Learning goal

 Distinguish opinion from truth

 Analyze situations that show the
difference between opinion and truth
 Realize that the methods of
philosophy lead to wisdom and truth
 Evaluate opinions
Actvity1: Two lies and one Truth

The learners will be divided into

three (3) groups.
They will tell two lies and one truth
about themselves which the other
group will guess which one is the
truth.
Activity 2: Brainstorming

With the same group

1. Give your own definition of
Opinion and Truth and give each
one an example.
3. Post your answer on the board
4. Select one representative to
explain your ideas
Opinion - a belief, judgement, or way of thinking
about something; what someone thinks about a
particular thing ( Merriam Webster).
- a personal understanding or point of view to a
particular thing (Junel)
Truth – the real facts about something (Merriam
Webster).
- Based on facts and on what is real or what is in
reality (Junel).
Logic and critical thinking:
Tools in reasoning
Logic and critical thinking serve as paths to
freedom from haft-truths and deceptions.
Critical thinking is distinguishing facts and
opinion or personal feelings.
In rational choices, first, we suspend beliefs and
judgment until all facts have been gathered
and considered.
Though facts are important, critical thinking
also takes into consideration cultural
systems, values, and beliefs.
Critical thinking helps us uncover bias and
prejudice and open to new ideas not
necessarily in agreement with previous
thought.
Two Types of Reasoning:

1. Inductive Reasoning – is base from

observations in order to make
generalizations.
- this reasoning is often applied in
prediction, forecasting, or behaviour
2. Deductive Reasoning – draws conclusion
from usually one broad judgment or
definition in one more specific assertion,
often an inference.
Deductive Reasoning Example
All philosophers are wise. (major premise)
Confucius is a philosopher. (minor premise)
Therefore, Confucius is wise. (Conclusion)
Validity and Soundness of
an Argument
 base on the previous example, if the two
premises are constructed logically, then the
conclusion must follow logically, the
deductive argument is valid.
 This does not necessarily mean that the
conclusion is true or false. Validity comes
from a logical conclusion base on logically
constructed premises.
Strength of an Argument

 Inductive Arguments cannot prove if the

premises are true which will also determine the
truth of the conclusion.
 Inductive reasoning proves only probable support
to the conclusion.
 An Inductive Argument that succeeds in
providing such probable support is a strong
argument. While an inductive argument that fails
to provide such support is weak, a strong
argument with true premises is said to be cogent.
Fallacies

- is a defect in an argument other than its having

false premises.
- - to detect fallacies it is required to examine the
argument’s content.
1. Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)
A specific kind of appeal to emotion in
which someone tries to win support for an
argument or idea by exploiting his opponent’s
feelings of pity or guilt.
2. Appeal to ignorance (Argumento ad ignorantiam)
- Whatever has not been proved false must be true, and
vice versa
3. Equivocation
- This is a logical chain of reasoning of a term or a word
several times, but giving the particular word a
different meaning each time.
- Example: Human beings have hands; the clock has
hands. His drinking from the pitcher of water; he is a
baseball pitcher.
4. Composition
This infers that something is true of the whole
from the fact that it is true of some part of
the whole. The reverse of this fallacy is
division.
5. Division
One reasons logically that something true of a
thing must also be true of all or some of its
parts.
 Example:
 Jay: Do you think congressman Jerry will be re-
elected?
 Yna: I doubt it. His district has become more
conservative in recent years. Also, 63% of the
registered voters in his district are in the
opposition.
this argument is both statistical argument
and a predictive argument, which are two common
patterns of inductive reasoning. Also, the
conclusion does not necessarily from the premises.
6. Against the person (Argumentum ad hominem)
This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise
to a characteristic or belief of the person
advocating the premise. However, in some
instances, questions of personal conduct,
character, motives, etc., are legitimate if relevant
to the issue.
7. Appeal to force (Argumentum ad baculum)
An argument where force, coercion or treat of force,
is given as a justification for a conclusion.
8. Appeal to the people (Argumentum ad populum)
An argument that appeals or exploits people’s
vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on
popularity.
9. False cause (post hoc)
Since that event followed this one, that event must
have been cause by this one. This fallacy is also
referred to as coincidental correlation, or correlation
not causation.
10. Hasty Generalization
One commits errors if one reaches an inductive
generalization based on insufficient evidence. The
fallacy is commonly based on a broad conclusion
upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that
fails to sufficiently represent the whole population
11. Begging the question (petitio principii)
This is a type of fallacy in which the proposition
to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly
in the premise.
Debatable Issues
1. Resolve: That bringing cell phone inside the
school campus is not allowed.
2. Resolve: That distribution of condoms in all
public school should be allowed.
3. Resolve: That having a girlfriend or boyfriend
can affect your study.
4. Resolve: That same sex marriage should be
acceptable in the society.
5. Resolve: That Martial Law helps to maintain
peace and order in Mindanao.
1. Resolve: That having a girlfriend or
boyfriend can affect your study.
2. Resolve: That same sex marriage should be
acceptable in the society.
3. Resolve: That early pregnancy is okay.
4. Resolve: That Destiny is true.
Debatable Issues

1. Resolve: That Washing your face at night is okay.

2. Resolve: That having a girlfriend or boyfriend can affect
your study.
3. Resolve: That Wastes problem in the Philippines could
never be resolved.
4. Resolve: That Parents should not be the one to choose
a course for their children.
5. Resolve: Are you in favor of Duterte’s administration?
6. Resolve: That Facebook should be banned.
Criteria for the Debate
 Strength, Validity and soundness
of the arguments --------------- 40%
 Techniques and styles in
presenting the arguments------ 20%
 Able to identify errors or
fallacious arguments ----------- 30%
 Confidence------------------------ 10%
100%
1. Parents o student ang magbootsa pagpili ug
course
2. Nindot ba o bati an pamaagi ni duterte
3. Alin magandang leader yong strikto oh yong
maluwag
4. Alin ang mauuna love o respect
5. Mahal ko o mahal ako