IPHP-QTR-1-Module-2-Methods-of-Philosophizing-Lesson-2.pdf

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING (THAT LEADS TO WISDOM AND TRUTH)  1. “THE ELENCHUS” (SOCRATIC METHOD) THE SOCRATIC METHOD IS A PURPOSEFUL QUESTIONING OF SOMEONE TO TEST THE COHERENCE, CONSISTENCY, AND CREDIBILITY OF WHAT HE SAID. THE TERM “ELENCHUS” IS HELLENISTIC GREEK FOR INQUIR...

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING (THAT LEADS TO WISDOM AND TRUTH)  1. “THE ELENCHUS” (SOCRATIC METHOD) THE SOCRATIC METHOD IS A PURPOSEFUL QUESTIONING OF SOMEONE TO TEST THE COHERENCE, CONSISTENCY, AND CREDIBILITY OF WHAT HE SAID. THE TERM “ELENCHUS” IS HELLENISTIC GREEK FOR INQUIRY OR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT IS A KIND OF INQUIRY OR EXAMINATION THAT DISCLOSES PEOPLE TO THEMSELVES, MAKING THEM SEE WHAT THEIR OPINIONS REALLY AMOUNT TO.  1. “THE ELENCHUS” (SOCRATIC METHOD) SOCRATIC METHOD LEADS TO WISDOM AND TRUTH FOR IT ASKS A SERIES OF INCISIVE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SUPPOSED KNOWLEDGE COULD RATIONALLY BE JUSTIFIED, DEFENDED, AND ACCEPTED WITH CLARITY AND LOGICAL CONSISTENCY. THE SOCRATIC METHOD MAKES PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY A COMMON HUMAN ENTERPRISE, OPEN TO EVERY MAN. A PERSON USING THE ELENCHUS DOES NOT DEMAND ALLEGIANCE TO A CERTAIN PHILOSOPHICAL DOGMA, RATHER, HE USES COMMON SENSE AND COMMON SPEECH. 1. “THE ELENCHUS” (SOCRATIC METHOD)  2. THE “METHODIC DOUBT” (CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY) THE “METHODIC DOUBT” IS ALSO CALLED CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE IT WAS INTRODUCED BY FRENCH PHILOSOPHER AND MATHEMATICIAN RENE DESCARTES (1596-1650), DUBBED AS THE “FATHER OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY.” THE METHODIC DOUBT IS A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS OF WITHHOLDING ACCEPTANCE AS TO THE TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD OF BELIEFS UNTIL THEY WERE DEMONSTRATED OR RATIONALLY PROVEN TO BE TRUE OR FALSE. IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS OF DOUBTING OR BEING SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE TRUTH OF A PERSON’S BELIEFS. WHAT DESCARTES DID WAS CATEGORIZE ALL STATEMENTS ACCORDING TO TYPE AND SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE: (A) KNOWLEDGE FROM EXPERIENCE OR EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE, (B) KNOWLEDGE FROM TRADITION OR AUTHORITY, AND (C) MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE.  2. THE “METHODIC DOUBT” (CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY) USING THE METHODIC DOUBT, PROPOSITIONS FROM EACH CLASS ARE SCRUTINIZED, THAT IF A WAY CAN BE THOUGHT TO DOUBT THE TRUTH OF ANY STATEMENT, THEN ALL OTHER STATEMENTS OF THAT CLASS ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS DUBITABLE, THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY FALSE. RENE DESCARTES SUPPOSED THAT BY ELIMINATING ALL STATEMENTS AND TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE WHOSE TRUTH CAN BE DOUBTED IN ANY WAY, WE WILL FIND SOME INDUBITABLE CERTAINTIES OR TRUTHS THAT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 2. THE “METHODIC DOUBT” (CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY) NEVERTHELESS, RENE DESCARTES DISCOVERED CERTAINTY IN THE FACT THAT SINCE HE DOUBTS, HE THUS EXISTS. HENCE, HIS WELL- KNOWN DICTUM, “COGITO ERGO SUM” (I THINK, THEREFORE I AM). DESCARTES BELIEVED THAT A PERSON CANNOT DOUBT THAT HE THINKS, BECAUSE WHEN HE DOUBTS, HE IN EFFECT THINKS, SINCE DOUBTING IS A FORM OF THINKING. FROM THIS, DESCARTES INFERRED THAT A PERSON THINKING MUST BE EXISTING, SINCE THERE HAS TO BE SOMEBODY EXISTENT DOING THE PROCESS CALLED THINKING.  3. THE “LIVED EXPERIENCE” (PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD OR INQUIRY) PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD STUDIES PHENOMENA, THAT IS, OBJECTS AND EVENTS AS PERCEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, AND NOT OF ANYTHING INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS. PHENOMENOLOGY IS A METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY THAT FOCUSES ON THE ESSENCE OF LIVED EXPERIENCE.  3. THE “LIVED EXPERIENCE” (PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD OR INQUIRY) PHENOMENOLOGY EXAMINES PHENOMENA AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE NATURE OF BEING. IT CENTERS ON HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE OBJECTS OF DIRECT EXPERIENCE. THE METHOD WAS DEVELOPED LARGELY BY THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHERS EDMUND HUSSERL AND MARTIN HEIDEGGER.  3. THE “LIVED EXPERIENCE” (PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD OR INQUIRY) PHENOMENOLOGY IN RESEARCH DEALS WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND HOW PEOPLE EXPERIENCE. THIS METHOD EXAMINES STRUCTURES OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE AS EXPERIENCED FROM A FIRST-PERSON POINT OF VIEW (SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT). EXPERIENCE, IN PHENOMENOLOGICAL INQUIRY, CONTAINS NOT ONLY THE RELATIVELY PASSIVE EXPERIENCES OF SENSORY PERCEPTION, BUT ALSO VOLITION, THOUGHT, IMAGINATION, EMOTION, DESIRE, AND ACTION. IN OTHER WORDS, EXPERIENCE INCLUDES EVERYTHING THAT WE DO OR LIVE THROUGH.  KEY CONCEPTS: EPOCHÉ (BRACKETING): SETTING ASIDE BIASES AND JUDGMENTS TO UNDERSTAND THE EXPERIENCE AS IT IS. INTENTIONALITY: CONSCIOUSNESS IS ALWAYS DIRECTED TOWARDS SOMETHING; OUR EXPERIENCES ARE ALWAYS ABOUT OBJECTS, PEOPLE, OR EVENTS. LIVED EXPERIENCE: EMPHASIS ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS THE FOUNDATION OF KNOWLEDGE.  PHENOMENOLOGY STUDY: EXAMPLES AND APPLICATIONS FOR EXAMPLE, IN TREATING A SICK PERSON, PHENOMENOLOGY ZOOMS IN THE VEILED ASPECTS OF ONE’S EXISTENCE SUCH AS COMPONENTS OF HIS AWARENESS LIKE INTUITION AND FEELING. THESE ARE NORMALLY OFTEN OVERLOOKED WHEN DOCTORS ARE ABSORBED IN THE ANATOMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ASPECTS OF THE PATIENT. PHENOMENOLOGY INTENDS TO EXPOSE ORIGINAL EXPERIENCE AND ITS MEANING. THUS, IN MEDICINE AND INTENSIVE CARE NURSING, PHENOMENOLOGY PRESENTS A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OR ‘DIAGNOSIS’ THAT CAN LEAD TO ENRICHED PRAXIS. PHENOMENOLOGY INTENDS TO UNDERSTAND HUMAN EXPERIENCE FROM AN INDIVIDUAL’S VIEWPOINT. UNLIKE THE OBJECTIFYING AND REDUCTIONIST CHARACTER OF SCIENCE AND EMPIRICIST RESEARCH METHODS THAT CUT DOWN A PERSON TO FIVE SENSES, PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD DEPICTS THE PATIENT AS A WHOLE HUMAN BEING WITH VARIOUS HUMAN NEEDS OTHER THAN RECOVERING FROM A CERTAIN ILLNESS. PHENOMENOLOGY THUS TEACHES US TO LOOK AT HUMAN EXPERIENCE TO BRING A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO VARIOUS ENDEAVORS LIKE HUMAN TREATMENT. EXAMPLE: LISTENING TO MUSIC TASK: LISTEN TO A PIECE OF MUSIC (PREFERABLY INSTRUMENTAL) FOR A FEW MINUTES. INQUIRY PROCESS: INITIAL EXPERIENCE: WHAT ARE YOU EXPERIENCING AS YOU LISTEN? FOCUS ON THE IMMEDIATE SENSATIONS—ARE THERE PARTICULAR INSTRUMENTS OR MELODIES THAT STAND OUT? HOW DOES THE RHYTHM MAKE YOU FEEL? BRACKETING (EPOCHÉ): SET ASIDE ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE COMPOSER, THE GENRE, OR YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES. SIMPLY DESCRIBE HOW THE MUSIC UNFOLDS IN REAL-TIME FOR YOU. LIVED EXPERIENCE: HOW DOES THE MUSIC AFFECT YOUR MOOD OR EMOTIONS? DOES IT EVOKE SPECIFIC MEMORIES OR SENSATIONS IN YOUR BODY (E.G., RELAXATION, EXCITEMENT, ETC.)? REFLECTION: HOW DID YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE MUSIC CHANGE WHEN YOU SET ASIDE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS AND FOCUSED ONLY ON THE PRESENT MOMENT? EXAMPLE: DRINKING A CUP OF COFFEE TASK: ASK STUDENTS TO DRINK A CUP OF COFFEE OR TEA AND FOCUS ON THE EXPERIENCE. INQUIRY PROCESS: INITIAL EXPERIENCE: AS YOU HOLD THE CUP, WHAT DO YOU NOTICE? THE WARMTH OF THE CUP, THE SMELL OF THE BEVERAGE, THE TASTE WHEN YOU TAKE A SIP—HOW DO THESE SENSATIONS APPEAR TO YOU? BRACKETING (EPOCHÉ): SET ASIDE WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT COFFEE (ITS ORIGIN, CAFFEINE CONTENT, ETC.). HOW DOES IT TASTE AT THIS MOMENT? HOW DOES THE WARMTH OF THE CUP FEEL IN YOUR HANDS? LIVED EXPERIENCE: HOW DOES THE TASTE EVOLVE AS YOU TAKE MULTIPLE SIPS? DOES YOUR MOOD OR ENERGY CHANGE AS YOU CONTINUE DRINKING? DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THIS SIMPLE ACT IN DETAIL. REFLECTION: WHAT DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU FULLY FOCUSED ON THE PRESENT SENSATIONS AND SET ASIDE PRIOR JUDGMENTS?  4. DIALECTICAL METHOD (HEGELIAN DIALECTICS) DIALECTICAL METHOD IS ALSO CALLED HEGELIAN DIALECTICS AS THIS WAS PROPOSED BY GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770-1831), A GERMAN PHILOSOPHER AND A SIGNIFICANT FIGURE OF GERMAN IDEALISM. HEGELIAN DIALECTIC LEADS TO TRUTH (AND WISDOM) WHEN THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN A PROPOSITION (THESIS) AND ITS ANTITHESIS IS RESOLVED AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF TRUTH (SYNTHESIS).  DIALECTIC AS LEADING TO TRUTH “THE TRIAD” COMPRISING THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC: FIRST STAGE: A THESIS THIS REFERS TO A BEGINNING PROPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF AN IDEA. SECOND STAGE: THE ANTITHESIS THIS IS A REACTION THAT CONTRADICTS OR NEGATES THE THESIS. THIRD STAGE: THE SYNTHESIS IT IS A PROPOSITION THROUGH WHICH THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS ARE RESOLVED. HERE, THE THESIS AND ANTITHESIS ARE RECONCILED TO FORM A NEW STATEMENT  HEGEL DIALECTIC EXAMPLE DIALECTICS MAY HELP TO DEVELOP ONE’S INGENUITY. FOR INSTANCE, A MAN WANTS TO SLEEP IN THE OPEN (THESIS), BUT MOSQUITOES MAKE HIS PLAN AWFUL (ANTITHESIS), AND SO HE INVENTS THE MOSQUITO NET(SYNTHESIS). THE HEGELIAN METHOD OF DIALECTICAL UNIFICATION IDEALLY CONTINUES IN VARIOUS GRADES AS THE SYNTHESIS ITSELF BECOMES A THESIS TO WHICH THERE IS AN ANTITHESIS. THEN, THE TWO AGAIN BECOME UNIFIED AND TRANSCENDED IN A STILL HIGHER SYNTHESIS AND THE PROCESS WORKS PROGRESSIVELY. THUS, THE DIALECTICAL METHOD LEADS TO A LINEAR DEVELOPMENT FROM LESS SOPHISTICATED VIEWS TO MORE REFINED ONES LATER. OTHER EXAMPLES: Thesis: “Freedom is essential for human happiness.” Antithesis: “Too much freedom leads to chaos.” Synthesis: “A balance between freedom and order is necessary for happiness.” OTHER EXAMPLES: School uniform debate Thesis: school uniforms should be mandatory because They create equality among students and reduce distractions. Antithesis: uniforms should not be mandatory because They limit personal expression and individuality. Synthesis: a compromise is reached where students have A uniform code but can express themselves with accessories Or during special "dress-down" days.  5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM) THE SO-CALLED CRITICAL METHOD (ALSO CALLED KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM AND CRITICAL THEORY) SUGGESTS THAT IN KNOWING THINGS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE. THE IDEA WAS INTRODUCED BY THE INFLUENTIAL GERMAN PHILOSOPHER IN THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804).  5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM) THE CRITICAL METHOD OF KANT INDICATES A PRECISE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA. NOUMENA ARE “THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES” (DAS DING AN SICH), THE REALITY THAT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF OUR MIND, WHILE PHENOMENA ARE APPEARANCES, THE THINGS AS THEY APPEAR TO AN OBSERVER, THAT IS, REALITY AS OUR MIND MAKES SENSE OF THE THINGS. UNDER THIS CRITICAL METHOD OF KANT, BECAUSE ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS SORTED THROUGH OUR MENTAL FACULTIES, WE CAN KNOW ONLY THE WORLD THAT OUR MIND CASTS TO US, WE CAN NEVER KNOW WITH ASSURANCE WHAT IS OUT THERE. THUS, ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY KNOWLEDGE OF PHENOMENA, SINCE NOUMENA ARE ESSENTIALLY UNKNOWABLE.  5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM) FOR KANT, THE CORRECT PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD IS NOT TO PONDER ON THE NATURE OF THE WORLD AROUND US BUT TO DO A CRITIQUE OF OUR MENTAL FACULTIES, EXPLORING WHAT WE CAN KNOW, DEFINING THE LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE, AND ASCERTAINING HOW THE MENTAL PROCESSES THROUGH WHICH WE MAKE SENSE OF THE WORLD INFLUENCE WHAT WE KNOW. THE CRITICAL METHOD TEACHES THAT TO GET THE ANSWERS TO OUR PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS IS TO INVESTIGATE OUR MENTAL FACULTIES AND NOT TO DO A METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION OF THE UNIVERSE AROUND US. FOR KANT, THE MIND IS NOT A PASSIVE RECEPTOR AS IT DYNAMICALLY FORMS OUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY.  5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM) WE CAN LEARN FROM THE CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM) THAT REASON, THOUGH A BENEFICIAL TOOL, MUST BE WELL CONTROLLED TO AVOID IMPULSIVELY ACCEPTING THINGS FOR WHICH WE HAVE NO ENOUGH EVIDENCE. THE METHOD TELLS US THAT REASON IS NOT AN UNQUALIFIED GOOD, THAT IT MUST BE USED ANALYTICALLY IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING LED TO THE WRONG PATH. AS A PHILOSOPHICAL ATTITUDE, THE CRITICAL METHOD ENABLES US TO DETERMINE WHICH QUESTIONS REASON CAN ANSWER, AND WHICH ONES IT CANNOT. AS AN APPLICATION, THIS METHOD TEACHES US TO GIVE UP THINGS WE DO NOT REALLY NEED, LIKE TRADITIONS AND MANMADE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES THAT ARE BASELESS OR NEEDLESS FOR MORAL CONDUCT.  EXAMPLES: CRITICAL METHOD BY KANT UNDERSTANDING THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE SCENARIO: A STUDENT ASKS, "CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE?" KANT'S CRITICAL APPROACH: KANT WOULD SUGGEST THAT WHILE SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN MUCH ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WORLD (THINGS WE CAN OBSERVE AND MEASURE), IT HAS LIMITS. THERE ARE THINGS THAT SCIENCE CANNOT EXPLAIN, SUCH AS METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR THE MEANING OF LIFE, BECAUSE THEY GO BEYOND WHAT HUMANS CAN OBSERVE. LESSON: KANT TEACHES US THAT HUMAN REASON AND KNOWLEDGE HAVE LIMITS. WE CAN ONLY KNOW THINGS BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE, BUT THERE ARE THINGS (LIKE MORALITY OR FAITH) THAT WE CAN'T FULLY EXPLAIN THROUGH SCIENCE ALONE.  EXAMPLES: CRITICAL METHOD BY KANT MORAL DECISION-MAKING SCENARIO: IMAGINE YOU'RE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO CHEAT ON A TEST. YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG, BUT THE TEMPTATION IS STRONG. KANT'S CRITICAL APPROACH: KANT WOULD ARGUE THAT MORAL DECISIONS SHOULDN'T BE BASED ON PERSONAL DESIRES OR WHAT SEEMS BENEFICIAL AT THE MOMENT. INSTEAD, YOU SHOULD ACT BASED ON UNIVERSAL MORAL PRINCIPLES, LIKE "CHEATING IS WRONG." HE BELIEVED IN THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, WHICH MEANS YOU SHOULD ACT IN A WAY THAT YOU WOULD WANT EVERYONE TO FOLLOW AS A UNIVERSAL RULE. LESSON: KANT'S CRITICAL METHOD IN ETHICS TEACHES US THAT WE SHOULD EVALUATE ACTIONS NOT BASED ON THEIR OUTCOMES, BUT ON WHETHER THE ACTION ITSELF IS MORALLY RIGHT ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES.  EXAMPLES: CRITICAL METHOD BY KANT CAN WE KNOW WHAT GOD IS LIKE? SCENARIO: A STUDENT WONDERS, "CAN WE EVER FULLY KNOW WHAT GOD IS LIKE?" KANT'S CRITICAL APPROACH: KANT WOULD ARGUE THAT WE CAN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND GOD BECAUSE HE IS BEYOND HUMAN EXPERIENCE. WHILE WE MAY HAVE FAITH OR MORAL REASONING TO BELIEVE IN GOD, OUR KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED TO THE PHYSICAL WORLD, SO WE CANNOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S NATURE. LESSON: KANT REMINDS US THAT THERE ARE THINGS, LIKE THE NATURE OF GOD OR THE AFTERLIFE, THAT WE MAY BELIEVE IN, BUT WE CAN'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THROUGH REASON OR EXPERIENCE ALONE.  6. INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING INDUCTION OR REASONING INDUCTIVELY IS FUNDAMENTALLY INFERRING A GENERAL CONCLUSION FROM A COLLECTION OF PARTICULAR FACTS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT “ALL FLOWERS ARE FRAGRANT” BECAUSE ILANG-ILANG, SAMPAGUITA, ROSE, AND ROSAL ARE FRAGRANT. INDUCTION IS ALSO INFERRING OR REACHING A CONCLUSION BASED ON OBSERVATIONS. FOR INSTANCE, AFTER WITNESSING FOR YEARS THAT GRASSHOPPERS INVADE OUR RICE PLANTS DURING SUMMER, WE MAY CONCLUDE THAT NEXT SUMMER OUR RICE PLANTS WILL AGAIN BE INVADED BY GRASSHOPPERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEDUCTION IS A PROCESS OF REASONING IN WHICH REASONS ARE GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM. AN ARGUMENT IS THUS DEDUCTIVE IF THE PREMISES CLAIM TO GIVE CONCLUSIVE GROUNDS FOR THE TRUTH OF THE CONCLUSION.  6. INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING INDUCTIVE - FROM SPECIFIC TO GENERAL AN INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS AN ARGUMENT WHOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS PREMISE/S AND ITS CONCLUSION IS OF PROBABILITY. IF THE PREMISE/S ARE ASSUMED TO BE TRUE, IT IS STILL CONCEIVABLE FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE FALSE. E.G. EVERY DAY SINCE I WAS BORN, THE SUN HAS RISEN FROM THE EAST. THEREFORE, TOMORROW THE SUN WILL RISE FROM THE EAST. DEDUCTIVE - FROM GENERAL TO SPECIFIC A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT IS AN ARGUMENT WHOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS PREMISE/S AND ITS CONCLUSION IS OF NECESSITY. IF THE PREMISE/S ARE ASSUMED TO BE TRUE, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE FALSE. E.G. ALL GARMENTS ARE WORN. ALL WORN THINGS ARE USED. THEREFORE, ALL GARMENTS ARE USED  DEDUCTIVE REASONING EXAMPLES (GENERAL TO SPECIFIC) ETHICAL EXAMPLE: PREMISE 1: LYING IS MORALLY WRONG. PREMISE 2: CHEATING ON A TEST INVOLVES LYING. CONCLUSION: CHEATING ON A TEST IS MORALLY WRONG. SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLE: PREMISE 1: ALL METALS EXPAND WHEN HEATED. PREMISE 2: IRON IS A METAL. CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, IRON WILL EXPAND WHEN HEATED. MATHEMATICAL EXAMPLE: PREMISE 1: IF A NUMBER IS EVEN, IT IS DIVISIBLE BY 2. PREMISE 2: 8 IS AN EVEN NUMBER. CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, 8 IS DIVISIBLE BY 2.  INDUCTIVE REASONING EXAMPLES (SPECIFIC TO GENERAL) Scientific Example: Observation 1: I saw a raven, and it was black. Observation 2: Every raven I’ve ever seen has been black. Conclusion: All ravens are black. (This is inductive reasoning because while all observed ravens are black, there’s a possibility that a raven of a different color might exist.) Social Example: Observation 1: In the last three school debates, students who practiced more won the competition. Observation 2: The most recent winner of the debate also practiced a lot. Conclusion: Students who practice more are likely to win debates. Weather Example: Observation 1: It has rained every afternoon for the past week. Observation 2: It rained again this afternoon. Conclusion: It will probably rain again tomorrow afternoon.