![Image](https://www.worldsupporter.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/bundle/wereldbol_summaries_joho_single_boek_1_150x190px_0.png?itok=PgQm9J5z)
JoHo kan jouw hulp goed gebruiken! Check hier de diverse studentenbanen die aansluiten bij je studie, je competenties verbeteren, je cv versterken en een bijdrage leveren aan een tolerantere wereld
[TOC]
For us humans, there is an importance in critical thinking because it aids us in making good decisions. Often we do not realise how irrational our decisions can be, and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking basically means thinking about our thinking. We make use of logic and reason to determine whether or not a claim is true, if the reasoning behind it is sound and if we can draw a correlation or connection. It is not necessarily about coming up with claim as much as evaluating the correctness of claims that have been made and try to form a proper conclusion.
To achieve this, we evaluate our thinking on the basis of rationality. When we understand how critical thinking works, we can use this knowledge to be critical in multiple subjects and situations in our daily lives. It is, however, important to understand that criticising other people’s claims and ideas does not mean that we want to attack other people, only that we are trying to find the logic in them. Also, criticising other people in not always a case of critical thinking. People can criticise in the most illogical and unreasonable ways, without considering whether or not their claims are true or their reasoning sound.
When we come to a conclusion at the end of a reasoning, we call that a belief. Beliefs are prepositional and can be either true or false. Beliefs can be compared to a judgement or an opinion. When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement. Claims are things that we can think critically about.
Within critical thinking, there are three important parts: claims, issues and arguments. These parts can be analysed once they have been determined in conversation or writing.
Claims are things that we write or declare, to bring across information. With claims we often deal with statements, opinions or beliefs. Claims can be true or false and can be about pretty much everything and anything. Of some claims, it is pretty clear whether they are true or not; for instance take someone telling you they have flown to space and walked across Saturn. You can be pretty sure that this is a lie. However, of some claims it is harder to instantly determine their truthfulness and thus we must think critically about them.
Claims can be objective or subjective. The truthfulness of an objective claim is independent from anything that other people think about it. For example, ‘I ate pie yesterday’ is an objective claim. It can be a lie, but whatever other people think of the claim does not change whether it is true or not. This can also be with things we don’t know. ‘God exists’ is an objective claim, because the existence of God is independent of what us humans think of it.
A subjective claim, however, is dependent of what we think of the matter. ‘This cocktail is way too sweet’ is a subjective claim, because it is what I think of something. Thus, objective claims are often also called factual claims because they state facts. This, however, does not mean that all objective claims are true.
Relativism is the idea that the ‘truth’ of things is related to culture and situations. If, in a certain culture or language, people relate to a stone as ‘water’ instead of H2O, then in that culture that stone is ‘water’. Moral subjectivism takes the stance that the moral judgement of something is completely subjective.
Cultural relativism combines these two and says that all moral and/or ethical systems, also those that differ depending on culture, are equally valid. None of these are more true or better than the other.
Issues are always questioning statements and mostly have to do with questions that wonder if a claim is true or not. That sounds complicated but is in reality relatively simple. An example of an issue is: ‘is James taller than Emma?’
Sometimes it can be hard what the statement hiding in an issue is. This can be because people use confusing or difficult terms to hide the true intention of their statement or question, and thus purposefully do not want to clarify. If you notice someone doing this, it might be smart to think critically about it.
It is important to keep in mind that people have different qualifying systems when it comes to determining whether something is true or not. If someone beliefs that the Bible is the word of God, then obviously ‘God’s will is represented in the Bible’ is a statement that is true to the person saying this. However, for someone who believes in the Quran or doesn’t have a religion, this statement is not necessarily true.
An argument is a reasoning that is provided to prove or disprove a specific statement. A statement provided to prove (or falsify) a statement is what we call a premise. The statement that the premise is trying to prove is called the conclusion. An example of such a premise is: ‘Emma’s boyfriend is cheating on her with her best friend.’ The conclusion to this premise would be ‘Emma should break up with him.’
Whether or not an argument is actually good or valid depends on how much the premise actually supports the conclusion. This can only be if the premise is actually true and relevant to the conclusion. This makes sure that the premise increases the chance of the conclusion being true. One must also remember that even if it might seem that someone is giving an argument, they might not. An argument is not a summation of facts, but rather a statement to support a conclusion and that is how you can recognise it.
It often happens that people confuse statements and persuasion techniques with arguments. It is important to remember that an argument consists of both a premise and a conclusion and never just one of these elements. When the only thing given is the cause for a phenomenon, it is a statement, not an argument. The important difference between an argument and a statement is that arguments are used to prove or support a conclusion, while a statement is used to describe the cause of an event.
Persuasion techniques are different from arguments. If you try to convince someone, you want him or her to take over your vision or viewpoint of a particular situation. Conviction, therefore, is different from logical reasoning and using arguments to do so. It is possible to use an argument when trying to convince someone, but not all arguments are useful or necessary for that. In addition, many persuasion attempts do not use arguments. One must remember that negative opinions and facts about a concept are not arguments either. It is often not even useful to use arguments to convince someone of something. For this reason, real arguments are rarely used in commercials to sell a product for instance.
The formation of a belief is always influenced by unconscious characteristics of human psychology, the so-called cognitive biases. These biases influence the way in which information is processed both consciously and sub-consciously. For example, we tend to evaluate an argument based on our own conviction of the truth of the subject, context, and previous experiences rather than logic. A few of these biases are:
It is possible to express the same statement in different ways. "The book is on the table" is the same as "It is a fact that the book is on the table". Plenty of philosophers have thoughts about what true knowledge really means. We can say that the statement 'the book is on the table' is true if (1) you believe the book is on the table, (2) you can justify said belief and prove that the book is on the table and (3) you have no reason to believe you are wrong (for example because you have been drinking or if you are on drugs). Some philosophers think that certain knowledge does not exist and that we can never know for sure whether the things that we "perceive" actually exist in the same way in the world.
We use critical thinking when we examine the fundaments of the conclusions that are drawn. Critical thinking will therefore not tell you that you have to get that puppy you saw in the shelter or that there is or isn’t a problem in climate change, but it can help you to spot a faulty foundation or someone trying to cover up their errors.
[TOC]
An argument is used to prove or support a statement. An argument always has two parts: a premise and a conclusion. If a statement does not consist of these two parts, it is not an argument. "God exists" is not an argument, and "God exists, and if you don't believe that then you will go to hell," neither. The latter is just a way to scare you, not an argument.
"Something has had to create the universe, so God exists" is an argument. The premise supports the conclusion that is being drawn. A premise is aimed at providing reasons for accepting that conclusion.
The same statement can be the conclusion of one argument and the premise of another argument. An example:
The statement "The car is no longer usable" is the conclusion that follows premise 1, but it also forms the premise for the conclusion that a new car must be purchased. Claim 1 is therefore, in addition to a conclusion, also a premise for Claim 2.
It often happens that arguments contain unspoken premises or conclusions. An example of an unspoken premise:
1. You cannot borrow books without a library card.
2. Jan cannot borrow books from the library.
The unspoken premise here is that Jan does not have a library card. This explains the reason he cannot borrow books from the library.
In addition, conclusions can also be unspoken. An example: "The political party that is most seen as the voice of the people will win the elections. The labour party will therefore win the elections. " The unspoken conclusion here is that the labour party is seen as the voice of most people.
Good arguments can be both deductive and inductive.
Words like "because", "since" or "this is explained by", are often followed by a premise. In cases like these, the premise thus comes after the conclusion. For example, you can claim that you are sad because your partner has forgotten your birthday.
An example:
Premise: "John was chairman before Marc and James was chairman after Marc.
Conclusion: "John was chairman before James was chairman".
It is impossible in this example that the premise is correct, and that the conclusion drawn is not. The premise of a good deductive argument, therefore proves the conclusion. There is therefore a valid argument. If the premise of a valid argument is true, the argument is justified. This is what we call a sound argument.
The premise of an inductive argument does not prove the conclusion - but it does support the conclusion. An inductive argument does not have the same true or false kind of deal as a deductive argument does. Support for a conclusion is provided in varying levels with an inductive argument. An example is that the perpetrator of a murder is sought. A woman has been killed and her husband is known to have repeatedly threatened her. This is certainly not proof that he killed her and does not support the claim that he killed her. But let’s say his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. This is still not proof of the claim that he actually committed the crime, but this fact gives more support for the claim that he killed her.
A good inductive claim therefore indicates that the conclusion that follows is the one that is most likely to be true. With inductive arguments:
To find out if an argument is deductive or inductive, it is important to read well. The difference between a deductive and inductive argument is that with induction there is a ‘most likely’ possibility, and with deduction there is no other way than the conclusion to be true or false.
Inductive arguments are often used in the judicial process, for example to convict suspects. A person is found guilty if the claim is highly supported ("beyond reasonable doubt") that he or she has committed a crime. This evidence is less strong than deductive evidence. This is because with deductive arguments it is not the case that support comes in gradations. There is an all-or-nothing principle: a conclusion must be true if the premises are correct.
It is not difficult to turn an inductive argument into a deductive argument. To achieve this, an universal premise must be added. This is a premise that serves as a rule on which no exception is possible.
Suppose someone says: "John and Mary are about to divorce. They constantly argue.” A deductive argument can be made of this statement when a universal rule is added, namely that all couples who are constantly arguing are about to divorce. It sometimes happens that a conclusion is based on a pronounced and an unspoken premise. An example: Imagine hearing two professors talking and one saying "Give him a failing grade, this is the second time you've caught him cheating!"
• Premise: "This is the second time he was caught when he was cheating".
• Unspoken premise: "Anyone who gets caught twice cheating during an exam must receive a fail for the exam."
• Conclusion: "He must get a fail".
In daily life, people often use unspoken premises. Due to the context and the content of the subject, we notice an unspoken premise regardless.
Reasoning in daily life often has to do with weighing up beliefs against each other. This process is also called balance of beliefs (aka "balance of considerations reasoning"). It contains both deductive and inductive elements. If you make a trade-off, you look at how strong or weak an argument is with regard to induction, and how valid and correct the argument is with deduction.
Another way to reason is abduction ("inference to the best explanation"). Here, the most suitable explanation is looked at - the conclusion that correctly addresses all parts of the phenomenon. An abduction is an inductive argument. The appropriate declaration must meet the following characteristics:
An example of this is: When I came home, I saw that my wife and dog were not at home. Her coat was not on the rack and the dog leash was gone too. Thus, the best explanation is that my wife is walking the dog.
The explanation meets all the conditions given in the situation and is therefore a valid argument.
Argument identification is the recognition of arguments. Like stated a couple of times before, an argument consists of two elements: (1) a premise (or several premises) that supports (2) the conclusion. That way arguments can be recognized. There are words or phrases that are often used to show that a conclusion will follow. Examples are: "therefore," "so," "the conclusion is," and "this shows that." There are also words that are used to show that a premise will follow. Examples are: "given that" and “because”
But which things are not arguments? Pictures and videos are not arguments. They can be beautiful, they can be emotionally moving or they can be evidence, but not arguments. They can make you feel or think something, but they are not true or false - that is, with regard to claims and arguments.
"If ... then" sentences are also not arguments. They can form a premise or conclusion, but that is not yet an argument because it is not both. A list of facts is also not an argument because it offers no reasoning, and "A, because B" is also not because it’s more of a statement rather than an argument.
There are three levels of persuasion ("modes of persuasion"). Sometimes external factors can influence judgments. For example, if your mother thinks bad of something, it weighs more heavily in with your own judgment than the judgment of a stranger. Another example is someone who has a heavy British accent. The voice of such a person soon sounds noble and this can influence the judgment that is made about that person. This is called ethos.
Sometimes rhetoric is used to include external factors in, for instance commercials, in the decision to buy a product. It's about using powerful, psychological language that actually adds nothing. An example is that a commercial says that a product is "extra tasty" or "extra fresh." This is called logos.
In addition to the use of rhetoric, the use of photos or images can have a powerful influence on the emotions of viewers. In this way their judgments can be influenced by playing in on people’s emotions, sympathy and empathy. This is called pathos.
Many arguments are difficult to understand because they are not on paper and because they quickly pass by in a conversation. Premises and conclusions are therefore not easy to distinguish. When it comes to understanding an argument, it is important to first establish the conclusion. The next step is to find the premise (or premises) on which the conclusion is based. Next, the examples on which the premise(s) is or are based must be looked at, in case that examples are indeed given. These steps can be used to understand spoken arguments and written arguments.
When the relationship between premises and conclusions is understood, the structure of an argument is understood. When determining the premises, it is important to pay attention to words such as "because", "therefore" and "since". When arguments in a written story have to be analysed, it is smart to break the story into premises and to link numbers to these premises. The numbers can then be processed in a diagram that also makes use of arrows, so that causes (premises) and consequences (conclusions) can be better distinguished.
It is important to distinguish between what is an argument and what is a description, explanation or summary. This is not always easy. The question is whether someone uses reasons to support or prove his or her conclusion. If so, there must be at least some arguments in the story he or she tells. When an argument is evaluated, two things must be considered:
Not everything is an argument. An argument always consists of two parts. Phrases that contain "if" and "then" are not arguments, because they list consequences, not conclusions. A list of facts is also not an argument. Phrases that contain "because" depend on what follows after it, you will have to decide for yourself whether they are an argument or not. If what follows provides proof, then it is an argument. If it indicates a cause, then it is not.
Example: "Jack is wearing swimming trunks because he was swimming" is not an argument. Here it explains the cause, the reason why he is wearing them.
"Jack was swimming because he was wearing his swimsuit" is an argument because it provides a reason. It is therefore important to read well and to understand what the sentence says.
[TOC]
Written documents are sometimes difficult to understand. This is often because vague language is used in the text. A term is called vague when it is not clear where the line is drawn in relation to the term. An example of such a term is "bald". There are people who do not have any hair at all, but also people who are half-bald because of hair loss, but they do still have some. In these cases, it’s not clear to what extent the term "bald" applies to them. Vague concepts often also appear in the judicial system. An example is that the word "torture" is not clearly defined in the law.
Sometimes politicians deliberately use vague terms just so they won’t have to answer difficult questions. The rule of thumb is that some degree of vagueness is acceptable, provided that it remains clear what the information or claim is about.
Ambiguity exists when a word or sentence has more than one meaning and can therefore be interpreted in different ways. Three types of ambiguity are distinguished: (1) semantic, (2) group related, and (3) syntactic ambiguity.
Semantic ambiguity occurs when a word or sentence is used that is accompanied by ambiguity. An example is: "Jessica is cold". Does this mean that she is feeling cold or that she has a cold personality? You can prevent this ambiguity by replacing the words or phrases in question with a clearer description.
Group-related ambiguity occurs when a word is used to talk about an entire group while it is not entirely true for all members of a group. An example: "Secretaries earn more than lawyers." This is true at group level, because there are more secretaries than lawyers in the world and thus, these secretaries earn more money. At the individual level, however, it is not correct. An average secretary does not earn more than a lawyer. There are two errors of thought based on this form of ambiguity.
Syntactic ambiguity exists when a statement can be interpreted in several ways by the structure (syntax) of the statement. An example is that an authority states the following: "Identify yourself with a birth certificate or a driving license and another official proof that your photo is on". This sentence can be interpreted in two ways:
To make the above sentence clearer, the sentence can be changed. An example of a clearer sentence is: "Identify yourself with a birth certificate or driver's license and you must also be able to show another official document of your photo". Such a change makes the previously present ambiguity in the sentence disappear.
Ambiguous pronoun references exist when it is not clear what a pronoun refers to. An example is: "The boys went after girls and they giggled." Who giggled? The girls or the boys?
Often context clarifies what the sentence means, but this is not always easy to read. On the other hand, it is more important to be able to identify that there is ambiguity in a statement rahter than what kind of ambiguity it is.
Just like vagueness and ambiguity, generalization can lead to ambiguity or misunderstanding. The fewer details or specific terms a statement gives, the more general it becomes. For example, the statement "Jack has a pet" is more general than "Jack has a dog." Another example is that Bush previously claimed to wage a war against all the terror in the world. The word "war" is vague and general, so it is not at all clear what exactly he means by this. This also applies to the word "terror." In short, when events are described too generally, this leads to uncertainty. Often, politicians will use general terms, so that, if they cannot deliver on their promises, they may then proclaim that people took up their claims much more specific than they were, and in this way shift the blame.
It is important to define terms well so that terms and sentences are clear. Some terms are easier to define than others. Defining the word "root" is easier than defining the word "truth" or "knowledge." Definitions can vary between languages and cultures, and it is important to make a definition as clear as possible to avoid misunderstandings.
We use definitions because;
It can also happen that people make a definition that is not based on facts, such as; "All men are dirty, lazy liars who are incapable of cleaning up after their asses." When these types of persuasion-oriented definitions are devised, emotions are being appealed to ("emotive meaning / rhetorical force"). The next time someone hears a word, the new "definition" immediately brings with it an emotion. Another example is describing abortion as murder. This immediately creates a negative feeling.
In practice, there are three types of definitions:
It is important for all types of definitions that they (1) contain no (bias) judgments and (2) that they are clear. When in use, they should not, simply on the basis of the specific use of wording, give an advantage to one of the two parties in a discussion,. In addition, it often happens in life that we come across incomplete definitions. Concepts such as "friendship" and "love" are things for which each has his or her own definition and a lot of the time, no two people’s definitions are exactly the same.
A persuasive essay must at least contain the following four parts:
The best thing is to start with an introduction that explains why a topic is interesting to write about at all. You can then comment on your own opinion. This must be clearly formulated so that the reader immediately understands what the author thinks of the subject. The arguments used must also be clear and reliable.
There are four tips that can be used to write a good and persuasive essay.
The following four tips are given to write in a proper way:
It is advisable to pay attention to the following writing errors when writing an essay:
In addition, there are some tips for this within your essay; avoid clichés, be specific, don't exaggerate, avoid rhetorical questions and never, never generalize.
Sometimes an essay is written to convince readers of something – this is called a persuasive essay. If you write for readers who think critically, it is important to pay attention to the following five points:
When writing an essay, it is important that no assumptions are made regarding gender, ethnic background, religion and sexual orientation. Writing in a sexist or racist way immediately gives the impression that you are not objective. It is striking, for example, that when people differ in terms of skin colour or ethnic origin, this is explicitly stated, while this is often not the case when people are white. You will find the concept ‘a gay, Latino male’ quicker in texts than a ‘straight white woman’. If something is what we consider ‘the norm’, we tend to not mention it and vice versa. It is important to take this into account when writing your essay and avoid the fallacy.
[TOC]
We can look at the credibility of a statement itself, but also at the credibility of the source from which a statement comes. It is important to know that credibility comes in gradations. Credibility is therefore not an all-or-nothing principle. Sources (often people) are not all equally credible. A person's credibility can also be reduced, for example when you hear that someone has a criminal record - or it can become larger because you hear that someone, for instance, has a master’s degree in neuropsychology.
In general, the following can be said about a claim; a statement can be considered as unbelievable when the content of the statement is in contrast with was we already know (background knowledge), or if the source of the statement has an interest in whether or not you believe the statement.
We therefore pay attention to these factors if we want to determine whether someone is credible. Unfortunately, we often base our judgment on characteristics that do not matter, such as age, gender, origin, accent, clothing and height. In fact, we should not base our judgment on someone's credibility on these factors. It is important to remember some rules of thumb when talking about credibility:
We distrust claims that do not match our observations. For example, if we have just seen Mr. X's red car and Mr. Y says that Mr. X has a blue car, then we don't think Mr. Y is very credible and thus in the future, we will not trust everything Mr. Y says either.
Our observations are influenced by all kinds of factors: fatigue, distraction, worries about another event and emotional problems. Our observations are also influenced by our personal interests and cognitive biases (discussed earlier in Chapter 1). There are also factors in the outside world that can influence our observations: the amount of light and the amount of sound around us as well as the speed of events. In addition, our observations are also influenced by our expectations and fears. If you hear that mice have been seen in the flat in which you live, you soon think that you yourself have mice in your house (for example, if you see something move in the corner of your eye while you're sitting on the couch). Our observations are also influenced by personal interests and thinking errors.
When we talk about background knowledge, we are talking about our beliefs that consist of facts that we have observed and learned. Much of our background knowledge is confirmed by multiple sources. We do not believe statements that contradict our background knowledge. When we hear a statement for the first time, we first try to find out how credible this statement is ("initial plausibility"). If it appears that a statement does not contradict our background knowledge, then the statement has average credibility for us. However, if it appears that the claim is contradictory to our background knowledge, we then assign a low credibility to the claim. Only if very strong evidence is given for the claim we will believe that the claim is true.
It is important to make a distinction between interested parties and uninterested parties. An interested party consists of people who benefit when their claims are believed by others. An uninterested party consists of people who do not necessarily benefit when their claims are believed by others.
As humans, we also pay attention to the physical appearance of the other party. If someone is nervous, this person does not look at you or looks away often - then we are more likely to believe that someone is lying. If the person is confident and attractive, we are more likely to believe them.
If a claim comes from a party that has an interest in believing the claim, then we must distrust that party immediately. Yet it can also happen that such a claim is true. When we talk about credibility of a source, we can talk about two things: (1) whether the source has enough knowledge about the subject he or she is talking about and (2) whether the source is reliable, objective and accurate. Whether someone has enough knowledge about a subject depends on someone's expertise and experience. We assess expertise based on a person's education, experience, performance, reputation and position. A person's achievements are only important if these achievements are related in a relevant way to what he or she claims. This also applies to experience. It is important to remember that if someone is an expert in a certain area, this does not necessarily mean that he is an expert in all areas. A physicist is not necessarily an expert in everything science for example.
One of the reasons why the quality of the news has declined in the recent decade is because of the fact that, for instance, television channels in America are now owned by only a handful of large companies. It is therefore important to be critical of the news messages that are shown by different channels. It often happens that the media uses political views to interpret news items. That is why it is important to remember the following things.
Although the internet offers great benefits, the information we get from it must be carefully analysed. There are two types of information sources on the internet: institutional / commercial sources (government agencies, news organizations) and individual sources / group sites (everything else). Wikipedia is a site where everyone can contribute; as a result, the quality of the information can vary drastically. It is a good starting point for generic knowledge, but you must always go back to the source of the information and it should never be your only source. Blogs are 'diaries' on the internet on all sorts of topics. People can put whatever they want, so you have to be extremely critical about that. This too should never be your only source and you should always check the source of the blog.
Advertising is made to sell all kinds of products. These days, this is being done in an increasingly sophisticated way. Advertising creators know how the human mind works and use this knowledge when creating commercials or advertisements. They know what people are sensitive to and how they can ensure that people still buy their product. Because of this, people often even buy things they don't even need.
There are two types of commercials:
The commercials from the second category can be divided into three categories:
Of course it is also possible to combine two or all of these options.
Advertisements try to persuade us into all kinds of behaviours and actions: the purchase of a new TV cabinet, voting for a local politician, stopping a bad habit, etc. Advertisers are more than happy to know our fears and use these against us, they know our needs and respond to them.
Advertisers who give us reasons for purchasing a product often tell us something about the product, but not much. The promises made by the seller in many cases offer no guarantee and remain a bit vague. In some cases, the message with which the advertiser wants to convince us is even misleading.
Advertisements that give reasons for purchasing something do never actually justify a purchase of something. Even though it may give you reasons to do so, it is still you who decides to actually buy that specific product. They can, however, influence our choice and adjust our reasoning for purchasing a product or not.
[TOC]
Words can have a lot of persuasiveness ("rhetorical force / emotive meaning"). They can evoke images, feelings and emotions in us. Good and persuasive speakers apply a number of techniques that appeal to and convince us through rhetoric.
Rhetoric is about the research into convincing writing. For example, we can write a piece in a variety of ways, and we can either make sure that Hamas members portrayed as freedom fighters or we portray them as terrorists. There is of course nothing wrong with someone trying to convince others of something. However, it is important to think critically and therefore to distinguish between arguments and rhetoric. Rhetoric should not add anything to the credibility of a statement, because rhetoric is not about substantive arguments. In rhetoric, rhetorical devices are often used. These are methods of persuasion that are sometimes used through rhetoric.
Rhetoric methods can be divided into different groups of methods. The first group usually consists of a few words or short sentences that are either positive or negative. These are also called "slanters". Examples are euphemisms, dysphemism and weaselers. The second group of methods is dependent on unlawful assumptions. Examples are stereotypes, innuendo and loaded questions. The third group consists of methods that deal with humour. Group 4 consists of methods that use definitions, explanations and analogies. Examples are rhetorical analogies and rhetorical definitions.
A euphemism is used to express something as positive or neutral instead of negative. An example is that the owner of a store selling second-hand clothing is talking about "clothing with a history" instead of clothing that someone else has been walking around in many times. A dysphemism is the opposite of a euphemism. A dysphemism is therefore used to evoke a negative feeling in someone. "Freedom fighter" is a euphemism, while terms such as "rebel" and "terrorist" are dysphemisms.
A "weaseler" is a linguistic method with which you can cover up a problem or subject. For example, it is used by adding it to a statement and it ensures that the claim cannot be criticized.
An example is a commercial about chewing gum without sugar. The commercial claims that three out of four dentists from a study recommend to customers who use chewing gum to use chewing gum without sugar. Two "weaselers" are used in such a sentence. The first weaseler is "the dentists from the study". Which research? Have these dentists been chosen randomly, or did they already have a positive attitude towards chewing gum without sugar? The second weaseler is "to customers who use chewing gum". The commercial does not claim that the dentists think that chewing gum without sugar is good for the teeth. It is only said that chewing gum without sugar is recommended to people who already use chewing gum. It is, as it were, a way out for the writer - if there is criticism, the writer can immediately claim that nothing has been said about the benefit for the teeth, in this example.
"Downplaying" is a method to make something or someone seem less important. Stereotypes, rhetorical comparisons, rhetorical explanations and innuendo can all be used to make something or someone seem less important. An example is: "Don't mind what teacher X says, he is just a socialist." "just" is a downplayer in this example. Quotation marks are often also used as downplayers as well. Example; "She has obtained her "degree" online." The fact that the term degree is enclosed in quotation marks reduces the value attached to it.
A stereotype is a judgment about a group of people that is based on little or no evidence. It is a way of generalizing. Examples are: "Women are emotional", "men are insensitive" and "lesbians hate men." Stereotypes can both be positive or negative, which often depends on the point of view of the person expressing the stereotype. Positive stereotypes can be used to disguise something negative and a negative stereotype can be used to downplay a good achievement someone has accomplished.
With an innuendo someone wants to push a point across without explicitly mentioning it. This is possible with a word choice that insinuates something unspoken.
Example:
Jack: Did Sophie tell the truth?
Thomas: Yes, this time.
In this case, Thomas does not say outright that Sophie lies a lot at other times, but he did imply it. From his word choice, we can understand that he doesn’t have much faith in Sophie’s truth-telling abilities.
Paralipsis ("significant mention") and loaded questions are two forms of innuendo.
We speak of sarcasm or the "horse laugh" when someone tries to ridicule an event or a person by, for example, laughing at it.
A hyperbole is when something is explicitly exaggerated. An example is that for strict parents the term "fascists" is used, or that the argument between two people is described as "the third world war" that breaks out. A hyperbole is often incorporated into a dysphemism, a horse laugh or a rhetorical comparison.
Rhetoric analogies occur when two things are compared, so that one of those things will look better or worse. When assessing comparisons, it is important to consider the following questions:
You must always ask yourself, with analogies, whether the comparison is logical and why someone would compare these particular things with each other. Analogies are super subjective, if one compares a cat with a mouse, the cat seems very dangerous, if one then compares a cat with a tiger, the cat seems very sweet. It is very easy to be misled by an analogy.
Normal definitions are provided to clarify the meaning of words. Rhetoric definitions are emotion-focused and try to provoke a certain attitude. An example is defining abortion as the murder of an unborn child. Rhetoric explanations are statements that try to evoke certain emotions.
A proof substitute ("proof surrogate") exists when someone says that a claim has been made by an authority or an expert, while this claim is not specifically quoted. In result, it remains unclear exactly where the claim comes from. Examples of this are; "A respected source tells," or "experts say that."
The technique of repetition, in which the same point is simply made all the time, is used worldwide. This method makes us believe what is being told, simply because we have heard it so many times that we start accepting it as true.
By using all kinds of computer programs it is now possible to change photos big time. By manipulating facial expressions and lighting on photos, these can evoke certain feelings. Misleading images and photos can be the result of the following:
"Demagogues" use an extreme form of rhetoric to spread false ideas and to gain power over people. Four rhetorical techniques that are used for this are;
[TOC]
A thinking error is a reasoning error: an argument that does not support its content. With a relevance fallacy, the premise is not relevant to the conclusion or point in the question. The thinking errors discussed in this chapter are all relevance thinking errors. Such thinking errors are also called red herrings. This is because if you drag a herring around over the ground behind or around you, it becomes impossible for a dog to smell anything other than the herring, and therefore it loses track - just as one can lose track of their thoughts because of thinking errors.
The "ad hominem fallacy" (also called "argumentum ad hominem") is the most common relevance fallacy we make. We hereby assess a claim made by someone based on the source of the claim and not so much the claim itself. An example is that something a professor says must be true, since he or she has a lot of knowledge. A distinction is made between four types of "ad hominem" thinking errors.
In this case, someone pretends that there are only two options in a certain scenario, while in reality there may be way more. The "perfectionist fallacy" says that either something, for example, a new policy or law, has to be absolutely perfect. If that is not the case, then this policy will be rejected. This person actually acts as if there are only two options: something must be perfect and if not, it will not be looked at seriously anymore. With a line-drawing fallacy one draws a clear line to make a certain claim, while this does not have to be the case at all.
"Misplacing the burden of proof" is the case when, for example, the following interview occurs. A says: "God exists." B says, "How do you know?" A says, "Prove that he doesn't exist." This is a fallacy, since it is up to A to prove that God exists (and not to B), after all, he is the one who says that God exists. An example is an "Appeal to Ignorance". Someone assures us that we must believe that a certain claim is true because no one has proved that the claim is not.
This is a fallacy where one uses an argument to claim that the premises are accepted and, as a consequence, the conclusion automatically is correct too.
There are various mistakes in thinking where influencing emotions is an important factor:
An irrelevant conclusion is when someone draw an incorrect conclusion that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. This is a thinking error that does not fit with the other categories of relevant thinking errors.
Two wrongs make a right: this thinking error occurs when you try to justify your own mistake by saying that the counterparty has also made a mistake. Someone who says this actually believes in "retributivism": if someone harms you, then you can also harm that person. An example is that maybe your neighbours are very noisy. In response you turn your music up massively to annoy them. So there is a kind of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth theory here.
Wishful thinking: here we think that what we wish for is the truth, and sometimes we ignore the facts in order to do so. For example, a smoker thinks that smoking is not bad for you and denies that it is.
When we speak of denial, we tend massively ignore facts in order to be able to keep our own beliefs or convictions.
[TOC]
Inductive errors of thought are intended to support the probability that their conclusions are true, but are in reality too weak to be able to do so. Chapter 11 will provide further information about inductive reasoning. However, this information is not necessary to be able to understand this chapter. This chapter is devoted to inductive thinking errors.
Two thinking errors often occur with inductive generalizations are: (1) generalizing too quickly ("hasty generalizing") and (2) incorrect generalizing ("biased generalizing"). Below is an overview of the thinking errors that are made in inductive generalizations:
The fallacy of "accident" is the reverse of the generalization of special cases. It happens when a speaker or writer assumes that a general statement automatically also applies to a specific case that is exceptional.
The fallacy of "weak analogy" (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things. Often these similarities are completely taken out of context in order to make the analogy. Example; "If you kill someone with a knife, it's murder, so if a surgeon kills someone on the operating table, it's murder too."
A common mistake is the "mistaken appeal to authority". With this fallacy, a writer or speaker tries to support the content of a statement by providing the opinion of someone who has absolutely no authority in that area. Example; "My father says the president is lying about the test, so it must be that he is indeed not telling the truth."
Mistaken appeal to popularity (sometimes called "fallacious appeal to common belief"): This mistake occurs when a writer or speaker makes a statement and emphasizes that "everyone knows" or that it is "general knowledge." Often this is not the case and claiming that everyone knows something does not immediately make your statement correct or true.
Mistaken appeal to common practice: this fallacy occurs when a writer or speaker uses an argument that occurs a bit more often, or that it is tradition. If this really were a correct argument, slavery and stoning people to death would also have been justified because people had been doing that for years. I think you can see why this is a mistake.
Bandwagon fallacy: a writer or speaker uses the phrase "everyone thinks" (and other sentences similar to this). More about this can be found in chapter 1.
The following two thinking errors have in common that they make an unjustified cause-effect relationship between two variables.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: this literally means "after this, therefore because of this". That still sounds very complicated, but it simply comes down to the fact that a writer or speaker wrongly assumes that when one event occurs after another event, then this event is caused by the other. This fallacy is often shortened to "post hoc".
There are different variants for "post hoc":
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: this literally means "with this, therefore because of this." A speaker or writer makes this mistake when he or she assumes that the fact that two events occur at the same time is because one of these events causes the other event.
Here too there are different variants:
The slippery slope error is an argument based on an unsupported warning that is controversial. It is suggested here that there will be an extremely undesirable outcome if one takes a certain, single step. Example; "No, we should not lower the alcohol limit, because once it is back to 16 next morning, it’ll be down to 11 next year and in five years, babies are already drinking beer!"
If someone gives an explanation that cannot be tested, then there is a non-testable explanation of an argument error (untestable explanation). Since this useless, vague, non-testable assertion ultimately does not provide evidence for anything, they cannot be used as arguments either.
[TOC]
The three formal errors of thinking that will be discussed are "confirmation of the consistent", "denial of the antecedent" and "the undivided middle."
In this chapter examples are given for two premises and one conclusion. An incorrect example is given below:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore P.
In this example, the first part of the premise after "if" is the antecedent of the claim (sentence 1). The part after "then" is the consequent (sentence 2). The example is the thinking error "confirmation of the consequent". A premise incorrectly confirms the consequent of the other. When P and Q are turned around in (2) and (3), the argument is valid.
Incorrect Example;
1. If a dog is pregnant, then it is a female. (If P, then Q)
2. The dog is a female. (Q)
3. So the dog is pregnant. (P)
A premise denies the antecedent of the other. An example of this is:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Non-P.
3. Therefore non-Q.
Example;
1. If something is a reptile then it is an animal.
2. A sheep is not a reptile.
3. So a sheep is not an animal.
This fallacy occurs when the speaker or writer assumes that two things that are related to a third thing are, in result, also related to each other. An example is:
All cats are mammals.
All dogs are mammals.
That's why all cats are dogs.
An example of such a scheme is:
1. X has characteristics a, b, c, etc.
2. Y has characteristics a, b, c, etc.
3. Therefore: X is Y.
This is an incorrect reasoning.
Ambiguous statements can produce a thinking error. This is the case, for example, with the equivocation thinking error. This is related to semantic ambiguity. With this fallacy, statements such as premises and / or conclusions are used that contain words or sentences that can be interpreted in more than one way, and thus a false interpretation of a premise is made.
The ambipholy error also uses semantic ambiguity. In this fallacy, statements such as premises and / or conclusions are used that contain ambiguity because of their grammatical structure.
The fallacy of composition occurs when an attribute of parts of something is erroneously assigned to the whole. The opposite of this is the division of thought: assuming that something that is true for the whole is also true for parts of the whole.
If something can be said of each member of the class / group, the reasoning error is called accident. If something can only be said of the class / group as a whole (and therefore it would not be useful to apply the statement to all individual members of the class), we speak of division:
With this fallacy it is thought that someone wants to justify a bad situation (for example the beginning of the Second World War) or to apologize for it, while the person in reality tries to explain something. A statement does not say what someone did or what happened was correct or justified (it is not an excuse), it simply explains why it happened.
Contradictions are two statements that are the opposite of each other. This means that they will never have the same value. Two statements that cannot both be true, but both can be wrong, are not exact opposites of each other. They are called contraries.
When contradictions are confused with contraries, the person who makes this mistake is unable to notice that two conflicting assertions can be both contraries and contradictions.
Example; The fact that a stone does not "live" does not mean that it is immediately "dead". "Death" implies that it once lived, which is not the case with a stone.
It is a necessity for rationality that there is consistency in one's beliefs. If a person abruptly changes his or her point of view or contradicts himself, then we will scratch our heads relatively quickly. However, we must take into account that when someone is inconsistent, this says nothing about being right on this particular .
People regularly overestimate or underestimate the chance of a certain event. If the probability of the occurrence of two events simultaneously has to be calculated, the probabilities of these events must be multiplied by each other (and not added together).
A common mistake is the gambler's mistake. Someone is convinced that the earlier performance of independent events will have an effect on a subsequent independent event. An example is when someone incorrectly states that if he has thrown "head" three times at head-or-coin, the chance of throwing "coin" is greater (however, this chance remains 50% each time).
The prior probability one assumes that there is an already known chance of an event. If the a priori chance (prior probability) is overlooked, the chance of an event (where all other factors are kept constant) is incorrectly estimated. No account is taken of all the things that could change our opportunity outcome. For example: James and Alex are incredibly good at programming and drawing respectively. So it is assumed that they will score a good job within "their" field. You don't take into account that there are more jobs in programming than in art.
With a false induction conversion (false positive) there is a false alarm in recognition. Missing false positives happens when a probability calculation is made of, for example, an event. Example: 50 people in the small village of Jonestead come to the doctor with stomach problems on 26 December 2016. A large part of them ate fries at Tony's snack bar he day before. Conclusion: It seems wise to stay away from Tony's snack bar.
The logic in this reasoning is not entirely correct. If all people who had stomach problems had eaten at the fries stall, it would have been a logical conclusion. But in this case it's only part. If the fries stall is the cause, then how do people who have not been to the stall get the symptoms?
In this case, let's call the people with stomach complaints A's, and the people at the fries call stall B's. With an incorrect induction conversion, information is often known about the A’s that are B’s, but the A’s that are not B’s or the B’s that are not A’s are overlooked.
[TOC]
There are two techniques for creating and evaluating deductive arguments. This chapter is mainly about categorical logic. This is logic based on the relationships of inclusion and exclusion between categories in categorical claims. Categorical logic is useful in clarifying and analysing deductive arguments. When we understand how this works, we can be more critical and precise with regard to propositions and arguments and avoid ambiguity.
A categorical claim says something about categories of objects. A standard-form categorical claim is a claim that arises when names or descriptions are added to categories. Here are four types of:
By "some" we mean "at least one."
The words that appear on the dotted lines above are called terms. The word that appears on the first dotted line in a claim is called the "subject term". The word that appears on the second dot line is called the "predicate term."
The words that serve as "subject term" and "predicate term" in a sentence are collectively also called classes. The above claims can also be processed and displayed in Venn diagrams. Such a Venn diagram is a graphical representation of all possible hypothetical logical relationships between a finite set of statements. Visually, this is a circle for each category, overlapping the moment they have a community. Thanks to the overlap between some statements, you can draw conclusions from the statements; proportions are visible.
The claim "some dogs bite" would therefore be represented by two overlapping circles - one circle for "dogs" and one circle for "bite". The overlap is therefore "dogs that bite". Because this claim concerns all dogs, but for some dogs you put a cross in the overlapping piece to indicate that at least one dog is biting.
The A and I claims are called affirmative claims because they include part of another class. The E and O claims are called negative claims because they exclude a part of one class from another.
It is important to be able to convert a claim into a standard-form categorical claim that means the same. We say that two claims are the same ("equivalent claims") when they are both the same in exactly every situation. This conversion must be done precisely so that the meaning of the claim is not changed. For some claims that is easy. The claim "Every rose is a flower" can easily be transformed into an A claim, namely: "All roses are flowers." However, sometimes it is more difficult to transform a claim into one of the four standard-form categorical claims. It is therefore important, when having a discussion or debate or paper, to first determine the terms that appear in a claim.
We say that two categorical claims correspond when they have the same subject term and the same predicate term. So the claim "All Protestants are Christians" corresponds to "Some Protestants are Christians." In both claims, "Protestants" is the subject term, while "Christians" is the predicate term. The claim "Some Christians are not Protestant" does not correspond to the above two claims, because the places of the subject term and the predicate term are interchanged in this claim. Logical relationships between A, E, I, and O claims can be explained in a figure: the square of opposition ("square of opposition" see page 263).
With the help of the square of opposition we can often read the truth values of the claims. There are a number of limitations to this:
Converting a standard-form categorical claim can be done by reversing the position of the subject term and the predicate term. Only the E and I claims contain the same information as their conversions. Therefore, the conclusion is: Only E and I claims, but not the A and O claims, are equal to their conversations. Schematically; P = Q, Q = P
Examples are:
In addition to conversion, obversion is a second categorical implementation. Before this concept is explained, two other concepts must first be understood:
Finding the reverse ('obverse') of a claim can be done in two ways: (1) turn an affirmative claim into a negative claim or vice versa, so make an A claim an E claim or turn an O claim an I claim and (2) replace the predicate term with the complementary term.
Schematically; ~ P = Q, P = ~ Q
Example:
All categorical claims, whether they belong in the A, E, I or O category, are the same as their opposite form.
A third categorical implementation is called contraposition. To find the contraposition of a categorical claim, (1) the subject term must be placed in the place of the predicate term, while the predicate term is placed in the place of the subject term. In addition (2) both terms must be replaced by complementary terms. Schematically; P = Q, ~ P = ~ Q
Example;
Only A and O claims are the same as their counter position.
A monergism is a deductive argument that consists of two premises. A categorical syllogism is a syllogism that consists of standard-form categorical claims, where three terms of each claim must occur exactly twice in two of the claims.
An example:
All terms ("Americans", "consumers" and "Democrats") appear exactly twice in two different claims.
The terms of a syllogism get the following label:
When S and P are connected by means of M, then an argument is valid. An argument is called valid if it is not possible for the premises to be true, while the conclusion is false. A Venn diagram can be used to find out the relationship between S, P and M, so that it can be seen whether an argument is valid (for explanation and examples, see "The Venn diagram method of testing for validity" on pages 274 and 275).
A Venn diagram consists of three circles: on the left is the minor term, on the right is the major term and below that is the middle term. When one of the premises is an I or O premise, there may be confusion about where the "X" should be placed. A decision can sometimes be made using the following rules:
Categorical syllogisms can also be hidden in unspoken premises. It is then important to name the unspoken premises and to write out the categorical syllogisms step by step.
In addition to drawing up a Venn diagram, there is an easier method to test the validity. This method is based on three simple rules (see below). These rules are based on two concepts: (1) affirmative and negative categorical claims and (2) the concept of distribution. Distribution occurs when a claim says something about each member of a category. There is no distribution if a claim does not say something about every member of a category.
A syllogism is valid if the following three rules are met:
Example: (1) "All students are people," (2) "Some people are not employees." Conclusion: (3) "Some students are not employees". The term "people" is the M and is not distributed in both premises. The first premise is an A-claim and is not distributed in terms of predicate term and the second premise (an O-claim) is not distributed in terms of subject term. This syllogism therefore does not meet the criteria of rule two. This means that this argument is not valid.
[TOC]
This chapter is about "truth-functional" logic (also called "propositional / sentential logic"). This specifically concerns the application of logic principles to assertions and analogies. Truth tables are often used in this context. These tables often contain two letters: P and Q. These are also called claim variables and are a symbolic representation of premises and conclusions.
A claim, P, is true (T) or false (F). This is indicated by noting the letter P, putting a line under it and then noting the letters T and F below each other. By noting it this way, the possible truth values for P are displayed. Sometimes numbers are used, where "true" = 1 and "false" = 0.
1. Negation (~): in this case the opposite (~ P) of the claim is processed in the table. An example of such a claim is "Jamie is not at home." In this case, P is "Jamie is at home" and ~ P that Jamie is not at home.
The truth table of the conjunction NOT (truth table for negation) shows that whatever value P may have, its denial (~ P) is always the opposite:
Truth table of the conjunction NOT:
P | ~P |
1 | 0 |
0 | 1 |
2. Conjunction (&): this is a claim that consists of two claims. These claims are called conjuncts. A conjunction is only true if the two claims that make up the general claim are true (so if P and Q are true). An example of a conjunction is; Jamie is home and Sophie is working. Jamie is P and Sophie is Q.
Truth table of the conjunction AND:
P | Q | P & Q |
1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
3. Disjunction (∨): this is also a claim that consists of two claims. However, these claims are called disjuncts. A disjunction is only false when both disjuncts are false. So they can both be true. Example; Either Jamie is at home or Sophie is at work. "
Truth table of the conjunction OR;
P | Q | P ∨ Q |
1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 1 |
0 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 0 | 0 |
4. Conditional claim (→): this is a claim that also consists of two claims. Such a claim takes the form: "if…., Then ....". When P precedes Q (P → Q), P is called antecedent. Q is then the result ("consistent"). A conditional claim is only false if the antecedent is true and the consequence is false. Example; "If Sophie is working, then Jamie is at home."
P | Q | P → Q |
1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 1 |
0 | 0 | 1 |
When we add an extra letter, for example "P, Q and R", the number of possible combinations of T and F is doubled, and therefore the number of rows in the truth table is doubled.
The columns of the letters (example: "P, Q and R") that are used when filling in the column of a general claim (example: Q&R) are called reference columns ("reference columns").
A table gives us a "truth-functional analysis" of the original claim. It displays the truth values of a general claim based on the truth values of smaller parts of the claim. (For a clear picture of the upcoming explanation of truth tables, see the illustrations in the book and on the college sheets)
We say that two claims are the same ("truth-functionally equivalent") when they have exactly the same truth table. In that case, the Ts and Fs in the column under one claim are arranged in the same way as the Ts and Fs in the other column.
The main purpose here is to produce a claim that is similar to the original claim, but where the truth-functional structure is represented. A number of problems can also arise. The most important thing about symbolizing is that the claim is well read and understood.
The word "if" introduces the antecedent of a conditional claim. The phrase "only if" introduces the effect of a conditional claim.
Example;
IF; If I buy lunch for you, it's because you won the bet. "
ONLY IF; I buy lunch for you, but only if you win the bet.
Conditional claims are sometimes described on the basis of necessary ("necessary") conditions and conditions that are sufficient.
An example is: "The presence of oxygen is necessary for breathing. If we can breathe (A), then we must have oxygen (Z). The necessary condition then becomes the result of a conditional claim: A → Z.
A sufficient condition guarantees that something can exist if only a specific condition is met. For example, being born in America is enough to get an American passport. You don't have to do anything else for that. Adequate conditions are described, such as the antecedents of conditional claims. If Hanna was born in America (A), then Hanna has an American passport (B): A → B.
Even in the case of necessary and sufficient conditions, the difference between "if" and "only if" must be taken into account. The word "if" introduces the adequate condition. The phrase "only if" introduces the necessary condition.
The word "unless" is the same as the (v) used for disjunction. To know where a disjunction starts, we can look at where the word "or" ("either") or "if" ("if") occurs in the sentence.
A "truth-functional" argument can be valid and invalid. An argument is not valid when the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. An argument is valid when the premises on which the conclusion is based are true. A distinction is made between three valid argument patterns and the corresponding three invalid argument patterns. Important concepts for the valid argument patterns are:
Important concepts for the invalid argument patterns are those discussed earlier: confirming the consequence ("affirming the consequent"), denying the antecedent and the undivided middle.
A "truth-functional" argument can take countless forms. Nevertheless, we can still test the validity of such an argument. This is done through truth tables.
Deduction is a useful means of proving, in particular, that an argument is valid instead of an argument being invalid. In this regard there are four groups of rules.
Rule 1: Modus ponens (MP)
Also called 'affirming the antecedent': if there is a conditional claim between the premisses, and if the antecedent of this conditional claim occurs as another premise, then the consequence of the conditional claim from the two premises.
Rule 2: Modus tollens (MT)
Also called "denying the consequent": if one premise is a conditional claim of the reverse (negation) of the consequence of the conditional claim, then there is MT.
Rule 3: Chain argument (CA)
This has the form: Premise 1: P → Q. Premise 2: Q → R. Conclusion: P → R.
Rule 4: Disjunctive argument (DA)
This concerns the conditional claims, but written out according to the opposite (negation) of both P and Q (ie ~ P and ~ Q).
Rule 5: Simplification (SIM)
This has the form:
Rule 6: Conjunction (CONJ)
This rule takes the form:
Rule 7: Addition (ADD)
On the basis of this rule, two forms of deduction can be combined into a conjunction:
Rule 8: Constructive dilemma (CD)
Rule 9: Destructive dilemma (DD)
1) P → Q. 2) R → S. 3) ~ Q \ / ~ S. Conclusion: ~ P \ / ~ R
Rule 10: Double opposition (DN)
Rule 11: Commutation (COM)
Rule 12: Implication (IMPL)
Rule 13: Contraposition (CONTR)
Rule 14: DeMorgan's Laws: (DEM)
Rule 15: Export (EXP)
Rule 16: Association (ASSOS)
Rule 17: Distribution (DIST)
Rule 18: Tautology (TAUT)
Conditional evidence is both a rule and a strategy to form a deduction. This proof is based on the following idea. Suppose we try to make a deduction for a conditional claim: P → Q. If we have formed this deduction, what have we actually proven? We have proven that if P is true, Q will also be true. In this case we can assume that P is true and on the basis of that we try to prove that Q must also be correct. If we can, so if we can prove Q after we have assumed that P is true, then we have proven that if P occurs, Q must also occur. There are, however, a number of important rules when it comes to conditional evidence. For example, conditional evidence can only be used to make a conditional claim and not to prove another claim. It is also true that if conditional evidence is used more than once in claims, they must then be approached exactly in the reverse order.
[TOC]
An argument based on analogy is an argument that says something which has a certain property, because an equal thing has the same property. For instance:
The analogues in the example above are Bill and Sam. The conclusion analogue (Sam) is attributed a certain characteristic (to love to fish), because the premise analogue (Bill) loves to fish.
These are a few guidelines for evaluating arguments based on analogy:
When it is proven that an argument based on analogy is wrong, it is called "the attack of an analogy". A weak analogy (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things.
You generalize from a sample when you attribute a certain trait to members of a certain population, because this is proven in a small(er) group that belongs to that population.
The most important principles for evaluating such arguments are:
The "sampling frame" is a definition of the population and the attribute. It helps us to determine whether an individual belongs to the population and whether they have the attribute. It is therefore a part of the population (or: a sample) that we were able to determine to study. However, we do not know for certain whether the values resulting from the sample are exactly the same in the population. Which party people vote for, for example, also depends on gender, age, religion and income. A sample represents a population if the variables linked to the attribute are present in the same proportion in the sample as in the population.
A sample is biased when the variable is not present in the sample in the same proportion as in the population.
The spread that is calculated differs from sample to sample, in other words: a random (or random) variation is created. This is also referred to as the error margin. The error margin can be calculated on the basis of (1) the sample size and (2) the confidence level. The confidence level shows the probability that the proportion found in a sample falls within the margin of error. A sample can be increased to reduce an error margin. In colloquial language we use informal terms to indicate the likelihood that a conclusion is true, for example by using terms such as "likely" and "it is almost certain that ...".
A random sample is therefore not completely free of biases, because the variables are still vulnerable to random variation.
If you want to reason from general to specific, it has the following form:
Example:
In the example you find above is an inductive syllogism (also called statistical syllogism). The power of an inductive syllogism depends on the general statement, namely "Most X’s are Y’s". If this is not correct, then the conclusions that result from this statement are not correct either. The more often most X’s and Y’s are (for example, the more often teachers appear to vote for the SP), the stronger the argument is that someone who is a teacher should be an SP voter.
A causal statement describes the cause of a certain event. A causal hypothesis is a statement describing that X causes another variable (Y). It is important that a certain causal pattern is not incorrectly described. Three principles apply:
In a randomized experiment, subjects are randomly assigned to one of the conditions: the experimental condition or the control condition.
Observational studies are not experiments. The researcher does not manipulate the allocation of people to a certain group. The groups are merely observed. A distinction is made here between a prospective (something that has yet to take place) and a retrospective (something that has already taken place is being investigated) design.
If we want to calculate the probability that two independent events occur together (X and Y), then we need to multiply the probability of X and the probability of Y with each other. Many people go wrong and add up the chances. However, if we want to calculate the probability that one of these two events occurs (X or Y), then we add the probabilities of X and Y together.
The estimated value is the result of how much you expect to win combined with the amount that you can win. If the estimated value is greater than 0, it makes sense to take the gamble.
A value judgment is a term for a statement in which a judgment emerges. A value judgment assesses the value or desirability of something or someone. An example is a teacher who says about a student who has committed fraud: "He deserves a 3 for that essay." The teacher does not describe the student but expresses an opinion about the student.
With moral reasoning an attempt is made to establish moral value judgments. Not every value judgment expresses a moral value judgment. When it is said: "our queen dresses nicely," it is a value judgment, but not moral. A moral value judgment often contains words such as "good", "wrong" and "bad". An example of a moral value judgment is: "It was the teacher's fault to withhold information."
Consequentialism is based on the principle that the consequences of a decision or action determine the moral value. If an action produces more happiness than the alternatives, then it is the right action to perform. This is then utilitarianism. In the case of utilitarianism, a trade-off is made between the different consequences of alternatives and then the choice that produces the most happiness. This perspective causes problems. When we consider whether or not to do something, we take into account various issues, such as the rights of others and our own duties. Another consequentialist theory is ethical selfishness. Here the starting point is that if an action produces more happiness for yourself than the alternatives, then it is correct to implement it, and if it produces less happiness for yourself than the alternatives, then it is wrong to implement it . And last but not least there is ethical altruism, where own happiness and the happiness of others are seen as equal, and therefore equally important.
With the duty theory ("deontologism"), value is attached to the moral duties. We should do things or not do something not to achieve something, but simply because it is right or wrong. Only then can we speak of "moral imperative". If we try to keep a promise, then we have to do it because it's supposed to be that way ("it's the right thing to do.") achieve a certain result, but because the act is our moral duty. But how can we determine what our moral duty is? Two things need to be considered here: 1) the principle of action relates to what you want to do and 2) determine whether you would like the principle to be universal and that everyone could follow it if they were in the same situation as you were in.
Moral relativism (as mentioned back in chapter 1) takes as its starting point that what is right and wrong depends on and is determined by someone's group or culture. This is not about what is believed to be right and wrong. After all, this can vary from group to group. This is really about what is right and wrong. There are three complications with moral relativism:
With moral subjectivism the starting point is that the idea of what is right and wrong is a subjective opinion. Only thinking that something is right or wrong also makes it for that specific person.
With religious relativism, the starting point is that what is right and wrong is determined by the religion of a culture or society. The same three complications that have been discussed with moral relativism can occur here again. When do you belong to a certain religion, even within a certain culture or religion often conflicting principles apply and people who adhere to one religion / culture may find that people who adhere to another religion / culture do something wrong.
In this case, the starting point is that the correct moral principles have been accepted by the right religion. A problem with this is that opinions vary as to what the right religion is.
Virtue ethics ("virtue ethics") does not focus on what should be done, but on how someone should be. Someone does not try to figure out what needs to be done to achieve a certain result, but rather focuses on what kind of person he wants to be, for example reliable and friendly.
Lawyers reason deductively and inductively. If it is deductive, the reasoning can be sound, valid or invalid. Deductive reasoning also includes categorical and hypothetical reasoning. If it is inductive, it can vary from strong to weak. Inductive reasoning contains generalisations, analogic reasoning and reasoning about cause and effect.
With "appeal to precedent" or "stare decisis" a case is used that is used as a guideline for a similar new case. "Appeal to precedent" is an analogical argument. If a previously resolved case (A) is equal to a similar new case (B), then in the same way that decisions are made at A, decisions can also be made at B again. The consistency principle is also used here: matters that do not differ must be treated in the same way.
The same perspectives discussed in moral reasoning apply here too.
The claim that the laws must make everything that is immoral as illegal serves as a basis for legal moralism. This is used, for example, to prohibit murder or sexual abuse.
The "harm principle" is that banning X has the reason that X can harm others.
With legal paternalism, the starting point is that laws can be justified if they can prevent someone from harming themselves. Laws that prohibit X being done can therefore be justified if X causes major problems with other people.
With the "offense principle", the starting point is that a law that prohibits X can be justified if X can insult others. An example is the burning of a national flag.
The book discusses eight aesthetic principles that serve as a basis and that support and influence the most artistic creations and critical judgments about art. It is also important to understand that not all principles apply to everyone.
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
It is important for people to think critically so that they can make good choices. People often don't realize how irrational some of the decisions they make are. Critical thinking is thinking that criticizes. Critical thinking is to evaluate something against a certain standard. One of the most important things anyone can criticize is reasoning. Reasoning comes into play when people:
Logic is used to determine whether a statement is true, whether the reasoning is correct, and whether we can draw a connection. In this case, it is not about making up statements, but about evaluating (the correctness of) statements that have been made in order to ultimately form the correct conclusions.
To achieve this, people evaluate their thinking on the basis of rationality. When they understand how to think critically, they can use this knowledge to be critical of multiple topics that are important in everyday life. It is also important to remember that criticizing other people's ideas does not mean that they are attacked, but that the logic is sought in something. In addition, criticizing someone is not always an example of critical thinking. One can criticize without thinking about it.
When someone comes to a conclusion, they have a belief. A belief is propositional. That means it is either true or false. A belief is the same as a judgment and an opinion. When a belief is used in an explanatory sense, it produces an assertion as a result. Claims can be considered critically.
A distinction must be made between objective claims and subjective judgments. An objective claim has the following characteristic: whether something is true or false is independent of a person's belief as to whether it is true or false. Objective claims are true or false, but this is not always known. A subjective judgment, on the other hand, is not independent of whether someone thinks it is true
.....read morePsychologie verschilt van andere wetenschappen, omdat het zich richt op de mens. In deze samenvatting worden de overeenkomsten tussen psychologie en andere wetenschappen bespreken. Er is geen eenzijdige methode om wetenschappelijk onderzoek te kunnen doen. Het is bijvoorbeeld ook verschillend of iemand werkt als psycholoog in de wetenschap of als psycholoog in een therapeutische setting.
De psychologie verschilt van andere wetenschappen, omdat de informatie uit de onderzoeken niet in dezelfde mate te generaliseren is. Er kan niet gesteld worden dan bepaalde zaken 'altijd zo zullen gaan' omdat de psychologie afhankelijk is van menselijk gedrag. Het generaliseren van informatie wordt echter wel vaak gebruikt binnen de psychologie. Dit wordt gekoppeld aan het positivisme van Watson.
Hoe kunnen logische redeneringen gebruikt worden in de psychologie? Dit wordt verder toegelicht in de samenvatting, samen met de problemen die geassocieerd worden met deze methode.
Door de replicatie crisis en fraude in psychologisch onderzoek, wordt psychologie niet altijd als betrouwbaar gezien. Resultaten van psychologisch onderzoek worden vaak beschreven in significantie met een niveau van 5%. Er wordt dan een experimentele conditie met een controle conditie vergeleken.
Met een significantie van 5% is er nog steeds een kans van 5% dat het gevonden effect niet daadwerkelijk bestaat. De resultaten worden vervolgens ingediend bij een wetenschappelijk tijdschrift. Er wordt vervolgens een peer review uitgevoerd. Hiermee wordt de betrouwbaarheid getest. Dit kan ook worden gedaan door replicatie. Daarbij wordt een onderzoek herhaald. Dit wordt heel vaak niet gepubliceerd of aangehaald door andere onderzoeken.
Door fraude tijdens onderzoek wordt het wel steeds belangrijker om kritisch naar de resultaten te kijken. Uit onderzoek van Kahneman bleek dat 50-70% van de psychologische onderzoeken niet gerepliceerd kon worden. Hoe kan onderzoek gebruikt worden wanneer het niet gerepliceerd kan worden? Het is dus belangrijk om erachter te komen hoe je het wel kan gebruiken.
Wanneer er meer statistische analyses worden uitgevoerd, wordt de kans op een vals effect groter. Dit komt doordat je twee keer 95% kans hebt dat er geen effect wordt gevonden. 1 - 0,95 x 0,95 = 0,10. Dit betekent dat je dan 10% kans hebt op een vals positief effect. Het is daarom van belang dat er zo min mogelijk statistische analyses worden gedaan tijdens een onderzoek. Dit effect wordt groter naarmate het vaker gedaan wordt. Het is dus belangrijk dat er niet te veel gezocht wordt naar een significant effect. Een bijkomend probleem is dat veel wetenschappelijke tijdschriften alleen significante resultaten rapporteren.
Fraude is daarnaast ook een probleem binnen het psychologisch onderzoek. Het bekendste voorbeeld is het onderzoek van Stapel. Het bleek dat hij de resultaten van diverse onderzoeken verzonnen had. Alle controles hadden al die tijd dus niet geholpen om dit eerder aan het licht te brengen. Het is dus belangrijk om altijd kritisch te zijn en om ook onderzoek te doen vanuit falsificatie in plaats van uit verificatie.
Alle onderwerpen uit de stof staan met elkaar in verband.
.....read moreHet is voor ons van belang om kritisch na te denken zodat we goede keuzes kunnen maken. We hebben vaak niet door hoe irrationeel sommigge beslissen die we maken zijn. Kritisch denken, oftewel, critical thinking is in principe het denken over nadenken. Er wordt gebruik gemaakt van logica om te bepalen of een bewering waar is, of de redenering klopt, en of we een verband kunnen trekken. Het gaat in dit geval niet om het bedenken van beweringen, maar het gaat om het evalueren van (de juistheid van) beweringen die gemaakt zijn om zo uiteindelijk de juiste conclusies te vormen.
Om dit te kunnen bereiken evalueren we ons denken op basis van rationaliteit. Wanneer we begrijpen hoe we kritisch moeten denken, kunnen we deze kennis gebruiken om kritisch te zijn ten opzichte van meerdere onderwerpen die ons in het dagelijks leven bezighouden. Tevens is het belangrijk om te onthouden dat het bekritiseren van andermans ideeën niet inhoud dat we mensen aanvallen, maar dat we de logica ergens in zoeken. Daarnaast is kritiek op iemand geven niet altijd een voorbeeld van kritisch nadenken. Men kan de meest onlogische, ondoordachte kritiek geven, zonder er over na te denken of de redenering logisch of waar is.
Wanneer we tot een conclusie komen, hebben we een overtuiging. Een overtuiging is propositioneel en kan dus waar of onwaar zijn. Een overtuiging is hetzelfde als een oordeel en een mening. Als een overtuiging in een verklarende zin gebruikt wordt, dan geeft dat als resultaat een bewering (=’statement/claim’), en over beweringen kan kritisch nagedacht worden.
Bij kritisch denken gaat het vooral om drie dingen: (1) beweringen, (2) kwesties en (3) argumenten. Deze elementen moeten in een gesprek (of in geschreven vorm) vastgesteld kunnen worden om ze verder te kunnen analyseren.
Beweringen zijn dingen die we zeggen of schrijven om informatie over te brengen. Het gaat bij beweringen vaak om stellingen, meningen of overtuigingen. Beweringen kunnen waar of onwaar zijn
.....read more[TOC]
For us humans, there is an importance in critical thinking because it aids us in making good decisions. Often we do not realise how irrational our decisions can be, and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking basically means thinking about our thinking. We make use of logic and reason to determine whether or not a claim is true, if the reasoning behind it is sound and if we can draw a correlation or connection. It is not necessarily about coming up with claim as much as evaluating the correctness of claims that have been made and try to form a proper conclusion.
To achieve this, we evaluate our thinking on the basis of rationality. When we understand how critical thinking works, we can use this knowledge to be critical in multiple subjects and situations in our daily lives. It is, however, important to understand that criticising other people’s claims and ideas does not mean that we want to attack other people, only that we are trying to find the logic in them. Also, criticising other people in not always a case of critical thinking. People can criticise in the most illogical and unreasonable ways, without considering whether or not their claims are true or their reasoning sound.
When we come to a conclusion at the end of a reasoning, we call that a belief. Beliefs are prepositional and can be either true or false. Beliefs can be compared to a judgement or an opinion. When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement. Claims are things that we can think critically about.
Within critical thinking, there are three important parts: claims, issues and arguments. These parts can be analysed once they have been determined in conversation or writing.
Claims are things that we write or declare, to bring across information. With claims we often deal with statements, opinions or
.....read moreHet is voor ons van belang om kritisch na te denken zodat we goede keuzes kunnen maken. Kritisch denken (‘critical thinking’) is eigenlijk het denken over denken. Er wordt gebruik gemaakt van logica om te bepalen of een bewering waar is. Het gaat in dit verband niet om het bedenken van beweringen, maar het gaat om het evalueren van (de juistheid van) beweringen die gemaakt zijn om zo uiteindelijk de juiste conclusies te vormen. Om dit te kunnen bereiken evalueren we ons denken op basis van rationaliteit. Wanneer we begrijpen hoe we kritisch moeten denken, kunnen we deze kennis gebruiken om kritisch te zijn ten opzichte van meerdere onderwerpen die ons in het dagelijks leven bezighouden. Tevens is het belangrijk om te onthouden dat het bekritiseren van andermans ideeën niet betekent dat iemand wordt aangevallen.
Wanneer we tot een conclusie komen, hebben we een overtuiging. Een overtuiging is propositioneel en kan waar of onwaar zijn. Een overtuiging is hetzelfde als een oordeel en een mening. Als een overtuiging in een verklarende zin gebruikt wordt, dan geeft dat als resultaat een bewering (=’statement/claim’).
Bij kritisch denken gaat het vooral om drie dingen: (1) beweringen, (2) kwesties en (3) argumenten. Deze elementen moeten in een gesprek (of in geschreven vorm) vastgesteld kunnen worden om ze verder te kunnen analyseren.
Beweringen zijn dingen die we zeggen of schrijven om informatie over te brengen. Het gaat bij beweringen vaak om stellingen, meningen of overtuigingen. Beweringen kunnen waar of onwaar zijn en kunnen over van alles gaan. Van sommige beweringen is het meteen duidelijk of ze waar of onwaar zijn. Het is dan niet nodig om kritisch naar deze beweringen te kijken. Bij andere beweringen is dit minder duidelijk en moet er wel kritisch over nagedacht worden.
.....read moreDenken
Het is voor ons van belang om kritisch na te denken zodat we goede keuzes kunnen maken. Kritisch denken (‘critical thinking’) is eigenlijk het denken over denken. Er wordt gebruik gemaakt van logica om te bepalen of een bewering waar is. Het gaat in dit verband niet om het bedenken van beweringen, maar het gaat om het evalueren van (de juistheid van) beweringen die gemaakt zijn om zo uiteindelijk de juiste conclusies te vormen. Om dit te kunnen bereiken evalueren we ons denken op basis van rationaliteit. Wanneer we begrijpen hoe we kritisch moeten denken, kunnen we deze kennis gebruiken om kritisch te zijn ten opzichte van meerdere onderwerpen die ons in het dagelijks leven bezighouden. Ook is het belangrijk om te onthouden dat het bekritiseren van andermans ideeën niet betekent dat iemand wordt aangevallen.
Wanneer we tot een conclusie komen, hebben we een overtuiging. Een overtuiging is propositioneel en kan waar of onwaar zijn. Een overtuiging is hetzelfde als een oordeel en een mening. Als een overtuiging in een verklarende zin gebruikt wordt, dan geeft dat als resultaat een bewering (=’statement/claim’).
Beweringen (‘claims’), kwesties (‘issues’) en argumenten
Bij kritisch denken gaat het vooral om drie dingen: (1) beweringen, (2) kwesties en (3) argumenten. Deze elementen moeten in een gesprek (of in geschreven vorm) vastgesteld kunnen worden om ze verder te kunnen analyseren.
1. Beweringen (‘claims’)
Beweringen zijn dingen die we zeggen of schrijven om informatie over te brengen. Het gaat bij beweringen vaak om stellingen, meningen of overtuigingen. Beweringen kunnen waar of onwaar zijn en kunnen over van alles gaan. Van sommige beweringen is het meteen duidelijk of ze waar of onwaar zijn. Het is dan niet nodig om kritisch naar deze beweringen te kijken. Bij andere beweringen is dit minder duidelijk en moet er wel kritisch over nagedacht worden.
Beweringen kunnen objectief of subjectief zijn. Bij een objectieve bewering is de waarheidsbeoordeling onafhankelijk van wat mensen denken. Voorbeeld: ‘Er is leven op Mars’. Of er leven op Mars is of
.....read moreJoHo kan jouw hulp goed gebruiken! Check hier de diverse studentenbanen die aansluiten bij je studie, je competenties verbeteren, je cv versterken en een bijdrage leveren aan een tolerantere wereld
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Field of study
Add new contribution