1

LECTURE GUIDE ONE

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING

Subject: Critical Thinking and Argumentation

Subject Code Number: PA 214
Time: 08: 00 – 10: 00 am
Day: Wednesday
Date of Lecture: 8th Nov, 2017
Lecture Duration: 2Hours

1. Definition

There have been many definitions of Critical Thinking. The most general one is that: Critical
Thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. From the practical point of view,
Critical Thinking may be defined as: A process by which we use our knowledge and
intelligence to effectively arrive at the most reasonable and justifiable positions on issues,
and which endeavors to identify and overcome the numerous hindrances to rational
thinking.

Just because you are intelligent or have great knowledge does not mean you can think
critically. A profound genius may have the most irrational of beliefs or the most
unreasonable of opinions. Critical thinking is about how we use our intelligence and
knowledge to reach objective and rationale viewpoints. Opinions and beliefs based on
critical thinking stand on firmer ground compared to those formulated through less rational
processes. Additionally, critical thinkers are usually better equipped to make decisions and
solve problems compared to those who lack this ability.

Someone with critical thinking skills is able to:

 Understand the logical connections between ideas

 Identify, construct and evaluate arguments
 Detects inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
 Solve problems systematically
 Identify the relevance and importance of ideas
 Reflect on the justification of one‘s own beliefs and values.
 2

Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and
who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to
deduce consequences from what he knows and he knows how to make use of information to
solve problems and seek relevant sources of information to inform himself.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other
people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning,
critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks.
Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge; improve our theories and strengthen arguments.
We can use critical thinking to enhance work process and improve social institutions.

Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking ―out-of the-box‖, challenging consensus and
pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, thinking is an essential part of creativity because
we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

Critical thinking is more than thinking logically or analytically; it also means thinking rationally
or objectively. There is an important distinction. Logic and analysis are essentially philosophical
and mathematical concepts, whereas thinking rationally and objectively are broader concepts that
also embody the fields of psychology and sociology. These latter two areas address the complex
effects of human behavior (e.g., hindrances) on our thinking processes.

2. Importance of Critical Thinking

2.1. Critical thinking is a domain-general skill: The ability to think clearly and rationally is
important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or
the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are
not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems
systematically is an asset for any career.

2.2. Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy: The global
knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to deal with changes
quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual
skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in
solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills and is very important in
the fast-changing workplace.

2.3. Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills: Thinking clearly and
systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical
structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.
 3

2.4. Critical thinking promotes creativity: To come up with a creative solution to a problem
involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated
are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new
ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

2.5. Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection: In order to live a meaningful life and
structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions.
Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

2.6. Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and a liberal democratic society:
Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The
proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social
issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

3. The Objectives of Critical Thinking

3.1. Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment,
and the relevant critical for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for
forming the judgment and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem
and the question at hand.

3.2. Critical thinking employs not only logic but also broad intellectual critical such as
clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and famine.

3.3. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it
tends.

3.4. Enabling people to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity and
discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments.

3.5. Enable to recognize the existence or non- existence of logical relationship between
propositions and draw warranted conclusions and generalizations.

3.6. To put and to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to
reconstruct one‘s patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experiences and to render a accurate
judgment about specific things and qualities in everyday life.

4. What Critical Thinking Is Not

 4

a) Thinking critically is not thinking negatively with a predisposition to find fault or flaws.
It is a neutral and unbiased process for evaluating claims or opinions, either someone
else‘s or our own.
b) Critical thinking is not intended to make people think alike. For one reason, critical
thinking is distinct from one‘s values or principles. There will always be differences in
perception and basic emotional needs which prevent us from all thinking the same way.
c) Critical thinking does not threaten one‘s individuality or personality. It may increase
your objectivity, but it will not change who you are.
d) It is not a belief. Critical thinking can evaluate the validity of beliefs, but it is not a
belief by itself – it is a process.
e) Critical thinking does not discourage or replace feelings or emotional thinking.
Emotions give our lives meaning, pleasure, and a sense of purpose. Critical thinking
cannot possibly fulfill this role. Still, emotional decisions that are also critical decisions
(such as deciding to get married or have children) should embody critical thinking.
f) Critical thinking does not blindly support everything based on science. For example,
our culture is full of bogus scientific claims that are used to market everything from
breakfast cereal to breast enhancement pills.
g) It is also important to understand that arguments based on critical thinking are not
necessarily the most persuasive. Perhaps more often than not, the most persuasive
arguments are those designed to appeal to our basic human/emotional needs rather than to
our sense of objectivity. For that reason, it is common for highly persuasive arguments
by politicians, TV evangelists, and sales people, among others, to intentionally lack
critical thinking.

5. How to become a critical thinker

Becoming an accomplished critical thinker can be considered in the following five-step process:

 Adopt the Attitude of a Critical Thinker

 Identify and Characterize Arguments
 Evaluate Information Sources
 Evaluate Arguments
 Recognize and Avoid Critical Thinking Hindrances.
5.1. Adopt the Attitude of a Critical Thinker

The first step to becoming a proficient critical thinker is developing the proper attitude. Such an
attitude embodies the following characteristics:

i. Open-mindedness
 5

ii. Healthy skepticism

iii. Intellectual humility
iv. Free thinking
v. High motivation
vi. Being neither dogmatic nor gullible1.
The first two characteristics may appear contradictory, but they are not. The critical thinker must
be willing to investigate viewpoints different from his or her own, but at the same time recognize
when to doubt claims that do not merit such investigation. A critical thinker must be neither
dogmatic nor gullible.

a) Being both open-minded and skeptical means seeking out the facts, information sources,
and reasoning to support issues we intend to judge; examining issues from as many sides
as possible; rationally looking for the good and bad points of the various sides examined;
accepting the fact that we may be in error ourselves; and maintaining the goal of getting
at the truth (or as close to the truth as possible), rather than trying to please others or find
fault with their views. Too much skepticism will lead one to doubt everything and
commit oneself to nothing, while too little will lead one to gullibility and credulousness.
b) Having intellectual humility means adhering tentatively to recently acquired opinions;
being prepared to examine new evidence and arguments even if such examination leads
one to discover flaws in one‘s own cherished beliefs; to stop thinking that complex issues
can be reduced to matters of ‗right & wrong‘ or ‗black & white‘, and to begin thinking in
terms of ‗degrees of certainty‘ or ‗shades of grey‘. Sometimes ‗I don‘t know‘ can be the
wisest position to take on an issue. As Socrates noted: Arrogance does not befit the
critical thinker.
c) A critical thinker must also have an independent mind, i.e., Be a free thinker. To think
freely, one must restrain one‘s desire to believe because of social pressures to conform.
This can be quite difficult or even impossible for some. One must be willing to ask if
conformity is motivating one‘s belief or opinion, and if so, have the strength and courage
to at least temporarily abandon one‘s position until he or she can complete a more
objective and thorough evaluation.

1
Gullible= not easy to be fooled, so innocent to the extent of accepting everything.
 6

d) Finally, a critical thinker must have a natural curiosity to further one‘s understanding and
be highly motivated to put in the necessary work sufficient to evaluate the multiple sides
of issues. The only way one can overcome the lack of essential knowledge on a subject is
to do the necessary studying to reach a sufficient level of understanding before making
judgments. This may require the critical thinker to ask many questions, which can be
unsettling to those asked to respond. A critical thinker cannot be lazy.

5.2. Identify & Characterize Arguments

 At the heart of critical thinking is the ability to recognize, construct, and evaluate
arguments.
 The word argument may be misleading to some.
o It does not mean to quarrel, complain, or disagree, even though the word is
often used informally in that context.
o In the context of critical thinking, an argument means the presentation of a
reason(s) to support a conclusion(s), or:
Argument = Reason + Conclusion

Argument example:

Conclusion indicator reason

Don‘t trust John because he is a politician

There must be one or more reason statements and one or more conclusion statements in every
argument.

 Depending on usage and context, reasons are synonymous with: premises, evidence,
data, propositions, proofs, and verification.
 Again, depending on usage and context, conclusions are synonymous with: claims,
actions, verdicts, propositions, and opinions.
A critical thinker must learn to pick out arguments from verbal or written communication.
Sometimes arguments will have indicators such as ‗since‘, ‗because‘, ‗for‘, ‗for the reason that‘,
and ‗as indicated by‘ to separate the conclusion statement(s) from the reason statement(s) that
follows (see above example).
 7

 At other times, arguments will have indicators such as ‗therefore‘, ‗thus‘, ‗so‘, ‗hence‘,
and ‗it follows that‘ to separate the reason statement(s) from the conclusion statement(s)
that follows.
 In some cases there will be no indicator words at all; the context alone will indicate if a
statement is intended as a reason, a conclusion, or neither.

Formal logic divides arguments into:

a) Inductive and
b) Deductive arguments.
While critical thinking is an informal application of logic, the critical thinker should at least
understand the fundamental differences between the two forms:

1. If one thing follows necessarily from another, this implies a deductive argument.
2. In other words, a deductive argument exists when ‗B‘ may be logically and
necessarily inferred from ‗A.‘
For example, if one makes the statement:

―All bachelors are unmarried („A‟)”

and

―John is a bachelor („B‟)

‖, then one can deductively reach the conclusion that

―John must be unmarried‖.

However, most arguments that one encounters in daily life are inductive. Unlike deductive
arguments:

a) Inductive arguments are not ‗black and white‘, because they do not prove their
conclusions with necessity. Instead,
b) They are based on reasonable grounds for their conclusion.
c) A critical thinker should understand that no matter how strong the evidence in support
of an inductive argument, it will never prove its conclusion by following with necessity
or with absolute certainty.
 8

d) Instead, a deductive argument provides only proof to a degree of probability or

certainty.
e) Arguments presented by courtroom attorneys are good examples of inductive
arguments, whereupon a defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
(equivalent to reasonable grounds).
f) It is always possible that an inductive argument that has sound reasons will have an
erroneous conclusion. For example, even though a jury finds a defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt, there is always a possibility (even if remote) that the defendant had
not committed the crime.
g) The critical thinker should assess the cogency of inductive arguments. An argument is
cogent if, when the premises are all true then the conclusion is probably true. That is,
one should assess an inductive argument in terms of degrees of probability rather than
absolute ‗right & wrong‘ or ‗black &white‘. This applies even if a ‗yes/no‘ or
‗either/or‘ decision must be made or judgment must be rendered on the argument.

5.3. Evaluate Information Sources

 Most arguments reference facts to support conclusions.

 But an argument is only as strong as its weakest link. If the facts supporting an argument
are erroneous, so will be the argument.
 A critical thinker must have a sound approach for evaluating the validity of facts.
 Aside from one‘s personal experiences, facts are usually acquired from information
sources such as eyewitness testimony or people claiming to be experts.
 These sources are typically cited in the media or published in reference books.
In a society where entertainment and amusement have become lifelong goals, it is often difficult
to find unbiased and objective information on a subject. For example, the mass media has found
―what if‖ journalism sells very well: What if the President did some horrible thing; What if the
Secretary was motivated by some criminal behavior, etc. It is common to see reputable
journalists reporting on inflammatory speculation as if it was an important news event. How can
we expect to cut through the advertising, hype, spin, innuendos, speculation, distortions, and
misinformation overloads on TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and the internet, in order to
ascertain what is factually correct? Even some reputable publishers seem to have more
 9

interested in selling books or periodicals than confirming the truth of what they publish. So how
are we to know which information sources to trust?

 While there is no simple answer, a critical thinker should look for information sources
which are credible, unbiased, and accurate.
 This will depend on such things as the source‘s qualifications, integrity and reputation.
 In order to assess these conditions, the critical thinker must seek answers to the following
types of questions:
1. Does the information source have the necessary qualifications or level of understanding
to make the claim (conclusion)?
2. Does the source have a reputation for accuracy?
3. Does the source have a motive for being inaccurate or overly biased?
4. Are there any reasons for questioning the honesty or integrity of the source?
If any of the answers are ―no‖ to the first two questions or ―yes‖ to the last two, the critical
thinker should be hesitant about accepting arguments which rely on such sources for factual
information. This may require additional investigation to seek out more reliable information
sources.

Information sources often cite survey numbers and statistics, which are then used to support
arguments. It is extremely easy to fool people with numbers. Since the correct application of
numbers to support arguments is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important that a critical
thinker become educated in the fundamental principles of probability and statistics before
believing statistical information supporting an argument. One does not need to be a math major
to understand these principles. Some excellent books exist for the layman, such as How to Lie
With Statistics by Darrell Huff, and Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences
by John Allen Paulos. There are a few right ways and many wrong ways to sample populations,
perform calculations, and report the results. If a source is biased because of self-interest in the
outcome, it more often than not used one of the wrong ways.

 Perhaps the most important question the critical thinker should ask of any statistical result
is: Were the samples taken representative of (a good cross section of) the entire target
population?
 10

LECTURE TWO
5.4. Evaluate Arguments

The last step to critical thinking, evaluating arguments, is itself a three-step process to assess
whether:

a) Assumptions are warranted;

b) Reasoning is relevant and sufficient, and
c) Relevant information has been omitted.
Each step is described below.

i. Assumptions: Assumptions are essentially reasons implied in an argument that are taken
for granted to be true. Using our earlier argument example, ―Don‘t trust John because
he‘s a politician‖, the implied assumption is that politicians cannot be trusted. The first
step to evaluating arguments is to determine if there are any assumptions, and whether
such assumptions are warranted or unwarranted. A warranted assumption is one that is
either:
1. Known to be true; or
2. Is reasonable to accept without requiring another argument to support it.
An assumption is unwarranted if it fails to meet either of the two above
criteria. Regarding the first criterion, it may be necessary for the critical
thinker to perform independent research to verify what is ―known to be
true.‖ If the critical thinker, despite such research, is unable to make a
determination, he or she should not arbitrarily assume that the assumption is
unwarranted. Regarding the second criterion, a critical thinker normally
evaluates the reasonableness of assumptions in relation to three factors: a)
one‘s own knowledge and experience; b) the information source for the
assumption; and c) the kind of claim being made. If an argument has an
unwarranted assumption, and if this assumption is needed to validate the
argument‘s conclusion, the critical thinker has good cause to question the
validity of the entire argument. Some of the hindrances listed in the tables,
especially Tables 3 and 4, provide the basis for many unwarranted
assumptions.
 11

ii. Reasoning: The second step to evaluating arguments is to assess the relevance and
sufficiency of the reasoning (or evidence) in support of the argument‘s conclusion. It is
helpful to think of ―relevance‖ as the quality of the reasoning, and ―sufficiency‖ as the
quantity of the reasoning. Good arguments should have both quality (be relevant) and
quantity (be sufficient). It is generally easier (although not always) to pick out reasoning
that is relevant (i.e., on the subject or logically related) than it is to determine if the
reasoning is sufficient (i.e., enough to validate the argument). So how can one evaluate
the sufficiency of reasoning (evidence) to support a conclusion? The term reasonable
doubt, as used in a court of law, is considered a good guideline. But how does one go
about determining reasonable doubt? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer, but here are
some criteria. First, it is important to maintain the attitude of a critical thinker (from Step
1) and be aware of critical thinking hindrances (from Step 2). Second, ask yourself the
purpose or consequences of the argument being made. This will sometimes determine
how much (sufficiency) evidence is required. Third, become aware of contemporary
standards of evidence for the subject. For example, you could not judge the sufficiency
of evidence for a scientific claim unless you were knowledgeable of the methods and
standards for testing similar scientific claims. Finally, the sufficiency of evidence should
be in proportion to the strength to which the conclusion is being asserted. Thus, evidence
that is not sufficient to support a strong conclusion (Example: John definitely bought the
painting) may be sufficient to support a weaker conclusion (Example: John may have
bought the painting). In these examples, if the evidence was limited to a photograph of
John at an art store on the same day the painting was purchased, this evidence would not
be sufficient to prove the stronger conclusion, but it may be sufficient to prove the
weaker conclusion. When evaluating multiple pieces of evidence, both pro and con, how
does one weigh the evidence to determine if, overall, the argument is cogent? Again,
there is no hard and fast rule. All else being equal, the more reliable the source (from
Step 4), the more weight should be given to the evidence. Additionally, more weight
should generally be given to superior evidence in terms of its relevance and sufficiency to
validate the argument, all else being equal. Many of the hindrances listed in the Tables
down provide examples of irrelevant or insufficient reasoning.
 12

iii. Omissions: A cogent argument is one that is complete, in that it presents all relevant
reasoning (evidence), not just evidence that supports the argument. Arguments that omit
relevant evidence can appear to be stronger than they really are. Thus, the final step to
evaluating arguments is attempting to determine if important evidence has been omitted
or suppressed. Sometimes this happens unintentionally by carelessness or ignorance, but
too often it is an intentional act. Since it is usually unproductive to confront arguers and
ask them to disclose their omissions, the critical thinker‘s best course of action is usually
to seek opposing arguments on the subject, which could hopefully reveal such omissions.
It is a rare arguer who actively seeks out opposing views and treats them seriously, yet
that is precisely what a critical thinker must do when developing his or her own
arguments.
Argument Checklist

Having understood the above five-step process, a critical thinker may wish to use the following
checklist when evaluating important arguments:

x Is there any ambiguity, vagueness, or obscurity that hinders my full understanding

of the argument?
x Does the argument embody any hindrances?
x Is the language excessively emotional or manipulative (see language hindrances,
Table 2)?
x Have I separated the reasoning (evidence) and relevant assumptions/facts from
background information, examples, and irrelevant information?
x Have I determined which assumptions are warranted versus unwarranted?
x Can I list the reasons (evidence) for the argument and any sub-arguments?
x Have I evaluated the truth, relevance, fairness, completeness, significance, and
sufficiency of the reasons (evidence) to support the conclusion?
x Do I need further information to make a reasonable judgment on the argument,
because of omissions or other reasons?
5.5. Recognize & Avoid Critical Thinking Hindrances
 13

Each day of our lives we become exposed to things that hinder our ability to think clearly,
accurately, and fairly. Some of these hindrances result from unintentional and natural human
limitations, while others are clearly calculated and manipulative. Some are obvious, but most are
subtle or insidious. Armed with the proper attitude, a critical thinker must next understand how
to recognize and avoid (or mitigate) the gauntlet of deception that characterizes everyday life.

These hindrances can be divided into four categories:

x Basic Human Limitations

x Use of Language
x Faulty Logic or Perception
x Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls
Each of which provides following a) a listing of hindrances applicable to that category; b) a
concise definition of each hindrance; c) illustrative examples; and d) tips to avoid or overcome
such hindrances.

Basic Human Limitations: Applies to everyone, including the most proficient critical thinkers.
These limitations remind us that we are not perfect and that our understanding of facts,
perceptions, memories, built-in biases, etc., precludes us from ever seeing or understanding the
world with total objectivity and clarity. The best we can do is to acquire a sufficient or adequate
understanding depending on the issue at hand.

The Use of Language: Is highly relevant to critical thinking. The choice of words themselves
can conceal the truth, mislead, confuse, or deceive us. From ads which guarantee easy weight
loss to politicians assuring prosperity for everyone, a critical thinker must learn to recognize
when words are not intended to communicate ideas or feelings, but rather to control thought and
behavior.

Misconceptions due to Faulty Logic or Perception or Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls:

Can also lead one to erroneous conclusions. A critical thinker must understand how numbers can
be used to mislead; perceptions can be misinterpreted due to psychological and sociological
influences; and reasoning can be twisted to gain influence and power.
 14

12. Hindrances Due To Basic Human Limitations

Hindrance Definition Example Critical Thinking Tip

The lack of essential One may be convinced a Perform appropriate research on

background ―yogi‖ has the power to multiple sides of issues to obtain
knowledge or levitate objects, but does all pertinent evidence, before
Ignorance
information on a not see the thin wire reaching conclusions.
subject prior to attached to them.
making a judgment.

Being unaware of Looking up at the stars at Recognize that ―seeing is not

our own perception night and perceiving they always believing‖ because of
Perception limitations that can are as close as the moon our sensory limitations. Know
Limitations lead to and planets. when & how to verify your
misconceptions observations with other
about reality. sources.

Stress, fatigue, drugs, Air traffic controllers Restrain from making critical
and related often have difficulty decisions when extremely
Physical &
hindrances can making good judgments exhausted or stressed.
Emotional
severely affect our after long hours on duty
Hindrances
ability to think
clearly and critically.

Hindrances Due To Use of Language

Hindrance Definition Example Critical Thinking Tip

A word or expression From the statement ―Lying If the intended meaning of an

that can be expert testified as trial‖, is ambiguous word or
Ambiguity understood in more the expert a liar or is the expression cannot be
than one way. person an expert on telling determined, avoid making
when someone is lying? judgments.
 15

Hindrances Due To Use of Language

Hindrance Definition Example Critical Thinking Tip

Stating opinions as The President took Distinguish what is fact from

though they were justifiable pride in signing what is opinion in any
Judgmental facts, so the audience the peace treaty. statement or argument.
Words does not have to
―bother‖ judging for
themselves.

Language which is If someone needs to be Be aware of the consequences

less precise than the paid back tomorrow, and of imprecise claims based on
context requires. the borrower says ―I‘ll pay vagueness.
Vagueness
you back soon‖, the
borrower‘s response was
too vague.

Hindrances Due To Faulty Logic or Perception

Hindrance Definition Example Critical Thinking Tip

A logical fallacy Believing that there must Do not believe a proposition

Argument
claiming something is be life on Mars because no simply because it cannot be
from
true because it has one has proved that there is proven false.
Ignorance
not been proven false. not life on Mars.

Hindrances Due To Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls

Hindrance Definition Example Critical Thinking Tip

Criticizing the person ―You should not believe a Focus on reasons & facts that
making an argument, word my opponent says support an argument, not the
Ad hominem
not the argument because he is just bitter person making the argument.
Fallacy
itself. because I am ahead in the Independently verify supporting
polls.‖ facts if the source is in question.
 16

Hindrances Due To Psychological and Sociological Pitfalls

Hindrance Definition Example Critical Thinking Tip

An appeal to the Thousands of years ago the A valid claim should be based
Ad populum, popularity of the average person believed on sound arguments, not
Bandwagon claim as a reason for that the world was flat popularity.
Fallacy accepting the claim simply because most other
people believed so.

Intentionally ―You are either with us, or Seek opposing arguments on the
Fallacy of
restricting the number with the terrorists!‖ subject which may reveal the
False
of alternatives, existence of other viable
Dilemma,
thereby omitting alternatives.
Either/or
relevant alternatives
Fallacy
from consideration.

An attempt to get a ―Since the Pope thinks Recognize that any appeal to
controversial claim capital punishment is authority is irrelevant to
Irrelevant
accepted on the basis morally justified, it must be providing logical grounds and
Appeal to
of it being supporting morally justified.‖ facts to support an argument.
Authority
by an admirably or
respectable person

Creating a prejudicial ―Anyone who supports When evaluating an argument,

atmosphere against removing troops from Iraq focus on the argument, not
Poisoning the the opposition, is a traitor!‖ prejudicial remarks.
Well making it difficult for
the opponent to be
received fairly.

LECTURE THREE

LOGIC.

General Introduction
According to previous lectures, it was established that critical thinking is emanating from the field of
philosophy. Philosophy has a number of courses or areas of study. However, in critical thinking we
employ three philosophical courses which are relevant to critical thinking namely, LOGIC,
 17

EPISTEMOLOGY and ETHICS. The reasons as why are we employing these course have been given in
previous lectures. Today, we start with logic as the study on the principles which leads one to correct
thinking. Logic will be divided into four parts, namely, introduction to logic, simple apprehension or
conceptualization, judgement or argumentation and lastly will be reasoning.

2.1Introduction
It is the nature of man that he thinks, that he speaks and that he does a variety of activities. In all
these operations , there must be a good sequence of ideas (in thinking), a good sequence of
words( in speaking) and a good sequence of actions (in acting) in order to reach a sound end.

Man is said to be logical if there is a proper sequence in his ideas, in his words and in his actions.
It is this proper sequence which make man avoid inconsistence and contradiction in thinking,
speaking and in acting.

In order to be logical, man has to abide by a set of principles (rules): The principles which make
him know which idea should come first in order to have a sound thinking; which word should
come first in order to have a sensible sentence; which action is to come first in a chain of actions;
which conclusion is to be drawn from a given premises; which cause is to be attributed to a given
effect, etc.

In this study of logic, we will treat the principles which man has to follow in order to have a
correct and consistent thinking, speaking and acting. It is the study which will lay a foundation
for a systematic study and explanation of all branches of knowledge.

7KHPHDQLQJRIWKHZRUG³/2*,&´
Etymologically, the term logic comes from Greek word logos which in Greek has two meanings:
a word or a thought. The logos therefore, literally means an external word which is uttered by the
lips, and it also means an internal ―word‖ (thought) contained in the mind.

The literal meaning of the Greek word LOGOS correspond to the double nature of logic,
namely:-

o Logic primarily deals with the internal thought about what man thinks, how he thinks and
how he internally organizes his internal thoughts.
o Secondarily, logic deals with the language (external words) which expresses externally
what man thinks (internally).
 18

2.3 Definition of logic

Logic is a science of correct thinking. It investigates the principles to be followed in order to
think well, to judge well and to express well externally one‘s thoughts in a language (written or
spoken).

It studies the principles of correct thinking in the sense that it investigates the principles up on
which one has to base himself in order to have a good sequence of ideas in thinking. For
instance, do not make a booking of a hotel in London before making booking for the air ticket to
London; do not prepare resurrection before preparing for death etc.

It studies the principles to be followed in order to make sound judgments. To judge is to make a
conclusion after making a comparative analysis between two things. If one person accuses
another person, it is logical to pass a judgment after hearing both persons and making a
comparative analysis between the two. Logic in its external aspect studies the principles to be
followed in order to have a good sequence of words and sentences in one‘s language. These
principles help one avoid contradictions and inconsistence in talking, in writing, in acting etc.

2.4The importance (relevance of logic)

Why should we study logic? Is it relevant in life? Is there anything wrong if our languages and
our lives in general are illogical?

Logic is very important for any scientific explanation of anything, for analysis and proofs of
truth, for understandable talk and writings etc. where there is reasoning, logic is a must. Among
others, its important aspects and applications are enumerated bellow:-

o Logic as a tool for study; by his nature man seeks for knowledge, he wants to acquire
truth. He uses logic in order to have a proper approach to truth. Logic helps man in his
studies to approach truth step by step (logically) and finally attain the required truth.
Logic helps him to know what he has to start with, what comes next etc. in the process of
seeking for truth.

o Logic as a tool for communication: The truth man knows by using logic is communicated
to others by using a language is it spoken or written. This communication of truth
demands a systematic order of the elements of this truth. There is an element which has
to come first and an element to come last. This logical order enables others to understand
the truth communicated. Illogical communication results into misunderstanding,
misinterpretation, ambiguities, etc.

o Logic as a tool for proofs (justifications): The truth of various sciences demands proofs or
justifications. Any proof demands an orderly arrangement of ideas which lead into a valid
 19

conclusion. It is logic which gives these principles to be followed in order to be

systematic and orderly in the process of proving something

o Logic as a tool for actual rationality in man:-Essentially, man is a rational animal. His
rationality lies in the fact that he attains truth (knowledge )through abstraction, a process
by which he forms ideas, then makes judgment (comparison between two ideas and then
the affirmation or negation of agreement between them), and finally, he makes reason in
which a conclusion is made or drawn from two or more premises.

All these processes of rationality demands logical principles. There must be some rules for some
one to attain any valid conclusion. Who ever endeavors to realize his rationality he must use
logic. In fact the use of logic and its principles is not confined to those who had a chance to study
logic in schools. Many people use rules of logic in talking, in writing, in thinking etc. even
sometimes unknowingly. In other words, they use principles which they can not explain. It is the
study of logic which helps man to know the principles which are behind his logical thinking,
talk, writing etc. As man knows these rules of logic he gets the ability to actualize his rationality
as he can apply these principles in various cases in life. The study of logic and eventually the
knowledge of rules of logic make the rationality of man to be more actual.

By way of conclusion, logic is at the service of all sciences. It is the handmaid of all branches of
knowledge. This means logic helps one understand, think well and assimilate what is taught in
all sciences. Any branch of knowledge presupposes the rules of logic. An effective study of any
branch of knowledge and its understanding depend very much on the use of the rules of logic.
These rules help one to have a systematic approach to any study and finally help one have an
orderly understanding of what he studies.

Logic is also said to be the handmaid of all sciences in the sense that it helps one to explain,
prove and analyze truth contained in all sciences. It is by the help of logic that the truth of any
science is communicated, analyzed, proved and defended. These facts of logic being the tool, the
handmaid of all branches of knowledge summarizes the rationale for the study of logic.

2.5 Logic compared to other sciences

The main relationship between logic to other sciences is that it is the tool of all sciences. It is a
tool used to approach all the sciences and a tool used to communicate and prove the truth of all
sciences. In spite of this relationship, logic has some similarities with some differences from
other sciences as explained below:

2.5.1 Logic and grammar

Similarity: Both deals with thoughts in the mind and with thoughts outside the mind expressed
in a language.
 20

Difference: Logic primarily and essentially deals with the thought in the mind and secondarily
with the language as an expression of the thought previously had in the mind. Grammar
primarily and essentially deals with the language (written or spoken thoughts) which is outside
the mind, and secondarily deals with the thoughts, that is to say, the meaning is contained in the
language, the thought expressed by the language. The difference between logic and grammar lies
in the order of their object.

2.5.2Logic and psychology

Similarity: They both deal with the human mind.

Difference: Logic deals with the operation of the mind which contributes to correct thinking. It
also deals with the content of human mind, that is, thoughts. Psychology on the other hand deals
with the human mind in general. This means psychology deals with operations of mind not only
those which contribute to correct thinking but also with those which have nothing to do with
correct thinking such as dreaming, sleeping, complexes etc. while logic deals with those
operations of the mind which contribute to correct thinking, psychology analyzes the
constitutions of the human mind, that is to say, it analyze the components of man‘s mind.

2.5.3 Logic and epistemology:

Similarity: Both deal with the principles that help man to reason correctly.

Difference: While logic treats the forms of reasoning, epistemology treats the truth concerning
the material upon which the mind thinks. The form here means a link between ideas, between
propositions etc.

2.5.4Logic and metaphysics:

Logic differs from metaphysics in its area of specialization. While logic concentrates on thinking
and on the principles used for correct thinking, metaphysics embraces all beings including
thinking and the principles of correct thinking.

2.5.5 Logic and natural science (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.)

Similarity: Both logic and natural sciences treat principles which lead to truth.

Difference: While logic treaties principle of correct thinking, natural science treaty principles of
nature. While logic treaties thought as its object, natural treat corporeal objects in their physical
and chemical properties.

2.5.6 Logic and Social sciences (Economic, politics, history etc.)

Similarity: Both deals with principles which are related to man in one way or another.
 21

Difference: While logic specializes on rules of correct thinking, social sciences deals with
principles connected with social life.

Conclusion

As regards the comparison between logic and other branches of knowledge, there are many
similarities and many divergences. The main relationship of logic and the rest of the sciences is
that the former is always at the service of the latter.

2.6 Logic as both science and as an art.

2.6.1 Logic as a science:

What is a science? Etymologically, the word science comes from a Latin verb “SCIRE” which
means “to know”. From the verb scire, a noun is derived, that is ―scientia‖ which literally means
knowledge. The Latin noun scientia was adopted into English in which it was given an equivalent
term science.

Higher than this literal sense, science means a systematic knowledge about a particular set of
related event or object. Every science is certain; that is to say, it is based on immutable
principles, and every science is a knowledge obtained through study.

Logic has all these properties of being a science. It is based on immutable principles and it
obtained through a systematic study. Logic has also an object of study for every science has its
area of concentration technically known as its object.

As a mere knowledge of principles of correct thinking without putting them into practice, logic is
said to be a mere science, a speculative science.

2.6.2 Logic as an art

What is an art?

It is the knowledge put into practice, when anything known is made practical then this
knowledge becomes an art. An art is obtained not through study but rather through practice.

Taking an example of a medical doctor: his knowledge of physiology and medicine is a science.
The application of this mere knowledge to a patient for instance in surgery is an art. Logic as a
mere knowledge of principles of correct thinking without putting them into practice is a mere
science, a speculative science. When these principles of correct thinking are put into practice to
think correctly, to judge correctly and listen correctly by giving correct argument then logic
becomes an art.
 22

Logic therefore is both an art and a science. It is therefore both, speculative and practical. As said
above a science which is a mere knowledge without a practical aspect is a mere science. If it can
be put into practice, such a science is called a practical science. It an art is not based on
principles, such an art is a mere art. E.g. A bird making its nest, a bee making honey etc. If an art
is backed by certain principles (especially those known by the artist), such an art is said to be a
scientific art such as an art of embroidery, an art cooking, an art of drawing (fine art) etc. Logic
is both a practical science (as its principles can be put into practice) and a scientific art (as logical
thinking, logical speaking and logical living are based on certain principles)

2.7 Division(classification) of logic

Logic is divided into formal, informal and material logic

2.7.1 Formal Logic or Minor logic

This is the branch of logic which treats the form of correct thinking. That is to say, it treats the
link between ideas and the link between propositions. It investigates as to whether the ideas and
the propositions (sentences) which lead to a conclusion are correctly connected.

Example, All second year students are Africans

Maula is a second year student

There fore Maula is an African.

In the above argument, there is a correct link between the propositions and the conclusion. There
fore form of this argument is right. Forma logic therefore studies the rectitude (rightness or
wrongness) of the connection (link) between two or more propositions which leads to a
conclusion.

Other examples

a) All second year students are Africans

Maula is a second year student

There fore Maula is a beautiful lady

(The form is wrong as the conclusion is not linked with the proceeding premises or propositions).

b) All Africans are Americans,

Yet Obama is an African

Therefore, Obama is an American.

 23

(The form is right as the conclusion follows from the premises).

2.7.2 Material Logic (Major Logic; epistemology or Gnoseology):

This is the branch of logic which considers the veracity (truthfulness or falsehood) of the matter
of reasoning, that is the truthfulness or falsehood of the premises used in reasoning. It is the
branch of logic which attempt to see whether the propositions or premises used in reasoning
correspond to the reality. It is the study therefore which attempts to discover whether what we
know (what we are convinced of) corresponds to the reality or we are certain in error. Material
logic does not treat the link between the premises (the flow of the conclusion from the premises)
but rather considers the truthfulness of the premises and of the conclusion.

Example:

All Tanzanian presidents are Indians by race.

John Magufuli is a president of Tanzania.

Therefore, John Magufuli is an Indian by race.

In this argument the form is right because the premises are correctly linked (the conclusion
follows from the premises). The matter on the other hand is false because some of the
propositions are false. The first premise is false and the conclusion is false as well. This
falsehood of some propositions is investigated by material logic.

2.7.3 Informal logic

This is the branch of logic which considers the language used in reasoning. It tackles the
linguistic problems incurred in the course of reasoning such as : Is the language used in
reasoning not ambiguous? Does the language covey the meaning intended? Is the language used
interpreted according to mind of the one using it?

Informal logic does not deal with the truthfulness of the premises as material logic does nor does
it deal with the link between the premises as formal logic does. It deals with the meaning
conveyed by the language used. Informal logic helps the one reasoning to have a right selection
of words to use in speaking or writing words which do not bring contradiction, ambiguity and
inconsistence. It also helps the one reasoning to make right interpretation of metaphorical
expression used in languages.

Example:

Jesus said I am a true vine

But a vine can not grow in a desert

 24

Therefore Jesus can not be in the desert.

The first premise ―I am a true vine‖ should be interpreted according to the mind of the speaker
(Jesus) before one draws a conclusion out of it. The word ―vine‖ is used figuratively and
therefore shouldn‘t be taken literally.

Other examples:

a) Time is money

Heidegger has ample time (for doing something)

Therefore, Heidegger has a lot of money.

b) All students studying educational studies are brothers

Valence and Evelius are students studying educational studies

Therefore Valence and Evelius are blood relatives.

LECTURE FOUR

Foundations of logic
Every science has its own principle up on which it bases itself. Logic bases itself on the
immutable, supreme, universal and eternal principles which are taken for granted in all processes
of correct thinking. These principles are immutable in the sense that their truthfulness remains
the same, cannot change. They are universal because their validity is applicable to all cases, they
are eternal because their validity has no time limit, and they are supreme because they are the
highest court of appeal so to say, they do not base themselves on any other principle which
precedes them. Due to this supremacy, the principles up on which logic bases itself are called the
first principles. The first principles of logic are:-

 The principle of non-contradiction

 The principle of identity
 The principle of excluded the middle
 The principle of causality/Principle of sufficient reason.

1. The principle of non-contradiction

The principle states, ―It is impossible for anything to be and not to be at the same time and
LQ WKH VDPH UHVSHFW VHQVH´
. This principle may be re-formulated in other words ―It is
impossible as the same time and in the same sense to affirm and deny the same reality‖ or
―Nothing can at the same time and in the same sense poses and be without the same reality‖ or
―Contradictions are incompatible‖

Explanation of the principle:

 25

This principle is the basis for all thinkers to be consistent in thinking. It is self-evident to anyone
with sound reason. Its denial leads one into skepticism, so to say an inclination of doubting
everything.

It is impossible to be and not to be at the same time: From experience it is evident that, for
instance, it is impossible for anyone to be a Tanzanian and non-Tanzanian here and now; a book
can not be white and white here and now; a flower can not be beautiful and beautiful here and
now etc. If one affirms that a flower is beautiful, he can not affirm the opposite that the same
flower is not beautiful. In case he does this contradiction, his thinking will be absurd and
inconsistent. The phrase at the same time is very important because it is quite possible for a
flower to be beautiful at noon and very ugly ten minutes later; one may be a Tanzanian today and
be a Zambian next year.

It is impossible to be and The not to

phrase in be…in
the same respect the s
means the same sense, the same meaning, under the same circumstances. The same reality can
not be affirmed of and denied of the same object in exactly the sense of that reality. Nobody for
example can be an African and not African here and now in the same sense of race. It is quite
possible for the same reality to be and not to be at the same time but in different respect. One can
be an African and a non-African at the same but the word African referring to two different
respects. One can be an African by race and a non-Africans by nationality, just as the black
American are. One can be a Tanzanian and a non-Tanzanian at the same time but referring to two
different respect of being or of not being a Tanzanian. He can be a Tanzanian by nationality and
a non-Tanzanian because of lacking patriotism.

Possible misapplication of the principle of non-contradiction

This principle may undergo a misapplication if the language used in reasoning has some
ambiguity, if it refers to different standards, if it refers to different parts of the same object, and if
it refers to different periods of time.

Misapplication due to ambiguity of words

When we say that contradictories can not be simultaneously true of the same object, example,
one being an Indian and a non-Indian, we must be aware of the ambiguity of being an India. If
this being an Indian is ambiguous, then the principle does not apply. Being an Indian can have
two meanings: A meaning of race (all Indian found every where in the world) and a meaning
referring to rationality (citizenship) referring to only those with the citizenship of the nation
called India even if they have different races.

Misapplication due to different standards of reference:

The adjectives used in languages do not have fixed degree of meanings. They are always
modified by the nouns or pronouns they qualify. This difference in the degree of meaning is what
we call different standard of reference. Example a man with one Million shillings is rich. In this
 26

statement, the adjective (rich) is not fixed in its degree of meaning. The one with one Million
shillings may be rich and not rich at the same time depending on the standard of reference. If
such a person is a simple African villager, he is really rich. If he is an international businessman,
who is supposed to travel widely and import cars etc. such a person is not rich because a million
shillings is too little for such business. The adjective ―rich‖ therefore varies in its degree of
meaning depending on the standard of the man it qualifies.

Misapplication due to different parts of reference of the same object:

In speaking of composite opposite we must be very exact in applying our terms to the same part
of the object. For example, a classroom may be clean and not clean at the same time if in the first
case we refer to the desks and in the second case we refer to the floor. A person may be a male
and not a male at the same time and in the same respect if we refer to different parts of his body.
Some parts of his body portray him to be a male and at the same time other parts portray him as a
non-male. But, the same part can not be of a male and male at the same time.

2. The principle of identity

It states that ―Whatever is, what it is; and whatever is not is not‖. So everything is its own being.
Everything is itself but in a way proportionate to its nature. This principle implies in all
judgements. In the affirmation judgement for instance I say that something is and that it is as it
is. Here I affirm the necessary identity of that which I affirm with it. Therefore, ―whatever is in
so far as it is, is and is what it is.‖ So this principle is not a mere tautology or it is not based on
the mere repetition like A=A, but predicates add to the subject the mode of necessity, which
stems from the Being of being. The judgement about being as being reveals that being is
precisely Being, self sufficient, self explanatory and not referring to anything else, and there fore
unconditioned and necessary.

3. The Principle of excluded the middle.

It states that, ―There is no middle ground between being (affirmation) and non-being (negation)‖.
Everything must either be or not be. Between ―being‖ and ―non-being‖ there is no middle or
third thing possible. In this way, it is reduced to the principle of non-contradiction and principle
of identity. If it is self evident that being is being and non-being is no-being; and if it is self
evident that a thing can not be and not be at the same time under the same respect, then it is also
self evident that there is no middle course possible between being and non-being.

4. The principle of causality/Principle of sufficient reason.

It states that ―whatever happens or becomes must have a cause for its happening or becoming‖.
The expression whatever happens means whatever beginning to be or to exist, becomes means
whatever passes from potentiality to actuality. Hence the principle can be formulated as follows;
whatever passes from a state of non-existence into a state of existence must have a efficient
cause for its existence.
 27

As such a principle is that from which something proceeds in any way whatever. And it implies
two factors: every principle is prior to that which proceeds from it and that priority is grounded
in the things themselves because of some special connection existing between them. And
principle is distinct from cause. Every cause is a principle but not every principle is a cause.

Every effect has a cause. Every contingent being has a cause. Whatever is caused from potency
to act is reduced by something already in act. What is has sufficient reason for its existence. This
kind of principle is not viewed as applicable to being as such, but only to create or finite being.

JUDGEMENT

Introduction
Judgement is the operation of the mind after simple apprehension and before reasoning. The first
operation of the mind (simple apprehension) is concerned with the formation of ideas, expression
of ideas by using terms and explaining ideas by using definitions and divisions. Judgement on
the other hand compares ideas and passes a statement whether such ideas agree or disagree with
each other. Such a statement is primarily internal (mental). It is expressed externally by using a
proposition.

The meaning and nature of judgement

1. Meaning and Nature

By definition judgement is the act of the mind pronouncing the agreement or disagreement of
two ideas. Two ideas are compared and then judged whether they agree or they disagree, whether
they are identical or not, whether they are related or not, etc. This pronouncement of the mind
(judgement) comes out in the form of a proposition, for example: Issa is man. In this example,
the idea of Issa is compared with the idea of man. Finally, these two ideas are judged that they
agree. Then the pronouncement is made that: Issa is man.

The two ideas compared are called the MATTER of the judgement. One of the idea is the subject
of the judgement and the other is the predicate. Example: Byera is a teacher. (Byera and teacher
are the matter). Another example: Theophil is not a girl. (Theophil and girl are the matter).
(Byera and Theophil are subjects, teacher and girl are predicates).

The pronouncement of the mind as regards the agreement or disagreement between the two ideas
is called the FORM of the judgement. This form is either the affirmation or negation of the
 28

agreement between the two ideas. It is ―IS‖ or ―IS NOT‖, ―ARE‖ or ―ARE NOT‖. The examples
given above, the form of the first example is IS. The form of the second example is IS NOT.

In order to pass a judgement, three things are necessary:

a) The mind must have a thorough understanding of the two ideas about which the
judgement is to be passed. A sound judgement can not be passed if the mind
knows only one idea. In such a case, there can not be a comparison and there fore
no valid judgement can be made.
b) The mind must compare the two ideas. In this comparison, the mind must seek for
the agreement or disagreement between the two ideas. It is not enough to know
thoroughly the two ideas, they must be compared in order to establish whether
they agree or disagree. The mind has to investigate whether there are common
elements between the two ideas or not. Just as in law court where a judgement is
passed after trial (seeking for evidences and prosecuting the accusing and the
accused), so also in this case, the mind has first to do comparison seeking for
agreement or disagreement between the ideas.
c) The mind must express externally by stating whether the two ideas agree or
disagree. It is this pronouncement which is called the FORM of judgement.

Propositions
Just as an idea which is internal (in the mind) is externally expressed verbally in the form of a
term, a judgement which is primarily internal is externally expressed verbally in a form of
PROPOSITION. By definition, a proposition is a sentence that pronounces the agreement or
disagreement between two ideas, so to say a sentence that expresses a judgement passed between
two ideas. From the definition, it is seen that all propositions are sentences. But not all sentences
are propositions. A sentence is said to be a proposition if it expresses a judgement that is if it
pronounces the agreement or disagreement between two things. For example: Ali is man: This
sentence is a proposition because it pronounces agreement between Ali and a concept man.
Another example is : Ali is not a stone: This sentence is a proposition for it expresses a
judgement by negating agreement between Ali and a stone. Another example: Is Ali a stone?
This is a sentence and not a proposition for it doesn‘t pronounce a judgement, means that it
doesn‘t state the agreement or disagreement between Ali and a stone. It simply asks.

NB: Sentences that express questions, commands, pleas, and wishes are not propositions as they
don‘t compare two ideas and do not pass any judgement what so ever. Example: Is John a priest?
(Question). Example: John should go! (Command), Example: May you lend me some money?
(Request or plea), May you enjoy a marry Christmas (wish).

Elements of a proposition:
Every logical proposition has three elements. The subject, the copula, and the predicate.
 29

The subject: Is the term which stands for the idea about which the pronouncement \is made. It is
a term, so to say, which represents the object which is judged. Example: John is man; man is an
animal etc.

The predicate: Is the term representing the idea which is affirmed or denied of the subject. It is
the term stand for the idea to which the subject is compared. Example: John is man; man is
animal.

The copula: Is the link between the subject and the predicate, a link which expresses the mental
act which pronounces the agreement or disagreement between the subject and the predicate. This
copula is always expressed by the verb TO BE (are, are not, is or is not.)

3. Reasoning

Introduction

Reasoning is an important aspect in getting knowledge, different forms of reasoning occur in

different fields. In critical thinking, the study of reasoning typically focuses on what makes
reasoning efficient or inefficient, appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad. Critical thinkers do
this by either examining the form or structure of the reasoning within arguments, or by
considering the broader methods used to reach particular goals of reasoning. Psychologists and
cognitive scientists, in contrast, tend to study how people reason, which cognitive and neural
processes are engaged, how cultural factors affect the inferences people draw.

What is reasoning
Reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or
feelings.

ARGUMENT
Argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as
the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the
conclusion. It can also be defined as a set of propositions which can be valid or invalid. In
critical thinking we specifically deal with syllogistic arguments, which are composed major and
minor premises as well as conclusion. Argument can be deductive or inductive.

A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the
premises;

An inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.
 30

Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and
only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its
corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true
premises.

Syllogistic (deductive) reasoning (Reasoning from general to particular)

Logical analysis is a process that comes naturally to the human mind. Although most of us
routinely do not consciously organize each distinct thought into neat little mental compartments
from which we then construct carefully articulated arguments, this very process is still much
more familiar to most of us than we realize. From our earliest childhood experiences we
intuitively have attempted to construct "logical" arguments.

For example since childhood: "Mother, Maureen's parents bought him a bicycle. Therefore, I
want a bicycle too!"

Of course, the formal logic in this plaintiff request is definitely flawed since there is no reason
why the mother can‘t buy a bicycle, but the basic structure of the logic is nevertheless present.
As you got older, you became more adept(skilfull) at structuring your arguments.

"Dad, Steve‘s father bought him a new car. You make as much money as steve's father, so you
should buy me a new car also."

The logic of this argument is definitely better (as evidenced by the fact that some of you may
actually have convinced your parents to buy you that new car), but it is still flawed. It fails to
identify and develop the major premise from which the conclusion is logically derived.

In this book, our first goal is to learn what specific components must be present in order to
construct a valid logical argument. The particular method of reasoning that we will study in this
book is known as a syllogism. Simply stated, a syllogism is a term that describes a particular
logical relationship between two arguments. It consists of three specific parts:

(1) The major premise (a broad statement of general applicability);

(2) The minor premise (a narrower statement of particular applicability that relates to the major
premise); and
(3) The conclusion (a statement that follows logically from and is consistent with both the major
and minor premises).

To illustrate how a logical syllogism argument is constructed, consider the following classic
example:
 31

(1) All men are mortal.

(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this example, the major premise is set forth in the first statement. It is a broad statement, that
relates generally to ALL men (i.e., it asserts that all men are mortal). The second statement is the
minor premise. It asserts very narrowly and specifically only that SOCRATES is a man. It says
nothing about other men in general. Thus, as compared to the major premise it is far more
specific, since it applies ONLY to one particular man, Socrates, and not to the broader class of
ALL men. Notice, major and the minor premises do have ONE common term. They both relate
to man, or men. Since both the major and the minor premises are related by this common term,
the conclusion set forth in the third statement is therefore logically consistent.

This basic form of syllogism provides an excellent example of deductive reasoning. In

deductive reasoning, both the major premise and the minor premise are worded in such a way
that the conclusion naturally and logically derives from combining a general statement with a
more particular statement in reference to the same common terms. A conclusion that has been
reached through this process of deductive reasoning is quite compelling in its simple logic.

Applying this same form of deductive reasoning to our earlier examples, we now can produce the
following logical argument:

(1) Every parent of a teenage driver in my class has provided a new car for their teenager to
drive.
(2) You are the parent(s) of a teenage driver in my class (i.e., me).
(3) Therefore, you will (or at least should) provide a new car for me to drive.

What parent(s) could resist such beautiful logic? And what student hasn't already mastered the
intricacies of carefully articulating the precise content of such major and minor premise
statements long before entering law school? In fact, whether we realize it or not, most of us are
already quite familiar with the basic concept of deductive reasoning. We have already learned
how to use and to apply it successfully in numerous situations throughout our everyday lives, and
we do this without even consciously ever thinking about it.

(1) One dollar will buy three candy bars.

(2) I have one dollar.
(3) Therefore, I can buy three candy bars.
 32

(1) All cars need gasoline to run.

(2) I have a car.
(3) Therefore, my car needs gasoline to run.

(1) All students who score "95" or higher on their Critical Thinking exam will get an "A."
(2) I scored a "95" on my Critical Thinking exam.
(3) Therefore, I will get an "A" in my Critical Thinking exam

Each of these syllogisms utilizes simple deductive reasoning. Anyone wishing to successfully
challenge a conclusion that has been deductively reasoned in this manner must do so by
attacking either the major or the minor premise (or both) from which the conclusion is derived. If
both of the underlying premises withstand attack, the conclusion, itself, is logically inescapable.

Most of us routinely apply this type of "logic" in countless ways each and every day of our lives.
As you of the critical thinkers, all of you really need now it, just to gain a clearer understanding
of precisely how this process of deductive reasoning actually works within the context of
thinking critically. Then, you can apply it intentionally to specific packages of knowledge you
are pursuing.

Now that you know what a logical syllogism is, let's look a little more closely at how they are
constructed. Logicians have developed six fairly basic rules for constructing valid syllogisms.
Although they may be stated in many different ways, essentially they are as follows:

Rule 1: All syllogisms must contain three terms: a major term, a minor term and a
transitory (or middle) term.

Rule 2: The transitory term must be "distributed" in at least one premise (either the major
premise or the minor premise).

Rule 3: The conclusion cannot contain any term that is not "distributed" in at least one
premise (either the minor premise).

Rule 4: A syllogism cannot contain two negative premises.

Rule 5: If either premise in a syllogism is negative, the conclusion must also be negative.
 33

Rule 6: A syllogism with two universal premises (both the major premise and the minor
premise) cannot have a particular conclusion.

Now, let‘s look at each of these Rules in a little closer detail.

Rule 1: All syllogisms must contain three terms: a major term, a minor term and a transitory
(or middle) term.

Any argument that uses more than three terms lacks a proper basis for comparing the major and
the minor terms. Thus, if there are more than three terms in the argument there can be no single
transitory (i.e., middle) term to logically connect the two remaining major and minor terms. To
illustrate Rule 1, consider the following argument:

(1) All men are mortal (major term).

(2) Socrates (minor term) is a Greek.

Even though both the major premise and the minor premise are true, there is no way to
logically connect the two statements together. There is no single "middle" term. In this example
it could be "mortal" (used in statement 1) or it could be "Greek" (used in statement 2). Without a
single connecting term, there is not any way to logically construct a single, unifying syllogism.

One way to fix this problem would be to construct two separate, although related, syllogisms,
as in the following illustration:

Syllogism 1:
(1) All men are mortal (major term).
(2) All Greeks (minor term) are men.
(3) Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.

The conclusion in Syllogism 1 is derived from the unifying middle term, "men," that is
contained in both the major and the minor premise statements.

Syllogism 2 starts with the conclusion deduced from Syllogism 1:

(1) All Greeks are mortal (major term).

(2) Socrates (the minor term) is a Greek.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion in Syllogism 2 is derived from a different unifying middle term, "Greek(s),"
that is contained in both the major and the minor premise statements.
 34

Depending upon what you were trying to prove (i.e., either that "all Greeks are mortal," or
that "Socrates is mortal") only one of these arguments would be appropriate, and not the other.
Moreover, notice that both Syllogisms are logically valid because they each do contain three, but
only three, terms.

Rule 2: The transitory term must be "distributed" (i.e., universal) in at least one premise
(either the major premise or the minor premise).

Under this Rule, the middle term must describe the entire class contained within either the
major premise or the minor premise. Otherwise, each term in the conclusion could be connected
to some different part of the class that was not included within the premise statement, thus
preventing the conclusion from stating a categorical truth. To illustrate this concept, consider the
following example:

(1) All Greeks (major term) are men (transitory term).

(2) All Persians (minor term) are men (transitory term).
(3) Therefore, all Greeks are Persians.

Here, although both the major and the minor premises are true, the conclusion is obviously
not valid. The reason for this is that the transitory term (men) as used in BOTH premise
statements is NOT universal. The transitory term (men) is not "distributed" in either premise
statement. That is, in this example neither the major nor the minor premise encompasses the
entire class of men. Thus, Rule 2 is violated because both premise statements describe
something less than the full class of men. Any logical comparison between only partial classes
(i.e., the class of all Greeks and the separate class of all Persians) cannot produce a categorically
valid conclusion as to the entire class (of all men).

Rule 3: The conclusion cannot contain any term that is not "distributed" in at least one
premise (either the major premise or the minor premise).

As we have just seen from Rule 2, a term is "distributed" when it refers to every member in
its entire class. To be logically valid an argument cannot contain a distributed conclusion (e.g.,
"all," "every") that is derived from a non-distributed premise (e.g., "some," "many"). The reverse
of this rule is also true.

An example of this Rule is illustrated by the following syllogism:

(1) University second year students who lack good reasoning skills (major term) should study
critical thinking.
(2) Many University second year students (minor term) lack good reasoning skills.
(3) Therefore, ALL University second year students should study critical thinking.
 35

Statement 1 (referring to ―University second year students who lack good reasoning skills")
is not a universal (i.e., "distributed") statement, since there may be University second year
students who do have good reasoning skills. Likewise, Statement 2 (referring to "many
University second year students") is obviously also not a universal statement. Thus, the
conclusion is invalid because it is not distributed in either the major or the minor premises, yet it
is distributed in the conclusion

Rule 4: A syllogism cannot contain two negative premises.

Intuitively, some of you are already familiar with this Rule. Since your earliest days most of
you have been taught that "two wrongs don't make a right!" This is nothing more than a simple
truism that has been derived by application of the logic principle stated in this Rule. Consider the
following example:

1. No man is a mother. (Negative major premise)

2. My mother is not my father. (Negative minor premise)
3. No man is my father. (Conclusion)

Even though both the major and the minor premise statements are true, the conclusion is
completely nonsensical. That is because this syllogism violates Rule 4: it contains two negative
premise statements. No valid logical conclusion can be derived from two negative premises. Of
course, any logical syllogism can certainly have one negative premise statement (either a major
premise or a minor premise), just not both.

Rule 5: If either premise in a syllogism is negative, the conclusion must also be negative.

This Rule is simply a logical extension of Rule 4. If any syllogism has one negative premise
(a result that is clearly permitted by Rule 4), then its conclusion MUST also be negative.
Consider the following example:

1. No man is immortal. (Major premise)

2. Socrates is a man. (Minor premise)
3. Socrates is not immortal. (Conclusion)

Because one of the premises in this syllogism is negative (i.e., in this case, the major
premise), the conclusion negative.

Rule 6: A syllogism with two universal premises (both the major premise and the minor
premise) cannot have a particular conclusion.

Since the argument expressed by logical syllogisms typically progresses from a broad (i.e.,
"universal") statement to a narrower, more specific (i.e., "particular") statement, it is essential
 36

that such a logical syllogism contain both a universal and a particular premise, if a particular
conclusion is the desired result. Any other combination of statements, even if their individual
premises are otherwise accurate, does not fit within the structure for a valid logical syllogism.
Stated somewhat differently, although a valid syllogism can certainly contain two universal
premises (in both the major and the minor premises), if such is the case the conclusion must also
be stated in universal terms.

Consider the following illustration:

1. All mortals eventually will die. (Universal major premise)

2. All Greeks are mortal. (Universal minor premise)
3. All Greeks eventually will die. (Universal conclusion)

This conclusion is perfectly valid, since it, like both the major and minor premises from
which it is derived, is expressed in universal terms. However, if we change the universal term
"all Greeks" in the conclusion to "this Greek," making it a particular conclusion, the logic fails. It
may in fact be true that "This Greek eventually will die," but such a conclusion cannot be
logically derived from this syllogism. The use of universal terms in both the major and the minor
premise statements requires that the conclusion also be stated in universal terms.

2.10.5 Inductive reasoning

Induction is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either
specifically or generally, based on previous observation. It is used to ascribe properties or
relations to objects or types based on previous observations or experiences, or to formulate
general statements or laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.

Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning in that, even in the best, or
strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of
the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion of an inductive argument follows with some degree of
probability. Relatedly, the conclusion of an inductive argument contains more information than
is already contained in the premises. A classic example of inductive reasoning comes from the
empiricist David Hume:

Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now.

Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.

 37

Inductive reasoning

Induction is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either
specifically or generally, based on previous observation. It is used to ascribe properties or
relations to objects or types based on previous observations or experiences, or to formulate
general statements or laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.

Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning in that, even in the best, or
strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of
the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion of an inductive argument follows with some degree of
probability. Relatedly, the conclusion of an inductive argument contains more information than
is already contained in the premises. A classic example of inductive reasoning comes from the
empiricist David Hume:

Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now.

Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.

Fallacies

Definition

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and
others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and
hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First, fallacious arguments are very,
very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. You can find
dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources.
Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might
be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several
stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this
compendium, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to
help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the "weak" and
toward the "strong" end of the continuum.

So what do fallacies look like?

For each fallacy listed bellow, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and tips on how
to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments as follows:
 38

Classification

1. Hasty generalization

Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is
inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes about people ("frat boys
are drunkards," "grad students are nerdy," etc.) are a common example of the principle
underlying hasty generalization.

Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All
philosophy classes must be hard!" Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on
which to base a conclusion.

Tip: Ask yourself what kind of "sample" you're using: Are you relying on the opinions or
experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so, consider
whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in the
example, the more modest conclusion "Some philosophy classes are hard for some students"
would not be a hasty generalization.)

2. Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the

conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right
now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious
crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk
driving." The argument actually supports several conclusions—"The punishment for drunk
driving should be very serious," in particular—but it doesn't support the claim that the death
penalty, specifically, is warranted.

Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself what
conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your conclusion, ask
yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a conclusion, and then see if
you've actually given that evidence. Missing the point often occurs when a sweeping or extreme
conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if you know you're claiming something big.

3. Post hoc (also called false cause)

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as
"after this, therefore because of this."

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one
event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and
my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But
 39

sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is,
correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

Examples: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is
responsible for the rise in crime." The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the
rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.

Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of the
process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates. And that's
what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have
something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first and B came later!

4. Slippery slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some direct
consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The
arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all
the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.

Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are
likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will
become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of
civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation
illegal right now." Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization
has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take
place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of
respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which
things stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not
yet been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer's conclusion that we must make animal
experimentation illegal right now.

Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain of
events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here's an example that doesn't
seem fallacious: "If I fail Critical Thinking course, I won't be able to graduate. If I don't graduate,
I probably won't be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing temp work or
flipping burgers for the next year."

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say "if A, then B, and if B,
then C," and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

5. Weak analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or
situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects,
the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak
analogy.
 40

Example: "Guns are like hammers—they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill
someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on
purchasing guns are equally ridiculous." While guns and hammers do share certain features,
these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not
the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can
easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not
share—it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the
argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in
the world: "My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work
more when I'm stuck inside) and they're both kind of murky." So the mere fact that you draw an
analogy between two things doesn't prove much, by itself.

Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare

fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an
adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these arguments are good or not
depend on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the property that gives
adult humans rights? If the property that matters is having a human genetic code or the potential
for a life full of human experiences, adult humans and fetuses do share that property, so the
argument and the analogy are strong; if the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to
survive on one's own, adult humans and fetuses don't share it, and the analogy is weak.

Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether the two
things you're comparing both share those properties.

6. Appeal to authority(Argumentum ad baculum)

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or

authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to
get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a
supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to
authority.

Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy
Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may be an
authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be
moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty
than the person writing the paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the
authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying
"Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence
that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on
than a person's reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral
or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.
 41

7. Argumentum ad populum

Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several versions of
the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is that in them, the arguer takes
advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire
to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common versions is the
bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something
because everyone else (supposedly) does.

Example: "Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!" While the opinion of
most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesn't
determine what is moral or immoral: There was a time where a substantial number of Americans
were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not evidence that segregation was moral. The
arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with
other Americans.

Tip: Make sure that you aren't recommending that your audience believe your conclusion
because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, people will like you better if you
believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one!

8. Argumentum ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the
person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on
arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't
believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is
either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the
arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.

Examples: "Leonce has written several books arguing that pornography harms young generation
significantly. But Leonce is an ugly man, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to him." Leonce's
appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to
do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.

In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or
she is arguing against, and so the opponent's argument shouldn't be listened to. Here's an
example: Imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn't smoke, and they've
given a lot of good reasons such as the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply,
"I won't accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it,
too!" The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the
premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive),
so your response is fallacious. ,

Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal
character.
 42

9. Appeal to pity (Argumentum Misericodium)

Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a
conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Examples: "I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My
cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!"
The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." But the criteria for getting an A have to do
with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to
accept (people who have a hard week deserve A's) is clearly unacceptable. The information the
arguer has given might feel relevant and might even get the audience to consider the
conclusion—but the information isn't logically relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here's
another example: "It's wrong to tax corporations—think of all the money they give to charity,
and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!"

Tip: Make sure that you aren't simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by making
them feel sorry for someone.

10. Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantia)

Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive
evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet
been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist." Here's an opposing argument that commits
the same fallacy: "People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one
has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists." In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack
of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation
in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods
to search for something for a long time, they haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people
ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it
doesn't exist.

Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a
conclusion from that lack of evidence.

11. Straw man

Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in
advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets
up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But
just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a
watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either.

Example: "Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But such
harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its readers should
 43

be left in peace." The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated—in fact, most
feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or any punishment for those who merely read
it; often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to allow people who
are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages. So the arguer hasn't
really scored any points; he or she has just committed a fallacy.

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and
sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an opponent's
argument, then you've really accomplished something.

12. Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue
that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the
original issue.

Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the fairest thing to do. After all, classes go
more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our
premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact
that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice
sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of
teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not
given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do
you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the
conclusion?

13. False dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two
choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one
option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many
different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to
pick the one the arguer recommends!

Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or
we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear
the building down." The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the
 44

building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a
few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.

Tip: Examine your own arguments: If you're saying that we have to choose between just two
options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven't mentioned? If there are other
alternatives, don't just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there's
no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really
there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided.

14. Begging the question

Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than
many of the other fallacies we've discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks
the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either
relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to
as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or simply ignores an important (but questionable)
assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a
sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for
a conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here.

Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another
human being escape suffering through death." Let's lay this out in premise-conclusion form:

Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.

Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we "translate" the premise, we'll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice:
"decent, ethical" means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable," and "help another
human being escape suffering through death" means "active euthanasia." So the premise
basically says, "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the conclusion does! The
arguer hasn't yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us
asking "well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?" Her argument "begs"
(that is, evades) the real question.

Here's a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is needed to
make the argument valid is completely ignored: "Murder is morally wrong. So active euthanasia
is morally wrong." The premise that gets left out is "active euthanasia is murder." And that is a
debatable premise—again, the argument "begs" or evades the question of whether active
euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The arguer is hoping we'll just focus on
the uncontroversial premise, "Murder is morally wrong," and not notice what is being assumed.

Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and conclusion
in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are required to move from
one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion. Write down the statements that
would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial and you've just glossed over them, you
 45

might be begging the question. Next, check to see whether any of your premises basically says
the same thing as the conclusion (but in other words). If so, you're begging the question. The
moral of the story: You can't just assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you're
trying to prove.

15. Equivocation

Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or
phrase that is important to the argument.

Example: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our
money." The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can mean both something that is
correct or good (as in "I got the right answers on the test") and something to which someone has
a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life"). Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily
equivocate, often on words like "freedom," "justice," "rights," and so forth; other times, the
equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it's important that you use the main
terms of your argument consistently.

Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself whether
they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren't slipping and sliding
between those meanings.

16. Fallacy of Accident: a generalization that disregards exceptions

Example1 Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are
criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Example 2 Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters
enter people's homes uninvited; therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule.

This kind of fallacy is also called destroying the exception, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid

Finding fallacies in my own writing

Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:

x Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you're defending. What parts of the
argument would now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give
special attention to strengthening those parts.
 46

x List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your
claims and evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good
evidence for a particular claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence
you're using.

x Learn which types of fallacies you're especially prone to, and be careful to check for
them in your work. Some writers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely
to rely on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see
if there's a particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.

x Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use
sweeping words like "all," "no," "none," "every," "always," "never," "no one," and
"everyone" are sometimes appropriate—but they require a lot more proof than less-
sweeping claims that use words like "some," "many," "few," "sometimes," "usually," and
so forth.

x Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponents; to be sure

they are accurate and fair.

LECTURE FIVE

EPISTEMOLOGY

x Definition of Epistemology
x Historical understanding and meaning of the term
x Human knowledge
x Stages of knowledge
x Truth
x Two senses of truth
x Error

Definition of Epistemology

‡ derived from two Greek words ―episteme” which means "knowledge, science" and
"logos" which means ―the study of‖ It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the
nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:
± What is knowledge?
± How is knowledge acquired?
± What do people know?
± How do we know what we know?

+LVWRULFDOXQGHUVWDQGLQJDQGPHDQLQJRIWKHWH

‡ Thales
‡ Anaximander
‡ Anaximenes
‡ Pythagoras
 47

‡ Heraclitus
‡ Permendes
‡ Atomists
‡ Sophists
‡ Socrates

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

‡ According to Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics man is made up of body and soul.
‡ These two dimension of man which are playing a prominent role in knowledge
acquisition.
‡ The soul is the principle of life and the unique source of operations while the body is the
site where the knowledge starts.

‡ Apart from sensitive and imaginative knowledge man is also endowed with intellective
knowledge
‡ While in sensitive knowledge there is material object in its particularity and concreteness,
in intellective knowledge the object is the source for the origin of concepts, judgement
and reasoning. Intellectual knowledge is related to the capacity to judge and reason.
‡ Here man formulates judgements and generates laws
‡ Intellective dimension of human knowledge functions in its three phases of
conceptualization, judgement and reasoning.
‡ And it is proved by various facts such as possession of universal of universal concepts,
judgments and use of language. In language, ability to speak is a special characteristic of
man. For man expresses his thoughts to others by means of words. Though animals also
do communicate they use signs, they don‘t speak as men do. In short, while animals
communicate by means of natural signs, man expresses/ communicates with others by
means of conventional signs and symbols which man himself has created.

Limits and relevance of HK

‡ nihil in intellectu, quod prius non fuerit in sensu

‡ But the embodied intellect cannot know the metaphysical objects directly, although it
comes to know something‘s nature analogically

Truth

‡ It conformity between the intellect and reality ―adequatio intellectus In the

realistic conception it is necessary to acknowledge some distinction between these two
elements, thought and reality, subject and object, intelligence and intelligibility, which in
the act of knowledge must unite with one another, add to one another, conform to one
another in the most perfect way possible.

Two senses of truth

 48

‡ Logical truth that is when the intellect conforms itself to the things, that is to say, if an
intentional possession of the form by mind is involved
‡ Ontological truth: If the beings conform to some intelligence. The ontological truth can
express constitutive or no constitutive relation. It is non constitutive in the sense that the
being of things does not depend on their being known; constitutive, in the sense that there
exist an ontological dependence between things and the knower. This is the relation that
exists between the artificial things and the human mind, and between all things and the
divine intelligence

Error

‡ Error is the assent to false proposition. It is a mental act, while falsity is properly the
quality of the proposition that affirms something contradicting real being. Error
distinguishes itself from ignorance in which there is no judgement, although error implies
ignorance, in as much as the one who judges poorly does not know the thing he judges.
Error distinguishes itself from a lie which consists in the voluntary affirmation of a
falsity, with the intent of deception

ETHICS

OUTLINE

‡ Etymological meaning of Ethics

‡ Definition of Ethics?
‡ Object of Ethics
‡ Purpose of Ethics
‡ Man in his nature.
‡ Types of act (Moral act or Human act)

ETYMOLOGICAL MEANING OF ETHICS

‡ Etymologically, the word ethics is derived from the Greek word ―Ethos‖ which means a
characteristic and distinguishing attitudes, the critical group, habit, custom, rules or it is
that characteristics which give a kind of a universal, term or objective elements in a work
of art. The word ethics translated in English to mean customary behavior.

DEFINITION OF ETHICS?

‡ Ethics has a number of definitions which carry the same meaning:

± -It is defined as a philosophical science of the morality of human act
± -It is the study of human act with reference to ultimate end, which is the full
realization of a single person
± -It is a philosophical study of human action
± -It is the systematic study of human actions from the points of view of their
rightness or wrongness as means for the achievement of ultimate happiness.
Therefore it studies human act, values and their end.
 49

Object of Ethics

‡ Like other fields of study whose work consider their objects, so does ethics, as it also has
its formal and material objects.

3.4 Purpose of Ethics

‡ To determine the rightness and wrongness of human act; in order to practice the good and
to avoid the evil or wrong.

MAN IN HIS NATURE.

‡ When we speak of man as a moral agent, we consider the human nature. Human nature
constitutes of body and soul. Man‘s constitute of body makes him to share with other
animals, whereas that of soul makes him or her distinct from other animals, simply
because the soul of man makes him/her rational due to the intellect and will, that are not
possessed by animals or other creatures. In this case only human beings are moral agents.
For an act is determined by the nature of the doer.

TYPES OF ACT (MORAL ACT OR HUMAN ACT)

‡ Human Acts (actus humanus):Is proper to human beings, it proceeds form free
knowledge (intellect) and free consent (free will).
± We perform these actions by our full responsibility.
± We perform them consciously and deliberately, that is knowingly, willingly and
freely. Here there is intervention of the intellect and will.

TWO TYPES OF HUMAN ACTS

‡ Elicited moral act – it is a moral act that is a voluntary use of intellect (understanding)
and will. It begins and completes within the intellect of the agent. Actions are clearly
moral here.
‡ Imperated moral act – Man has also a body that has senses and other bodily activities,
which are supposed to be controlled.
‡ Under imperated moral act, Action here need the application of rational power because
they are mainly voluntary so need of open rational direction. However both elicited and
imperated actions imply moral responsibility to their agent. All such acts are imputable to
their agent; he or she is responsible for their acts consequences to him or herself and to
other persons.

ACTS OF MAN (ACTUS HOMONIS).

‡ These are actions performed by man without intervention of the intellect and will. They
are performed unconsciously, not deliberately willed, for which a person is not held
responsible.
‡ In this type of act, man shares also with other animals
 50

‡ These actions includes such as vegetative acts, nutrition, digestion, respiration, sneeze
etc.

$&762)0$1&217«

‡ Here man faculties exercise no control. Acts though not performed by man are not
purposefully. All spontaneous reactions, which proceed from the activity of the intellect
and will that is first reaction of anger or sympathy. It also includes all acts performed by
those who have no the use of reason that is, people at sleep, lunatics, drunken people etc.
here there is no intervention of the intellect and will.

Mujwahuzi Leonce Stephen (PhD),

The University of Dodoma,
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
School of Social Sciences
Department of Political Science and Public Administration
Room No. 126 A, Email: [email protected], mobile: 0768 589327

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION