Methods Of Philosophizing PDF

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING UNIT 1 LESSON 2 OBJECTIVES: In this lesson, you will be able to: 1. distinguish opinion from truth; 2. analyze situations through critical thinking; 3. realize that the methods of philosophy lead to rational thinking, wisdom, and truth; and 4. evaluate opinions...

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING UNIT 1 LESSON 2 OBJECTIVES: In this lesson, you will be able to: 1. distinguish opinion from truth; 2. analyze situations through critical thinking; 3. realize that the methods of philosophy lead to rational thinking, wisdom, and truth; and 4. evaluate opinions Philosophizing is to think or express oneself in a rational and logical matter It considers or discussed a matter from a philosophical standpoint: In phenomenology, truth is based on the person’s consciousness; In existentialism, truth is based on exercising choices and personal freedom; In postmodernism, it is accepted that truth is not absolute (i.e. cultural); and In logic, truth is based on reasoning and critical thinking. A. PHENOMENOLOGY: ON CONSCIOUSNESS Phenomenology focuses on careful inspection and description of phenomena or appearances based on what we are conscious of (Johnston, 2006) The world “phenomenon” comes from the Greek word “phainomenon” which means appearance. A. PHENOMENOLOGY: ON CONSCIOUSNESS Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, had used the same word to refer to the world of our experience. Edmund Husserl founded phenomenology, which is essentially a philosophical method. In 2005, he studied about the reality and structures of consciousness. Phenomenological method is a series that continuously revises our perceptions of reality. It removes or brackets out the nonessentials. B. EXISTENTIALISM: ON FREEDOM Unlike phenomenology, existentialism is not necessarily a philosophical method but more of an outlook or attitude. Existentialism is supported by varied principles centered on shared themes such as: 1. the human condition and/or reaction to that condition; 2. being of persons and the existence of other kinds of things; 3. human freedom; 4. being conscious; 5. responsibility for one’s life; 6. the implication (and unavoidability) or choice even in the absence of certainty; and 7. the correctness and subjectivity of life as lived, against abstractions and false objectifications.  Our search for truth by means of critical thinking is rational choice. Existentialism, with Sartre, a French philosopher, emphasizes the importance of individual choice, regardless of correction of our beliefs and decisions. This means that the human will’s ability to make choices in any situation gives human choice meaning. Sartre argued that consciousness (being- for-itself) is such that it is always free to choose and free to “negate” (or reject) the given features of the world. C. POSTMODERN: ON CULTURES Postmodernism rejects the convictions, aspirations, and pretensions of modern Western traditions. It is more of an attitude and reaction to modernism, which is a worldview of order, logic, and authority based on knowledge (Shields, 2012). Postmodernism share these attitudes: 1. truth is beyond the rational to nonrational elements of human nature, including the spiritual; 2. limits of reasons and objectives; 3. adhere to a relational, holistic approach; 4. value our existence; 5. confront issues; and 6. respect and dignity to one’s self. Humanism stresses the importance of human dignity. Posthumanism aspires to transcend human nature, advocate the use of science and technology to human condition like natural process of reproduction, aging, and death.  Posthuman is likened to techno sapiens including clone, cyborgs, and other forms of human-machine interfaces. Science and technology must uphold human value and dignity (Ramos, 2003). D. ANALYTIC: TRADITION “Is truth objective?” In the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, he argued language cannot objectively describe truth. He claimed that language is socially conditioned, which means that the meaning of words is created by what people have agreed upon. Truth can change depending on what people have decided it to be.  Polish-burn, U.S. mathematician and Alfred Tarski, logician, made fundamental contributions to the fields of mathematics, semantics, and symbolic logic. Truth shows properties and is based on physical facts ( Tarski, 2013) One of Tarski’s purposes is to define truth in a simple way from that of another semantic notion, namely, of the notion of satisfaction. Tarski belonged to the group of analytic philosophers who believed that the natural languages and their everyday use are infected with various deficiencies falling in processing consistency which is an essential value for truth-seeking. E. LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING: TOOLS IN REASONING Logic and critical thinking consider these three concepts in interpreting the meaning of facts: (1) cultural systems, (2) values, and (3) beliefs. Critical thinking helps us uncover bias and prejudice and become open to new ideas not necessarily in agreement with our previous thoughts. A factual claim must present evidence or reasons (Hurley, 2011) “A dark tan may seem eye-catching though current researches show that excessive sun exposure may cause skin cancer” TWO PARTS OF ARGUMENT Premises – statements that claim to present the evidence or reasons, for instance, consider: Human cloning is evil. The statement that evidence is claimed to support or imply is the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion: Human cloning should never be allowed. TWO BASIC TYPES OF REASONING: 1. Deductive – draws conclusion from usually one broad judgment or definition and one more specific assertion, often an inference. Take for instance: All truth-seekers are prudent. (Major premise) Kong Zi is a truth-seeker. (Minor premise) Therefore, Kong Zi is prudent. (Conclusion) TWO BASIC TYPES OF REASONING: 2. Inductive – is based on observations in order to make generalizations. It means a person can make a general guess. Example: Many people are holding their umbrellas, the ground is wet, and the wind is strong, so probably it is raining. This reasoning is often applied in prediction, forecasting, or behavior. VALIDITY AND SOUNDNESS OF AN ARGUMENT Validity arises from a logical conclusion based on the two logically constructed premises (Reed, 2010). However, the conclusion is not necessarily true or false.  STRENGTH OF AN ARGUMENT Inductive reasoning proves only probable support to the conclusion. An inductive argument that succeeds in providing probable support has strong argument. An inductive argument that fails to provide such support is weak.  STRENGTH OF AN ARGUMENT For Example: Jay: Do you think Cong. Lito will be reelected? Yna: I doubt it. His district has become more liberal in recent years. Also, 60 % of the registered voters in his district are gearing up for his rival in office. This argument consists of two common patterns of inductive reasoning, statistical argument, and a predictive argument. Also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. F. FALLACIES A fallacy is a defect in an argument, and to detect it, we examine the content of the argument. There are some committed errors in reasoning, and thus, coming up with false conclusions, and, worse, distorting the truth. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 1. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam) – exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. A student who fails to complete their homework says, "Please don't give me a zero. My parents will punish me severely if they see a low grade, therefore I don't deserve a zero." SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 2. Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum as ignorantiam) – whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (following assumptions) There is no proof that God does not exist; therefore, God exists. No one has ever proven UFOs have not visited the planet, which means they have. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 3. Equivocation – when a particular word is used in the same context but has a different meaning each time. Human beings have hands; the clocks has hands. He is drinking from the pitcher of water; he is a baseball pitcher. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 4. Composition – something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (reverse of this fallacy is division) A trivial example might be: "This tire is made of rubber; therefore, the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is fallacious, because vehicles are made with a variety of parts, most of which are not made of rubber. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 5. Division – one reasons logically that something is true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts. The United States is the richest country in the world. Therefore, everyone in the United States must be rich and live well. Because professional sports players are paid outrageous salaries, every professional sports player must be rich. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 6. Against the person (Argumentum ad hominem) – attempts to link the validity of the premise to a characteristics or credentials of the person supporting the premise. “You have no idea what you're talking about; you've only lived here for six months.” “It's hard to take your claims seriously because you spend your days playing video games.” SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 7. Appeal to force (Argumentum ad baculum) – strength, coercion, or the threat of force is a justification for a conclusion. If you don't join our demonstration against the expansion of the park, we will evict you from your apartment; So, you should join our demonstration against the expansion of the park. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 8. Appeal to the people (Argumentum ad populum) – appeal or exploits people’s vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on popularity. “The majority of our countrymen think we should have military operations overseas; therefore, it's the right thing to do.” This line of reasoning is fallacious, because popular acceptance of a belief or position does not amount to a justification of that belief. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 9. False cause (Post hoc) – coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. 'Yesterday I ate blackberries, and today I have a stomach ache. The blackberries must have caused this stomach ache. ' While it is not out of the question for the blackberries to be the cause, the stomach ache might also be the result of something else. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 10. Hasty generalization – commonly based on an expansive conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that inadequately represents the whole population. “9 out of 10 dentists recommend” is a phrase often heard in toothpaste commercials, which may not accurately represent broader professional consensus but persuades consumers by suggesting widespread expert approval. SOME COMMITTED ERRORS IN REASONING: 11. Begging the question (Petitio principii) – the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. If something begs the question, what you are actually asking is, “Is the premise of that argument actually true?” For example, the statement “Snakes make great pets. That's why we should get a snake” begs the question “Are snakes really great pets?”  DETERMINING TRUTH FROM OPINIONS In research, excellence involves integrity and honesty to promulgate truth. In a professional setup, showing moral concern involves a commitment top obtain and properly assess all available information that is pertinent to meeting one’s obligations. Over the years, the purpose of news reporting and journalism has irrevocably changed. EVALUATING OPINIONS Critical thinking and logic are important tools to distinguish facts from opinions. An opinion can be a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Value claims assess the worth or merit of an idea, object, or practice according to the criteria supplied by arguer: Values are positive or negative attitudes. Value claims indicate what we ought to do. As such, our values strongly drive our decisions, choices, and behavior. Value claims focus on the values held by the participants in a dispute. Values could also mean our most deeply held beliefs and ideas that determine what is moral and right in our life.  Assessing arguments and statements, looking for evidence to support assumptions and beliefs, and deciding rationally what to believe or not are all important in. evaluating opinions. People may disagree about facts. EVALUATING OPINIONS According to Acuña, we have one very important obligation as critical thinker , that is , “NEVER ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF ANY STATEMENT OR BELIEF unless there is adequate evidence for it. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING! UNIT 1 LESSON 2