CRITICAL_THINKING_WEEK_3.pdf

CRITICAL THINKING LBT30603 DR AZMAN BIDIN APRIL 3rd 2024  2 Agenda INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING RECOGNISING ARGUMENTS BASIC LOGICAL THINKING PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE LOGICAL FALLACIES I LOGICAL FALLACIES II ANALYSING ARGUMENTS + ASSIGNMENT 1...

CRITICAL THINKING LBT30603 DR AZMAN BIDIN APRIL 3rd 2024  2 Agenda INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING RECOGNISING ARGUMENTS BASIC LOGICAL THINKING PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE LOGICAL FALLACIES I LOGICAL FALLACIES II ANALYSING ARGUMENTS + ASSIGNMENT 1 presentation title  3 Agenda EVALUATING ARGUMENTS AND TRUTH CLAIMS CATEGORICAL LOGIC PREPOSITIONAL LOGIC INDUCTIVE REASONING FINDING, EVALUATING AND USING SOURCES + ASSIGNMENT 2 PRESENTATION REVIEW + PROJECT presentation title Assignment 1 Debate 20 Assignment 2 Article 20 Review Project Individual 30 Analyse and Evaluate a Controversial Issue Final Exam 30  5 Learning outcomes Classify elements of language in texts that shape thought. Distinguish common fallacies in reasoning. Develop arguments and counterarguments. Analyse the logical structures of arguments. presentation title BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS 1. Deduction and Induction 2. Evaluating reasoning processes and arguments The indicator word Test The Strict Necessity Test The Common Pattern Test The principle of the Charity Test Exception to the Strict Necessity Test  Test / Principle Category Explanation Example Examines indicator words to determine the The Indicator Word Test Validity Test logical structure If it rains, then I'll bring an umbrella. Indicator word: "If...then" Conclusion: Bringing an umbrella is contingent on rain. Evaluate the absolute necessity for an You must pass the exam to The Strict Necessity Test Validity Test outcome graduate. Strict Necessity: Passing the exam is required for graduation. Exception: Exceptional circumstances may allow for graduation without passing the exam. Sales tend to peak during the The Common Pattern Test Pattern Recognition Test Identifies recurring patterns or themes holiday season. Common Pattern: Increased sales coincide with holidays.  Test / Principle Category Explanation Example The speaker's argument is Interpretation and Interpretation in the most favourable unclear, but I'll assume they The Principle of Charity Assumption Test way mean well. Principle of Charity: Assume rationality and good intentions in interpretation. Exception to the Strict All guests must wear formal Necessity Test Validity Test Cases where necessity may not apply attire to the wedding. Exception: A guest arrives without formal attire due to an emergency. BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS 3. Common Patterns of Deductive Reasoning Hypothetical syllogism Categorical syllogism Argument by elimination Argument based on mathematics Argument from definition  Common Patterns in Deductive Reasoning Argument Type Explanation Example If it rains, then the streets will be wet. If Involves conditional statements and the streets are wet, then it must have Hypothetical Syllogism their implications rained. Consists of three categorical All humans are mortal. Socrates is a Categorical Syllogism propositions with quantifiers human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. There are only three colours of pens: red, blue, or green. The red and blue pens are Involves systematically ruling out accounted for. Therefore, the remaining Argument by Elimination possibilities until only one remains pen must be green.  Common Patterns in Deductive Reasoning Argument Type Explanation Example If a = b and b = c, then a = c (transitive property of equality). Argument Based on Relies on mathematical principles Therefore, if 2 + 2 = 4 and 4 = 2 x 2, Mathematics and logic then 2 + 2 = 2 x 2. A bachelor is an unmarried man. John Argument from Appeals to the meaning or is unmarried. Therefore, John is a Definition definition of a term bachelor. BASIC LOGICAL CONCEPTS 4. Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning Inductive Generalisation Predictive Argument Argument from Authority Causal Argument Statistical Argument Argument from Analogy 5. Deductive Validity 6. Inductive Strength  Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning Argument Type Explanation Example Draws a general conclusion based on All observed swans are white, so all Inductive Generalisation specific instances swans are assumed to be white. Uses available evidence to make Based on past weather patterns, it's Predictive Argument predictions about future events predicted to rain tomorrow. Dr. Smith, a renowned physicist, states Relies on the expertise of a credible that climate change is caused by Argument from Authority source to support a claim human activity, so it must be true.  Common Patterns of Inductive Reasoning Argument Type Explanation Example Asserts a cause-and-effect Smoking cigarettes increases the Causal Argument relationship between variables risk of developing lung cancer. 80% of students who participate in Uses statistical data or probabilities regular study groups improve their Statistical Argument to support a claim grades. Just as a computer needs regular Argument from Draws parallels between two maintenance to function optimally, Analogy situations to support a conclusion so does the brain.  15 DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION Deduction is a type of logical reasoning that starts with general premises or principles and applies them to specific cases to draw a conclusion. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Deduction is a process of reasoning from a known Therefore, principle to a specific instance or conclusion. Socrates is mortal" Deductive reasoning involves taking a set of premises or assumptions, and then following a set of logical steps to reach a specific conclusion.  16 DISCUSSION AND INDUCTION Induction is a type of logical reasoning that starts with specific observations and uses them to draw general conclusions. Induction is a process of reasoning from specific instances to general principles or conclusions. Inductive reasoning involves making inferences based on a set of observations and then using those “Every time I eat peanuts, I have an inferences to reach a general conclusion. allergic reaction. Therefore, I am allergic to peanuts“ Induction starts with specific instances and draws a general conclusion. presentation title Deductive Validity 17 This argument is deductively valid because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If we accept the truth of the two premises, then we Consider these sentences must accept the truth of the conclusion as well. In contrast , Premise 1: All humans are mortal. an argument that is not Premise 2: Socrates is human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. deductively valid may have premises that are true, but still fail to provide conclusive support for the conclusion. Inductive strength Inductive strength is determined by 18 evaluating the strength of the evidence provided in support of the conclusion. The more relevant and reliable the evidence, the stronger the argument. Additionally, the degree of generalization involved in an inductive argument can also Consider these sentences affect its strength. Arguments that make more sweeping The last five times I have gone to generalizations from the evidence the park, it has been sunny. are typically less strong than Conclusion: Therefore, the next time I go to the park, it will be arguments that make more specific sunny. and limited generalizations. Thank you [email protected]