Logic and Critical Thinking

WEEK 1

Objectives:

1. Define and understand the nature of Logic and its Philosophic background.

2. Understand the nature and processes of Philosophy.

3. Apply the correct reasoning

Introduction

• This lesson deals with the nature of logic and its philosophic background which includes the
meaning of philosophy, importance of philosophy, studying and doing philosophy, value of
philosophy, functions of philosophy, the branches of philosophy

What is Philosophy?

Greek words Philein (to love) and Sophia (wisdom)

Etymologically speaking “Love of Wisdom”

Philosophers are called “lovers of wisdom”

Three types of men:

1. A lover of pleasure

2. A lover of success

3. A lover of wisdom
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

• Pre-Socratic Philosophers- concerned themselves with the nature and the origin of the world.
“Where did everything come from?”.

• Cosmocentric- ancient philosophy. Since the center of philosophizing during this time was
the cosmos or the universe.

• Theocentric- medieval philosophy that the existence of God and the nature of His being. Provide
a proof of the existence of God.

• Middle ages (Christian Medieval Ages), making the Act of Faith as the conclusion of logical
process and negating the supra-rational character of Faith. Medieval scholars studied church
doctrines and biblical theology to explain what God chose to reveal.

• 17th Century- development in modern science combined with a decline in the authority of a
single church (Roman Catholic).

- Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

- Rene Descartes (1596-1650)- father of modern philosophy (cogito, ergo and sum); the 1st
philosopher studied the process of thinking.

- John Locke (1632-1704)

• Ideocentric- modern period; focused on the certitude of human knowledge.

- “is the human mind capable of obtaining certitude?”

• Anthropocentric- from the word “anthropos” meaning “man”.; contemporary philosophy;

focused itself on the human person.
The 10 Commandments for Philosophers (Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970)

• 1. Do not feel certain of anything.

• 2. Do not think it is worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence for the evidence is sure
to come to light;

• 3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.

• 4. When met with opposition, even if it should be from your husband/wife or children, endeavor
to overcome it by argument and not by authority. Overcoming it by authority position is both
unreal and illusory.

• 5. Have no respect for the authority of others for there are always contrary authority to be
found

• 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think are pernicious for, if you do, the suppressed
opinions will suppress you.

7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissents than in passive agreement with others.

9. Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconsistent for it is more inconvenient when you try to
conceal it,

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think it
is a paradise.

Problem of Philosophy

According to Dorion Sagan:

“ The difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist learns more and more
about less and less until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less
about more and more until he knows nothing about everything”.

Nature of Philosophy

• Searches for answers

• From scientific-minded people, philosophy may be considered useless

because philosophy produces no universally valid results.

• Is a systematic search, i.e., a scientific inquiry on the meaning of human existence and on the
truth behind and beyond human existence.
 • It does not pertain to particular objects

• It can exist even without science.

• It is always present.

Philosophy

1. Philosophy is a human activity.

2. Philosophy is a social activity

3. Philosophy is a perennial search.

4. Philosophy is a disinterested search.

5. Philosophy is a search for the intelligible structure.

6. Philosophy deals with the totality of being.

Branches of Philosophy

1. Philosophy of Thought- deals with answering the problems related to knowledge and
reasoning.

2. Philosophy of Reality- deals with the reality of the world.

3. Philosophy of Morality- deals with man’s question regarding the problems of morals and good
deeds.
The Contemporary Philosophical Traditions

Three Divisions:

1. Analytic Philosophy

- This is the belief that the proper method of philosophy is analysis.

2. Existentialism
 - also called continental philosophy. Emphasizes fundamental questions of meaning and
choice as they affect existing individuals.

3. Phenomenology

- defaces assumptions and prepositions and upholds phenomena as they are apprehended.

- developed by Edmund Husserl.

Logic

is the study of the fundamental principles which govern the true nature of correct inferential thinking.

All senator are politicians.

No senators are congressman.

Ergo, no congressmen are politicians.

All nurses are healthcare professionals

Some nurses are Filipinos
Ergo, some Filipinos are healthcare professionals.
 WEEK 2

What is Critical Thinking?

it is the careful application of reason in the determination of whether a claim is true.

it isn’t so much coming up with claims, true or otherwise, that constitutes critical thinking; it’s the
evaluation of claims, however, we come up with them

Critical Thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive and intellectual skills needed to:

a. Effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments.

b. Discover and overcome personal prejudices and biases.
c. Formulate and present convincing reasons in
d. support of conclusions.
e. Make reasonable, intelligent, decisions about what to believe and what to do.

BUILDING BLOCKS OF CRITICAL THINKING

ARGUMENTS

An attempt to support or prove a claim or an assertion by

providing a reason or reasons for accepting it. The claim that is supported is called the conclusion of the
argument, and the claim or claims providing the support are called the premises

ISSUES

The heart of the matter

Whenever we call a claim into question—that is, when we ask questions about its truth or falsity.

CLAIMS

Claims are basic elements in critical thinking; they are the things we say, aloud or in writing, to convey
information.

Claims or statements are the kinds of things that are true

A claim that is offered as a reason for believing another claim is a premise. The claim for which a
premise is supposed to give a reason is the conclusion of the argument.

Example: The issue is whether Martin should be excused for missing class, or, if you like, should Martin
be excused for missing class?

Premise: Martin's grandmother died, and he had to attend the funeral. Conclusion: Martin should be
excused for missing class.
TWO KINDS OF GOOD ARGUMENTS

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

The premise (or premises) of a good deductive argument, if true, proves or demonstrates (these being
the same thing) its conclusion. However, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we must begin
with the fundamental concept of deductive logic, validity. An argument is said to be valid if it isn’t
possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false.

Premise: The rain pours hard outside, If it’s rainy outside, Conclusion: Therefore, I will be carrying an
umbrella with me.

Premise: Josh Fulcher is taller than his wife, and his wife is taller than his son. Conclusion: Therefore,
Josh Fulcher is taller than his son.

The premises of a good deductive argument, assuming they are true, prove or demonstrate the
conclusion.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

A good inductive argument, don’t prove or demonstrate the conclusion. They support it. This means
that assuming they are true, they raise the probability that the conclusion is true.

Example:

Premise: This marble from the bag is black. That marble from the bag is black. A third marble from the
bag is black.

Conclusion: Therefore all the marbles in the bag black.

The premise of this argument (assuming it is true) raises the probability that the conclusion is true; thus
it supports the conclusion.

The more support the premises of an argument provide for a conclusion, the stronger the argument is
said to be. We shall return to this point in the next chapter.

Critical Thinking Standards

CLARITY

ACCURACY

PRECISION

RELEVANCE

DEPTH

BREADTH
SIGNIFICANCE

FAIRNESS

CLARITY

Clarity is a “gateway” standard. If a statement is unclear, one cannot determine whether it is accurate
or relevant. In fact, it is impossible to tell anything about a statement without knowing what it is saying.

For example,

What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them understand
the world in which they live and function as ethical persons in that world?”

Thinking is always more or less clear. It is helpful to assume that one does not fully understand a
thought except to the extent that he or she can elaborate, illustrate, and exemplify it.

Questions that focus on clarity in thinking include:

• Could you elaborate on that point? or Do I need to elaborate on that point?

• Could you express that point in another way? Can I express that point differently?

• Could you give me an illustration? or Should I give an illustration?

• Could you give me an example? or Should I provide an example?

• Let me state in my own words what I think you just said. Am I clear about your meaning?

ACCURACY

- means free from errors, mistakes, or distortions; true, correct.

A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in “Most dogs weigh more than 300 pounds.” Thinking is
always more or less accurate. It is useful to assume that a statement’s accuracy has not been fully
assessed except to the extent that one has checked to determine whether it represents things as they
really are.

Questions that focus on accuracy in thinking include:

• How could I check that to see if it is true?

• How could I verify these alleged facts?

• Can I trust the accuracy of these data given the source from which they come?
PRECISION

exact to the necessary level of detail, specific.

A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in “Jack is overweight.” (One doesn’t
know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.) Thinking is always more or less precise. It is
likely that one does not fully understand a statement except to the extent that he or she can specify it
in detail.

Questions that focus on precision in thinking include:

Could you give me more details about that?

Could you be more specific?

Could you specify your allegations more fully?

RELEVANCE

: bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand; implies a close

logical relationship with, and importance to, the matter under consideration.

A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise but not relevant to the question at issue. For example,
students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their
grade in a course. Often, however, “effort” does not measure the quality of student learning, and when
this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade. Thinking is always capable of straying from the
task, question, problem, or issue under consideration. It is useful to assume individuals have not fully
assessed thinking except to the extent that they have considered all issues, concepts, and information
relevant to it.

• How does this idea relate to this other idea?

• How does your question relate to the issue at hand?.

DEPTH

Depth: containing complexities and multiple interrelationships, implies thoroughness in thinking

through the many variables in the situation, context, idea, or question.

A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (i.e., lack depth).

For example, the statement “Just Say No,” which was used for a number of years to discourage children
and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, those who take this
injunction to solve the social problem of unhealthy drug use fail to appreciate the true complexities in
the problem. Their thinking is superficial at best. Thinking can either function at the surface of things or
probe beneath that surface to deeper matters and issues. A line of thinking is not fully assessed except
to the extent that one has fully considered all the important complexities inherent in it.
BREADTH

encompassing multiple viewpoints, comprehensive in view, wideranging and broadminded in

perspective.

A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep but lack breadth. Thinking can be
more or less broad-minded (or narrow-minded), and breadth of thinking requires the thinker to reason
insightfully within more than one point of view or frame of reference

. One has not fully assessed a line of thinking except to the extent that individual has determined how
much breadth of thinking is required to understand it.

Questions that focus on breadth in thinking include:

• What points of view are relevant to this issue?

• What relevant points of view have I ignored thus far?

SIGNIFICANCE

- having importance, being of consequence; having considerable or substantial meaning

-concentrate on the most important information (relevant to the issue) and take into account the most
important ideas or concepts.

-many ideas maybe relevant to an issue, they may not be equally important. Similarly, a thinker may fail
to ask the most important questions and instead become mired in

superficial questions, questions of little weight.

Questions that focus on significance include:

• What is the most significant information needed to address this issue?

• How is that fact important in context?

• Which of these questions is the most significant?

• Which of these ideas or concepts is the most important?

FAIRNESS

free from bias, dishonesty, favoritism, selfish-interest, deception or injustice.

Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or
interests. Because everyone tends to be biased in favor of their own viewpoint, it is important to keep
the intellectual standard of fairness at the forefront of thinking. This is especially important when the
situation may call on us to examine things that are difficult to see or give something up we would rather
hold onto.
Thinking can be more or less fair. Whenever more than one point of view is relevant to the situation or
in the context, the thinker is obligated to consider those relevant viewpoints in good faith

Intellectual Standards and Attitudes for Performance of Nursing Students

OUTLINE

1. The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

2. Elements of Reasoning
3. Intellectual Standards
4. Intellectual Traits

The Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework

• It was introduced by Paul and Elder in 2001.

• It helps students to master their thinking dimensions through identifying the thinking
parts and evaluate the usage of these parts.

3 COMPONENTS

1. Elements of Reasoning
2. Intellectual standards
3. Intellectual Traits
The Elements of Reasoning

All reasoning has a purpose.

All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, and to solve some
problem.

All reasoning is based on assumptions

All reasoning is done from some point of view.

All reasoning is based on data, information and evidence.

All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas.

All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we draw conclusions and give
meaning to data

All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences.

The Intellectual Standards

These must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning
about a problem, issue, or situation.
 2 KEY INGREDIENTS to turn ordinary thinking into critical thinking.

1. Critical thinking is reflective thinking.

It involves thinking about one’s thinking.
2. Critical thinking is done well.
Thinking done well meets high standards of reasoning.

CLARITY

Could you elaborate?

Could you illustrate what you mean?

Could you give me an example?

• understandable, the meaning can be grasped; to free from confusion or ambiguity, to

remove obscurities.

• It forces the thinking to be explained well so that it is easy to understand.

When thinking is easy to follow, it has Clarity.

ACCURACY

How could we check on that?

How could we find out if that is true?

How could we verify or test that?

• free from errors, mistakes or distortions; true, correct

• It makes sure that all information is correct and free from error.

• If the thinking is reliable, then it has Accuracy.

PRECISION

Could you be more specific?

Could you give more details?

Could you be more exact?

• words and data used are exact and specific

• It demands that the words and data used are exact.

• If no more details could be added, then it has Precision.

RELEVANCE

How does that relate to the problem?

How does that bear on the question?

How does that help with the issue?

• bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand

• It means that everything included is important, that each part makes a difference.

• If something is focused on what needs to be said, there is Relevance.

DEPTH

What factors make it difficult?

What are some of the complexities of the question?

What are some difficulties we need to deal with?

• It makes the argument thorough.

• It forces us to explore the complexities.

• If an argument includes all the nuances necessary to make the point, it has Depth.

BREADTH

Do we need to look at this from another perspective?

Do we need to consider another point of view?

• Do encompassing multiple viewpoints

• It demands that additional viewpoints are taken into account. Are all perspectives
consid

• ered?

• When all sides of an argument are discussed, then we find Breadth. we need to look at
this in other ways?

LOGICAL

Does all of this make sense together?

Does the first paragraph fit in with the last one?

Does what you say follow from the evidence?

• the parts make sense together, no contradictions.

 • It means that an argument is reasonable, the thinking is consistent and the conclusions
follow from the evidence.

• When something makes sense step-by-step, then it is Logical.

SIGNIFICANCE

Is this the most important problem to consider?

Is this the central idea to focus on?

Which of these facts are most important?

• It compels us to include the most important ideas.

• We don’t want to leave out crucial facts that would help to make a point.

• When everything that is essential is included, then we find Significance.

FAIRNESS

Is my thinking justifiable in context?

Am I taking into account the thinking of others?

Is my purpose fair given the situation?

Am I using my concepts in keeping with educated usage, or Am I distorting them to get what I want?

• It means that the argument is balanced and free from bias, dishonesty, favoritism,
selfish-interest, deception or injustice.

• It pushes us to be impartial and evenhanded toward other positions.

• When an argument is objective, there is Fairness.

The Intellectual Traits

Individuals who are critical thinkers often apply intellectual standards to the elements of reasoning to
aide in the development of the intellectual traits.

INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY

• It develops one’s ability to perceive the known limitation and the circumstances that
may cause biases and self-deceptively.

• It depends on recognizing that one claims what one’s actually knows.

INTELLECTUAL COURAGE

• Courage represents developing a consciousness to address ideas fairly regardless its

point of view or our negative emotions about it.

• It helps us to develop our ability to a evaluate ideas regardless our presumptions and
perceptions about it.

INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY

• Empathy is related to develop the ability to put ourselves in the others’ shoes in order to
understand them.

• It develops how we can see the parts of reasoning of the others such as the viewpoints,
assumptions, and ideas.

INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY

• It develops the ability to integrate with others intellectual reasoning and avoid the
confusion that comes from our own reasoning.

• It focuses on the ability to others’ reasoning for the topic and integrate with it.

INTELLECTUAL PERSEVERANCE

• The perseverance develops the need to have the truth about the insight regardless the
barriers that face against it such as difficulties, frustration, and obstacles.

• It helps us to build rational reasoning despite what is standing against it.

CONFIDENCE IN REASON

• By applying the reasoning parts and encouraging people to come with their reasons,
they start to build confidence in their reason and think in a rational way.

FAIR-MINDEDNESS

• It develops the ability to start with a fair look at all the reasoning and traits all the
viewpoints alike putting aside one’s feelings, raises, and interests.

Limitation of LOGIC

What is LOGIC?

It comes from the Greek word logos or logike which is coined by Zeno, the Stoic (c. 340-256 BC)

Logic is not interested in what we know regarding on a subject, but the truth or validity of our
arguments regarding such subjects.
The value of logic lies in its correctness. Formal logic can be shown to be correct, given basic
assumptions about existence and knowledge

If logic's strength is correctness, its limitations are related to its range.

Four Limits of Logic

PARTIAL TRUTHS

Many forms of logic are binary or can only handle true or false

Some forms of logic, including fuzzy logic, can handle partial truths

Language

Each form of logic represents observations in a formal language of logic

These languages impose limitations that do not exist in natural language

Logic languages cannot represent the subtleties of a natural language

Uncertainty

SOME FORMS OF LOGIC FAIL TO HANDLE UNCERTAINTY

ANY FORM OF LOGIC THAT CANNOT HANDLE UNCERTAINTY HAS DIFFICULTY WITH REAL WORLD
DECISION MAKING

HUMAN PERCEPTION

USING LOGIC IN CREATING SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT TENDS TO HAVE LOW
VALUE

IT IS DIFFICULT TO CODIFY PERCEPTIONS SUCH AS AESTHETICS, EMOTION, OR CULTURAL CONCEPTS

 Judgement, Propositions and Reasoning

Judgement and Propositions

Propositions

Logical relations between propositions

Reasoning

Interference

JUDGMENT

It is the act by which the intellect pronounces upon the agreement or disagreement between two
ideas, which the mind has formed and compared. The expressions of judgments are called
propositions.

Thinking is carried on by means of judgments. Hence, it is justified to declare that judgment is the basic
thought- process. As a second act of the intellect, judgment largely depends on ideas – the building
blocks or the foundation of knowledge.

LOGICAL TRUTH AND FALSIFY OF JUDGMENT

Judgment is either true or false...

True Judgment

A judgment is said to be true when it affirms what is, that is, when the judgment recognizes the real
relationship between two realities.

True judgment is when the intellect agrees with and perceives the actual relationship of two realities

False Judgment

A judgment is said to be false when the minds deviate from and does not reflect the actual relationship
between two realities.

When the mind does not express and is not in agreement with the actual relationship of the external
realties, judgment is false.

PROPOSITIONS

The expressions of judgments are called propositions.

A proposition is a declarative sentence that can be either true or false.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSITIONS

1. All propositions are statements, but not all statements are propositions.
Since not all statements contain judgment, not all statements are propositions. Questions,
exclamations, requests, and commands are not propositioning since nothing is affirmed or
denied.
For example:
What is the truth? Help!
Goodbye! Please!
Have mercy!
May you find peace and happiness. Because?
2. A proposition expresses either truth or falsity.
A proposition is true when it corresponds with reality, and is false when it does not.
For example:
All cows are brown.
The Earth is further from the sun than Venus

HERE ARE SOME SENTENCES THAT ARE NOT PROPOSITIONS

“Do you want to go to the movies?”
“Clean up your room.”
“This sentence is false.”
“2x = 2 + x.”

KINDS OF PROPOSITIONS
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
A categorical proposition is a kind of proposition that expresses an unconditional judgment.
HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITIONS
It is a proposition which expresses an indirect and conditional statement.

Categorical Proposition
It is a proposition in which the subject is either affirmed or denied by the predicate term
ELEMENTS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
1. Quantifier – determines the extension of the subject. The quantifiers can be particular or
universal
2. Subject Term – is that part of a proposition about which something is either affirmed or
denied.
3. Copula – is the qualifier of the proposition. Because of it, the proposition is either
affirmative or negative.
Affirmative copula – is, am, are
Negative copula – is not, am not, are not
4. Predicate Term – is that which is affirmed or denied of a subject. It has quantity which
depends upon the quality of the proposition.
QUALITY OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

1. Affirmative the predicate is affirmed of the subject. The proposition has an affirmative copula.

From the Latin word affirmo which means “I agree”.

The first 2 vowels of the word are A and I

They are the affirmative propositions.

Ex:

All exams are evaluation.

Many millionaires are businessmen.

2. Negative the predicate is denied of the subject. It has a negative copula.

The Latin word nego which means “I deny”.

The two vowels of the word are E and O.

They are the negative propositions.

Ex:

Darryl is not the President of the Philippines.

Some jewelries are not cheap.

QUANTITY OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

1.) Universal the predicate is affirmed or denied of the whole of the subject.

Ex.

All mothers are loving parents. Every judgment is an act of the mind.

This insect is poisonous.

No transparencies are plastic. Dipolog City is not Dapitan City.

2.) Particular the predicate is affirmed or denied of only part of the subject.

Ex:

Some politicians are not corrupt officials.

Few students are in the dean’s list. Most parents are proud of their children.
4 types of Categorical Propositions

1. Universal Affirmative (A)

All lawyers are politicians.

2. Universal Negative (E)

No lawyers are politicians.

3. Particular Affirmative (I)

Some lawyers are politicians.

4. Particular Negative (O)

Some lawyers are not politicians

Hypothetical Proposition

It cannot affirm or deny in an absolute manner because oftentimes it composed of two dependent
propositions

3 types of Hypothetical Propositions

1. Conditional Proposition

2. Disjunctive Proposition

3. Conjuctive Proposition

Conditional Proposition

Expresses a condition or relation of dependence between two propositions.

Expressed relation points out that one proposition necessarily follows from the other because of a
definite condition.

Note that a conditional proposition is one in which two parts are joined by if, unless, when, where,
suppose, in case.

Sometimes called an if- then proposition

Example of Conditional Proposition

If a man is farsighted, he needs eyeglasses.

If dry weather continues, the harvest will be poor.

Two components of Conditional Proposition

1. Antecedent/Implicans

Generally introduced by word IF

Contains the condition

2. Consequent/Implicate

Expresses the statement that follows the acceptance of condition.

Disjunctive Proposition

•One whose subject or predicate consists of parts which exclude each other.

•Sometimes called an either or statement due to its construction.

•Parts of disjunction are called disjuncts (alternants)

Examples:

A body is either in motion or at rest.

Either Pedro or Juan is dishonest.

Types of Disjunctive Proposition

•Proper- perfect,complete,strict

ex. It is either raining or not raining.

•Improper-imperfect,incomplete ex. Jose is either sitting

or writting.

•Broad

ex.Either my sister or I will go.

2 things required for a proper disjunctive proposition

1. The enumeration of the possibilities must be complete.

2. There must be an exclusive opposition between or among the enumerated possibilities.

Conjunctive Proposition
•One which denies that two contrary predicates together can be true of the same subject at the same
time.

•The truth of a conjuctive hypothetical proposition depends solely upon a true exclusive opposition
existing between their component parts.

•Parts of conjuctive are called

conjucts

Conjunctive proposition

You cannot stand and sit at the same time.

You cannot be in Quiapo and in Makati at the same time.

ex.

If you are in Quiapo, you

are not in Makati.

If you are in Makati, you are not in Quiapo.

Reasoning

-as a way of proving arguments, comes in many different forms. Different forms of reasoning are
accepted in different fields and contexts

Logic

-Logic is one type of reasoning relying on the form of an argument. Logic has its roots in philosophy as a
form of deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. The most common form of logic seen in
argumentation is the syllogism

•Syllogism is an argument with a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

•Logical forms are either valid or not—as long as the form of the argument and the premises are true,
then the conclusion must be true.

TYPES OF SYLLOGISM

Categorical.

If all A is B, And if all C is A, Then all C is B.

If all cats are animals, And all tabbies are cats, Then all tabbies are animals.
If all welfare recipients are forced to work, And if all impoverished people are welfare recipients, Then
all impoverished people are forced to work.

Hypothetical.

If A, then B, So if A is present, Then B is present.

If I jump, I will land, I jumped, Then I landed.

If WMD are found, war will occur WMD are found, War will occur.

Disjunctive.

Either A or B, So if A exists, Then B does not exist.

Either it is sunny or cloudy, So if it is sunny, Then it is not cloudy.

Either tax cuts help or hurt the economy, So if tax cuts help the economy, Then tax cuts do not hurt the
economy

Science

Scientific reasoning is based on observation, prediction, experimentation, and repeatability.

Arguers observe a phenomenon, establish a hypothesis, and perform experiments to confirm or deny
their hypothesis, and repeat.

Standards for testing scientific reasoning

1. Consistency. Scientific reasoning must be internally consistent, utilizing method that proves the
argument.

2. Acceptability. Scientific reasoning must adhere to norms that will gain adherence by the audience.

3. Repeatability. Scientific reasoning must withstand refutation, alternative hypotheses, and

experiments.

Visual/Aural Proof

Eye (or ear) witness forms of reasoning have long been crucial forms of providing proof (especially in
court room settings.)

Visual and aural forms of proof have rising importance as digital media and reproduction becomes
more prominent.
Storytelling

Storytelling is a common feature of all cultures and can provide context to argument as well as make
arguments. Telling stories can be an effective method to gain an audience’s attention as well as make a
subtle point about the content of an argument

Standards for storytelling

1. Fidelity. If the story mirrors some aspect of the audience’s experience then they will likely find the
story to be persuasive.·

2. Character & plot development. Like any good story, both the characters and the plot must be
advanced. Thin characters or plot makes the story no more than a quaint anecdote.

3. Understanding. A good story must have a good point; as fables and folk tales often do by passing on
the moral of the story

Specific instances

The types of reasoning explained above generally rely upon deductive reasoning; going from general
premises that are considered true to specific conclusions (i.e., that DNA evidence is presumed to be
accurate in specific instances is based on the general assumption that DNA science is sound.) Many
arguments are not deductive arguments-- they are inductive.

5 basic categories

1. Argument by Generalization. Assumes that a number of examples can be applied more generally. This
is a form of inductive reasoning, whereby specific instances are translated into more general principles.

· Are the examples analogous? Are there enough examples?

Do the examples come from different times, places, and situations?

2. Argument by

Argument by cause attempts to

Cause.

establish a cause and effect relationship between two events. This is a form of reasoning that argues
that the interactions of two or more incidents are not merely coincidental, but was actually related in
some meaningful way.

What is the certainty or strength of the relationship?·

Are there alternate causes?

Are there alternate effects?

3. Argument by Sign

Argument by sign asserts that two or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of
one indicates the presence or absence of the other. This is in some ways a type of tightly linked cause
and effect reasoning that has more certainty. Any time an argument generated utilizing one variable as
proof of another, argument by sign is being used. Fingerprints are signs of discrete individuals, just as a
footprint is an indication that someone has walked by recently.

·Is the relationship strong?

·Is the relationship automatic? ·Is there an alternate cause?

4. Argument by Analogy

Argument by analogy examines alternative examples in order to prove that what is true in one case is
true in the other. This is an attempt to points out relevant parallels that could utilize

experience and example as a guide. Are there significant points of similarity or difference?

Are the points of similarity crucial to the comparison?

Are the differences irrelevant to the comparison?

5. Argument by Authority

Argument by authority relies on the testimony and reasoning of a credible source. This is an attempt to
use expertise in a particular field (from parenting to religion to education) to advance a particular belief

Is the authority qualified to make a judgment?

Is the authority trustworthy

and honest?

Is the authority experienced?

INFERENCE

Inference is a mental process by which we reach a conclusion based on specific evidence. Inferences are
the stock and trade of detectives examining clues, of doctors diagnosing diseases, and of car mechanics
repairing engine problems. We infer motives, purpose, and intentions.

Inference is essential to, and part of, being human. We engage in inference every day. We interpret
actions to be examples of behavior characteristics, intents, or expressions of particular feelings. We infer
it is raining when we see someone with an open umbrella. We infer people are thirsty if they ask for a
glass of water. We infer that evidence in a text is authoritative when it is attributed to a scholar in the
field.
Disagreements are based not on differences in reasoning, but in the values, assumptions, or information
brought to bear. If we believe that all politicians are crooks, we will infer that a specific politician’s
actions are scurrilous. If we believe that politicians act for the good of all, we will look for some benefit
in their actions. Either way, we will try to use reason to explain the actions.

The more evidence we have before us, and the more carefully we reason, the more valid our
inferences. This principle plays an important role with reading: the more evidence within a text we
incorporate into our interpretation, the more likely we have not gone astray from any intended
meaning.

Categorical and Hypothetical Syllogism

1. SYLLOGISM

  Syllogisms are arguments which consist of three

 propositions which are so related so that when the

 first two propositions (that is, premises) are

 posited as true the third proposition (that is, the

 conclusion) must also be true.

8 RULES OF SYLLOGISM

There should only be three terms in the syllogism, namely: the major term, the

minor term, and the middle term. And the meaning of the middle term in the firs

premise should not be changed in the second premise; otherwise, the syllogism

will have 4 terms.

2.

The major and the minor terms should only be universal in the conclusion if they

are universal in the premises. In other words, if the major and the minor terms

are universal in the conclusion, then they must also be universal in the premises

for the argument to be valid. Hence, if the major and minor terms are particular in

3.

the conclusion, then rule #2 is not applicable.

The middle term must be universal at least once. Or, at least one of the middle

terms must be universal.

4. If the premises are affirmative, then the conclusion must be affirmative.

5.

If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, then the conclusion must be

negative.

6.

The argument is invalid whenever the premises are both negative. This is

because we cannot draw a valid conclusion from two negative premises.

7.

One premise at least must be universal.

If one premise is particular, then the conclusion must be particular.

02 Categorical Syllogism

A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises
and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used
exactly twice.
03 Hypothetical Syllogism

What is Hypothetical Syllogism?

    A hypothetical syllogism is built around a hypothetical statement which takes the form: "IF . . . THEN."
Hypothetical syllogisms are not entirely hypothetical, but one of its premises is.

     

  Hypothetical Syllogism

This kind of syllogism must be constructed of a conditional major premise, and an unconditional minor
premise leading to an unconditional conclusion.

1. A conditional major premise.

2. An unconditional minorpremise. 

3. An unconditional conclusion.

A hypothetical syllogism has only two terms. Instead of talking about subjects and predicates, here we
will be talking about antecedents and consequents.

Types of Hypothetical Syllogism

CONDITIONAL

It is one whose major premise is a conditional proposition and whose minor premise and conclusion are
categorical propositions. It consists of the antecedent and the consequent for the truth of the
hypothetical judgment lies in the truth of dependence between the two clauses.

- Antecedent – (CAUSE)

- Consequent – (EFFECT)

VALID MOODS OFACONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

  MODUS PONENS

The truth of the antecedent implies the truth of the consequence. It is also known as positing mood
(assert) or

the empirical conditional constructive syllogism. The fulfilment of the condition implies the occurrence
of the consequent.

MODUSTOLLENS
The falsity of the consequent implies the falsity of the antecedent. It is also known as sublating mood or
empirical

conditional destructive syllogism. If the consequent is rejected in the minor premise, the antecedent
must also be rejected in the conclusion.

     

   DISJUNCTIVE

 It is Either or Statement.

composed of:

disjunctive proposition

- major premise

categorical propositions

- minor premise - conclusion

Examples

•Either it rains or the crops will die.

It rained. 

Therefore, the crops will not die.

•Either there is no justice or no mercy. 

There is justice

Therefore, there is no mercy.

2 types of disjunction

● Proper - strong

● Improper - weak

Two Valid Procedures

Positing process

- minor accepts one part

- conclusion denies the other

part

Denying process

- minor denies one part

- conclusion accepts the other

part
Proper Disjunction

-Positing Process

- Denying Process

Improper Disjunction

-Denying Process

- Positing process is invalid

I will either be a doctor or an engineer. I will be a doctor.

Therefore, I will not be an engineer.

CONJUNCTIVE

composed of:

conjuctive proposition

- major premise

categorical propositions

- minor premise - conclusion

2 types of conjunction

● Two-part - closed/exclusive

● More-than-two-part -

open/multiple

Two Valid Procedures

Positing process

- minor accepts one part

- conclusion denies the other

part

Denying process

- minor denies one part

- conclusion accepts the other

part

Two-part
-Positing Process

-Denying Process

More-than- two-part

-Positing Process

-Denying process is invalid

One can’t be in Masbate and Legazpi at the same time. He is not in Masbate.

Therefore, he is in Legazpi.

 Other Examples

•A student who fails in several exams is either lazy or lacking in talent. John is not lacking in talent.

Therefore, John is not lazy.

•A person cannot face the sun and face his own shadow at the same time.

I am not facing the sun.

Therefore, definitely I am facing my shadow

Theories of Knowledge

Empiricism

Theories of Knowledge

EMPIRICISM is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is

sense experience.

● It emphasizes the role of experience

and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only
knowledge humans can have is a posteriori

● Inordertobuildamorecomplexbody

of knowledge from these direct observations, induction or inductive reasoning must be used.

EMPIRICISM
● The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology

- Greek word for "experience"

- Classical Greek and Roman usage of "empiric”

referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory

● The term "empirical" (rather than "empiricism") also refers to the method of observation and
experiment used in the natural and social sciences

● Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

 HISTORY

The concept of a "tabula rasa" (or "clean slate") had been developed as early as the 11th Century by the
Persian Philosopher Avicenna

- argued that knowledge is attained through empirical familiarity with objects in this world, from which
one abstracts universal concepts, which can then be further developed through a syllogistic method of
reasoning

● The 12th Century Arabic philosopher Abubacer (or Ibn Tufail: 1105 - 1185)

- demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment in which the mind of a feral child
develops from a clean slate to that of an adult, in complete isolation from

society on a desert island, through experience alone.

ARISTOTLE

● Like Plato, Aristotle believed that knowledge necessarily involves general or universal ideas- man, dog,
table, chair, etc.

● Aristotle believe that our knowledge of the general comes from our experience of particular men,
tables, chairs, dogs etc

The problem

● How do we arrived at universal ideas on the basis of our limited and fluctuating experience of
particular?

- Universal and necessary elements of knowledge the foundation of all subsequent reasoning- are built
in the mind through INDUCTION

SIR FRANCIS BACON

can be considered an early Empiricist, through his popularization of an inductive methodology for
scientific inquiry, which has since become known as the scientific method

JOHN LOCKED

● The doctrine of Empiricism was first explicitly formulated by the British philosopher John Locke in the
late 17th Century.

● Locke argued in his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" of 1690 that the mind is a tabula
rasa on which experiences leave their marks

● However, he also held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at
through intuition and reasoning alone.

George Berkeley

● esse is percipi

○ famous principle

○ “to be is to be perceived”

● Idealist

○ He held that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, which are mind-dependent.

● Immaterialist

○ He held that ordinary objects are only

collections of ideas, which are

mind-dependent. ● Works:

○ Vision

■ An Essay towards a New Theory of

Vision, 1709 ○ Metaphysics

■ A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, 1710

■ Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, 1713

● Approach to Empiricism would later come to be called Subjective Idealism  

 Berkeley continuation...

● “Common sense dictates that there are only two crucial elements involved in perception: the
perceiver and what is perceived.”
○ perceiver—–ideas—–material objects - - - - - > perceiver—–ideas

○ belief that ordinary things continue to exist when one is not perceiving them

● No Abstract Ideas

● Sensible Objects

○ “all sensible qualities are just ideas”

● Science without Matter

○ natural science, if properly conceived, could proceed and even thrive without assuming that

bodies are material substances existing outside the mind

● Religion

○ Natural science has plenty to do even in the absence of material objects, then: it is nothing less

than a systematic exploration of the mind of god

David Hume

● “no theory of reality is possible; there can be no knowledge of anything beyond experience”

● Works:

○ Treatise of Human Nature (1740)

○ Essays Concerning Human

Understanding ((1748)

○ Natural History of Religion (1757)

● brought to the Empiricist viewpoint an extreme Skepticism.

    

 Hume continuation...

● human knowledge can be divided into two categories:

○ relations of ideas (e.g. propositions involving some contingent observation of the world, such as

"the sun rises in the East")

○ matters of fact (e.g. mathematical and logical propositions)

● Classification of perception into two broad categories:

○ Impressions: perceptions brightly in us entering with force and violence

○ Ideas: picture that drive impressions

● The Uncertainty of Causation

● The Problem of Induction

● Religious Morality Versus Moral Utility

● The Division of Reason and Morality

○ Hume denied God’s role as the source of morality.

 Hume continuation...

● Religion

○ Hume argues that an orderly universe does not necessarily prove the existence of God.

● The Bundle Theory of the Self

○ We cannot observe ourselves, or what we are, in a unified way.

○ There is no soul

John Stuart Mill

● The cause of any event is a set of conditions or factors which, taken together, constitute a sufficient
condition for it

● He developed an inductive model of social science from a perspective of uncompromising

methodological individualism

● Works:

○ "A System of Logic"

○ "Principles of Political Economy"

○ "On Liberty"

○ "Utilitarianism"

○ "The Subjection of Women"

○ "Three Essays on Religion"

○ Autobiography

● Phenomenalism

○ extreme form of Empiricism

○ the view that physical objects, properties and events are completely reducible to mental objects,
properties and events
○ matter is merely the "permanent possibility of sensation"

    

 Mill continuation...

●●

Eliminative induction principles

○ nothing which was absent when an event occurred could be its cause

○ nothing which was present when an event failed to occur could be its cause

Series of Canons

○ Method of agreement

■ method intended for determining possible necessary conditions by elimination

○ Method of difference

■ method intended for determining possible sufficient conditions by elimination

○ Method of residues

■ method that relies on deduction rather than induction

○ Method of concomitant variation

■ method to be deployed when a given factor cannot be removed, rendering the method of difference

redundant

   

Problems with Empiricism

1. Could not overcome problems with accounting for forms of knowledge that did not relate to the
senses.

2. Could not account for how it could be that humans can have knowledge for which there is no direct
experience

Rationalism

Theories of Knowledge

    

● Rationalism is a reliance on reason as the only reliable source of human knowledge.

● A psychological characterization of rationalism would describe it as an overly deductive way of

thinking and the molding of reality to fit one's theoretical understanding.
● The first philosophers who are today referred to as having been rationalists include Descartes (1596-
1650), Leibniz (1646-1716), and Spinoza (1632-1677).

Rationalism is a method of thinking that is marked by a deductive and abstract way of reasoning.

For Descartes, knowledge involves certainty and certainty exists in the form of clear and distinct ideas,
which are ideas that are indubitable (not capable of being doubted).

Leibniz distinguished the truths of reasoning, which were necessary truths that cannot be denied
without contradiction and excluded statements that are either true or false from the truths of fact which
are not necessary but are contingent (neither necessarily true nor necessarily false) upon experience.

To be rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims:

● The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us
by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

● The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as
part of our rational nature.

● The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as
part of our rational nature.

 The Intuition/ Deduction Thesis

•Intuition is a form of rational insight.

•Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments,
ones in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. 

•We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce
from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two.

•We can generate different versions of the Intuition/Deduction thesis by substituting different subject
areas for the variable ‘S’.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis

● Like the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge
gained a priori, independently of experience.

● The Intuition/ Deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive reasoning while the Innate
Knowledge thesis offers our rational nature.
● We get different versions of the Innate Knowledge thesis by substituting different subject areas for the
variable ‘S’.

The Innate Concept Thesis

According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained from experience.

Some claim that the Innate Concept thesis is entailed by the Innate Knowledge Thesis; a particular
instance of knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are contained in the known proposition
are also innate.

Closely Related Thesis Generally Adopted by Rationalists

● The Indispensability of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and
deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have
been gained by us through sense experience.

● The Superiority of Reason Thesis: The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction
or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.

SKEPTICISM

    

SKEPTICISM

 Skeptic - Greek word “Skepsis” = examination, inquiry, investigation

The philosophy of questioning all claims, religious, ethical, scientific, or otherwise.

a philosophy based on the criterion of life, experience and phenomenon.

Ancient Skepticism

ACADEMIC SKEPTICISM

PYRRHONIAN SKEPTICISM

ACADEMIC SKEPTICISM

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE

History
1st school of skeptical philosophy developed in Academy, founded by Plato, in the 3rd century BCE and
was thus called “Academic” skepticism.

They denied the possibility of knowledge (akatalêpsia).

Arcesilaus realized that he could not say that he knows nothing without making a knowledge claim. This
mitigated absolute skepticism.

The Academic Skeptics refused to accept any philosophical arguments that claimed to justify knowledge.

The Skeptics recommended that their followers therefore suspend (epochê) all judgments.

PYRRHONIAN SKEPTICISM

IS KNOWLEDGE POSSIBLE?

  Promotes questioning, as method for better approaching the truth, but does not deny the possibility of
knowledge

Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360 to c. 270 BCE), the founder of Pyrrhonian skepticism

History

 Pyrrhonism, or Pyrrhonian skepticism, was a school of skepticism founded by Aenesidemus in the first
century B.C.E. and recorded by Sextus Empiricus in the late second century or early third century C.E

Pyrrho apparently traveled with Alexander the Great on his exploration of the east, along with
Anaxarchus, and studied under the Gymnosophists in India and with the Magi in Persia.

The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed in the word acatalepsia, implying that one cannot
possibly know the true nature of things.

The ultimate purpose of Pyrrho and his successors was to achieve ataraxia, or peace of mind.

MODERN SKEPTICISM

David Hume

Neither inductive nor deductive evidence can establish the truth of any matter of fact.

Knowledge comes from our experiences but not beyond it.

Ancient Skepticism

Belief Suspension of judgment

Criterion of truth 

Appearances

Investigation

Modern Skepticism

Knowledge Certainty

Justified belief

doubt play or almost no role

The Dreaming Argument

    Descartes’ dream argument began with the claim that dreams and waking life can have the same
content.

Brain-in-a-vat Argument

  A given person is a disembodied brain living in a vat of nutrients. The nerve endings of the brain are
connected to a supercomputer, whose program sends electrical impulses that stimulate the brain in the
same way that actual brains are stimulated when perceiving external objects.