can be consistent with all other beliefs and yet no independent
supporting evidence. In such instances it is difficult to distinguish
between a consistent false hood and a consistent truth.

Example: In a court of law all evidence can consistently point to the

accused as the person who committed a heinous crime but in actual
fact he may not have done so. In such a case we need much more than
consistency to ascertain the factual truth.

3.4.1 Pragmatic Theory

Life for the pragmatists is essentially practical. All human activity is

purposive, and its purpose is the control of human experience with a
view to its improvement. For him, truth is but a means to this end.
Ideas, beliefs, statements, hypotheses, theories etc are only
instruments which man has 'made' in order to better both himself and
his environment. They may be specific in type, but like all other forms
of human activity they exist solely for this end and are true in so far as
they fulfil it. Truth is thus a form of value: It is something that works
satisfactorily, something that ministers to human interests purposes
and objects of desire. There are no self-evident truths. Until an idea or
judgement has proved itself of value in the manipulation of concrete
experience, it is but claim to truth.

At the same time pragmatists do not believe that there are any
absolute or irreversible truths statement is true so long as it proves
itself. There are several versions of this theory of truth which I am not
going to get into here. What I wish to advice is for you to consult Prof.
Wambari's book (see references) which highlights all these. However,
there is one point that I would like you to note. This is in regard to the
agreement amongst different nuances of this theory on the essential
 features. They all take it as the only theory which takes account of the
psychological process by which truth is made, and the only theory
which affords a satisfactory answer to the arguments of the septic.

NOTE:
Sometimes unreasonable beliefs 'work' a tribe
might believe that human sacrifice brings their
crops back each year.

The pragmatic theory of truth invites relativism as everyone might

hold different conceptions of what works or is useful for her. This also
might invite the notion that there are degrees of truth and thus invites
us to reject the law of non-contradiction (a claim is either true or
false).

LESSON TWELVE

CRITICALITY AND CREATIVITY IN QUALITY EDUCATION

A) What is Philosophy?
B) Characteristics of Philosophy
C) Branches of Philosophy
D) Relevance of Philosophy

Key concepts:

Summary:
Self assessment, questions, activities

Further Reading