What is critical thinking? - Chapter 1

[TOC]

What is the importance of critical thinking?

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.

What are important elements of critical thinking?

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

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

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.

Arguments

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.

How do you distinguish between arguments, statements and beliefs?

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.

What are cognitive biases?

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:

• Persuasive bias (aka belief bias): this is the tendency to judge a reasoning based on the credibility of the conclusion. The moment an illogical reasoning is followed by a credible conclusion we are more inclined to believe it than a logical reasoning with a conclusion that, to our prior knowledge, seems unbelievable.
• Confirmation bias: this is the tendency to place more weight on evidence supporting our own ideas, rather than evidence that disproves or falsifies them. We ignore things that are not parallel to our beliefs and look for information that does match to them.
• Heuristics: these are general rules that we use unconsciously use when estimating probabilities. An example is the availability heuristic. We tend to judge the likelihood that something will happen is based on information that is best available in memory. For example, you might think a plane crashes much more often than they actually do, simply because you have seen it on the news recently. The consequence is that the probability is often overestimated or underestimated. This probably also explains how easily the error of generalizing on the basis of an anecdote occurs. The availability heuristics is also related to the "false consensus effect". This involves the tendency to assume that our attitudes and the attitudes of our environment are shared by the larger society; if all our friends think that the alcohol limit should be lowered, we assume that the rest of the population will agree as well.
• Bandwagon effect: this is the tendency to align one's own thinking with that of others. Research has shown that when we hear others say something positive or negative about something, it can change what we think we see or show, and that we are more likely to buy something if we think everyone else does.
• Negativity bias: people are more sensitive to negative information than positive information and remember it faster. This bias also plays a role in loss aversion, where people are more focused on avoiding loss than gaining profit.
• In-group bias: this is the tendency to perceive members who do not belong to their own group (aka the 'out-group') as different and wrong, and members of their own group (aka the 'in-group') as good and correct. We also tend to attribute the success of the in-group to hard work, and the failures to bad luck, but the failures of the out-group to personal failures and their successes to good luck.
• Fundamental attribution error: this is the tendency to directly attribute behaviour to a person's personality, without regard to context and situation.
• Obedience to authority: this is the tendency for people to blindly follow the assignments of the authority.
• Boldness effect: this is self-deception. For example, if someone is asked to estimate the percentage of their own correct answers to a test, then the estimate is likely to be on the high side, and generally always above average.
  • Better-than-average illusion: the tendency of people to judge themselves better than the average in some areas, for example a characteristic.

Truth and knowledge

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.

What are two ways of reasoning? - Chapter 2

[TOC]

What is an argument?

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.

How do the conclusion and the premise relate to each other?

The same statement can be the conclusion of one argument and the premise of another argument. An example:

1. Premise: The brakes, engine and steering wheel of the car are broken.
2. Conclusion 1: The car is no longer usable.
3. Conclusion 2: We need to buy a new car.

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.

What do we mean by unspoken premises?

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.

What are two types of arguments?

Good arguments can be both deductive and inductive.

Deductive arguments

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.

• The premise in a good deductive argument proves the conclusion that is drawn from a logical point of view.
• For deductive reasoning, validity is very important. An argument is called valid when it is not possible that the premise is true, and the conclusion is false.

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.

Inductive arguments

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:

• The more a premise supports the conclusion of an inductive argument, the stronger the argument is.
• The less a premise supports the conclusion of an inductive argument, the weaker the argument is.

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.

Beyond reasonable doubt

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.

Deduction, induction and unspoken premises

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.

How can you weigh things in daily life?

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:

1. It explains the phenomenon most accurately
2. It leads to the most accurate predictions.
3. It is not contrary to other possible statements.
4. It has the least unnecessary assumptions.

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.

When is something not an 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.

Logos, ethos and pathos

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.

How can arguments be understood?

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.

How can arguments be 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:

• Logic: can the argument really be used to prove and/or support a conclusion?
• Truth: are the premises correct at all?

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.

How do you write a proper text? - Chapter 3

[TOC]

What are the consequences of ‘vague’ language use?

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.

When can we speak of ambiguity?

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.

1. Semantic 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.

2. Group-related ambiguity ("grouping ambiguity")

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.

• Thinking error of division ("fallacy of division"). Someone makes a fallacy of division mistake if he or she thinks that a true statement about a group as a whole also applies to the individual members of a group. If it appears that a certain football club has the best team, then that does not necessarily mean that the best players in the football world are in this team. What is true for the whole does not have to be right for parts of the whole.
• Misunderstanding of composition ("fallacy of composition"). This fallacy is actually the reverse of the aforementioned fallacy. In this case, someone argues from the idea that each member of a group has a specific characteristic and that the group as a whole will therefore also have this characteristic. However, this does not have to be correct. If you put the best football players of the world together, it doesn't have to be the best team in the world. It can happen that ego’s get in each other's way and that there is no cooperation.

3. Syntactic 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:

1. ["Identify yourself with a birth certificate or driver's license"] and ["another official document that your photo is on"].
2. ["Identify yourself with a birth certificate"] or ["a driver's license and other official document that your photo is on"].

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.

How does generalization work?

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.

Why is it important to define terms well?

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;

1. By using definitions we can know what words mean. In this case it concerns lexical definitions - definitions that you could find in a dictionary.
2. By means of definitions we can give a word a special meaning in some contexts. This is possible with a sentence or clause that specifically specifies what is meant, such as; "In this contract we will only speak of US dollars ." In this case, there is a stipulative definition. In addition, we use definitions to avoid vagueness, ambiguity and generalization. When this is the case, we speak of a specific definition (aka "precise definitions").
3. Finally, definitions can be used to convince people. These are called convincing definitions ("persuasive / rhetorical definitions"). It is not clear whether we can really label this kind of definitions as actual definitions though, because in principle they are not used to convey information objectively, but to convince people of something.

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.

What are different types of definitions?

In practice, there are three types of definitions:

1. Definitions based on examples ("ostensive definition"). In this case, examples are given to what the term is about. An example is: "By holy texts I mean books such as the Bible and the Koran."
2. Definitions based on synonyms ("definition by synonym"). For example, when someone explains a definition using synonyms, he or she says, "By polite I mean kind."
3. Analytical definitions (AKA "lexical definitions"). In this case, someone is talking about what characteristics an object must have if a term can be used for that object. An example is: "A mongoose is a small mammal that comes from India, eats snakes and is related to the civet cat." Almost all dictionary definitions are analytical.

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.

Of what components does an essay consist?

A persuasive essay must at least contain the following four parts:

1. A clarification and/or definition of the subject.
2. An explanation of one's own opinion on that subject.
3. Arguments that support your own opinion.
4. Disproving the arguments of people who have a different opinion on the subject.

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.

Writing a good and persuasive essay

There are four tips that can be used to write a good and persuasive essay.

1. Focus on the topic you want to talk about and know what you want to say about it (focus). Try to bring this into your essay in a fun and refreshing way, so that the reader wants to continue reading.
2. All points in your essay must relate to the subject you are writing about. These points must (1) support, explain, clarify or explain your opinion or (2) give counter-arguments for people who do not share your opinion ("stick to the issue").
3. Ensure that your essay is structured in a logical manner. For example, first tell which argument you use before you go into it. (logic)
4. Make sure you have discussed everything that needs to be discussed. It is easier to choose a topic that is not very broad, because with a wide topic it is difficult to discuss everything that needs to be discussed. (coverage)

Tips for writing an essay in a proper way

The following four tips are given to write in a proper way:

1. Look critically at your piece after your first version. Is the piece logically structured?
2. Check your work constantly. Are there errors in it? Are there irregularities in it?
3. Have someone else read your piece.
4. If you have trouble with grammar or punctuation, read your piece out loud. This way mistakes stand out faster because you are hearing them rather than just reading.
5. Don't look at your piece for a while when you're done with it. However, it is good to read your own piece again after a couple hours / days.

Which types of essays should you avoid?

It is advisable to pay attention to the following writing errors when writing an essay:

• "The Windy Preamble": the writer is always turning about the subject without making an actual point or statement and lingers in the introduction for far too long by explaining how important it is to write about this subject, after which they no longer have room to explain it clearly.
• "The Stream-of-Consciousness Ramble": this writing error occurs when a writer does not try to structure his or her thoughts, but simply puts everything on paper that he or she can think of.
• "The Knee-Jerk Reaction": this writing error occurs when a writer writes down his or her own first reaction to the subject without having thought about it in greater depth.
• "The Glancing Glow": in this case a writer avoids the subject. For example, someone who has to write about the benefits of cycling only talks about when people first started cycling.
• The 'Let the Reader Do the Work': a writer who is guilty of this fallacy, describes information that does not matter and sometimes talks about one topic and then follows it up with a completely different topic, so that the reader himself must find the common thread of the story.

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.

Convince something of someone through your essay

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:

1. Try to look at your own opinion from the point of view of someone who disagrees with you.
2. If you want to criticize the opinion of the counterparty, don't be offensive. Stay polite.
3. If someone with a different opinion has a good argument, admit it.
4. If you have limited time, try to talk only about the most important things.
5. Make sure you present your strongest arguments first.

What else is important when you write an essay?

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.

When is something deemed credible? - Chapter 4

[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:

• "Interested parties" are less credible than other sources
• If both the claim itself and the source (where the claim comes from) are not credible, then the claim must be distrusted. It is therefore important to consider two things: (1) the content of a statement itself and (2) where the statement comes from (the source).
• A statement is not very credible if it does not match our observations, our (background) knowledge and / or other credible statements.

How are observations influenced?

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.

What effects does our own background knowledge have?

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.

What is meant by the credibility of sources?

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.

What effect does the media have?

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.

1. People in the media make mistakes, just like we do. Sometimes they accept claims that are not credible or that cannot be proven, or they present something that is not necessarily true but that helps their own (political) agenda move forward.
2. The media can experience pressure from the government and from other news sources. The media are also sensitive to manipulation. In addition, because it is only about 5 companies that control 90% of the media, the news and / or entertainment that is presented may also be related to the personal agenda of the company.
3. In recent years, the (American) government is also busy spreading more and more false information. This varies from reports on drug tests and military operations to the safety of recently introduced measures. This kind of "fake news" is especially common on small channels that really need every bit of money they can get and therefore accept this information. People who produce opinion pieces or columns can also be bought off and therefore present an opinion that is not their own.
4. Most media are also politically coloured. Whether they are left, right or neutral does not matter in these cases, but we must keep in mind that we humans are inclined to look for information that matches our opinion and that therefore not everything that is going on in the world will be represented be in just a single media outlet.
5. The internet is also a great source of information for many people today. But one must also remember that anyone who wants to can put a piece on the internet and present it as "true" news. Take Wikipedia for example. Wikipedia is one of the largest sources of information on the internet, and the information it provides is often very close to reality and diverse. This is because literally one hundred thousand people can work on a single article. So you can too. And if you decide to put a lot of nonsense somewhere, it will take a few days before an actual check comes over it. And in those few days, a whole bunch of people can read it and consider it "true." The same goes for blogs. A blog is literally someone's opinion or experience about a certain situation - so it doesn't have to be a valid truth.

What are the pros and cons of the internet?

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.

Advertisements

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:

1. Advertising spots in which reasons are given to purchase a product
2. Advertising spots in which no reasons are given for purchasing a product.

The commercials from the second category can be divided into three categories:

1. Pathos: commercials that unleash feelings within us (humour, beautiful music, heart-warming scenes);
2. Ethos: Advertising spots that show that people we admire also use the product (for example, by showing movie stars in a commercial), and;
3. Logos: Commercial spots about the factual information of the product, presented in a positive light.

Of course it is also possible to combine two or all of these options.

What should you pay attention to when advertising?

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.

How does persuasion work? - Chapter 5

[TOC]

What are "rhetorical devices"?

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.

What types of rhetorical methods are there?

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.

Rhetoric methods I

Euphemisms and dysphemism

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.

Weaselers

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.

Downplayers

"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.

Rhetoric methods II

Stereotypes

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.

Innuendo

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.

• Paralipsis is a comment that otherwise would not have had to be made, or something someone would never say this directly in any other scenario. For example, someone may say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I am living proof that there is at least one candidate in the game who is not addicted." We immediately think that other candidates might have an addiction, while that may not even be the case. We think that the other candidates do have an addiction, because we cannot imagine that someone would make such a remark if other people in the game were not addicted.
• A loaded question is based on assumptions that are not necessarily correct. If you hear that A says to B, "Have you always liked gambling?" You immediately assume that B has always liked gambling. Another example is when someone asks the following: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This question is based on the assumption that someone in the past sometimes beat his or her wife. If there is no reason to believe this assumption, then this is a loaded question.

Rhetoric methods III

Sarcasm / ridicule

We speak of sarcasm or the "horse laugh" when someone tries to ridicule an event or a person by, for example, laughing at it.

Hyperbole

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 methods IV

Rhetorical analogies

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:

1. Has all the information that matters been told?
2. Is the same measure used to compare two things?
3. Are the things being compared really comparable?
4. Are two things compared in terms of averages?

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.

Rhetoric definitions and rhetorical statements

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.

What are the exceptions?

Proof replacements

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."

Repetition

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.

How does persuasion through visual images work?

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:

• • Intentionally actually changing images physically
  • Use of specific visual angles when taking photos, so that photos are interpreted in a different way.
  • Select images from movies. This ensures that images are taken out of their original context.
  • Use images that were only made with the computer and are therefore not based on true images.

What are demagogues?

"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;

1. Otherizing - dividing people into "us" and "them." By placing someone in the out-group you create conflict and distrust.
2. Demonizing - the intention to place a certain person in a negative way so that people start to hate him or her.
3. Strengthening xenophobia - xenophobia is the fear of anything unknown or strange, such as foreigners.
4. Fear and hate mongering - to strengthen the fear of a certain audience. People who use this technique respond to an existing fear and emphasize it extremely.

How does relevance work? - Chapter 6

[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.

What is the "ad hominem" thinking error?

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.

1. "Poisoning the well": when others, in advance, predict what someone is going to say and use this to ‘poison’ a persons credibility. Because someone already gave us a negative opinion of this person beforehand, we are more tempted to adopt this negative attitude as well, if the prediction serves to be true. This (mis)painting of someone’s character usually occurs beforehand and makes sure people do not believe the argument that follows.
2. "Guilt by association": the concept whereby a person is convicted by the people / opinion with whom he or she surrounds or would surround himself. An example of this is saying; You think the economy is doing well? Ugh, that sounds like something a democrat would say.
3. "Genetic fallacy": this occurs when we do not want to take a claim seriously because we believe that something is wrong with the person who claims it or the history of the claim. Make no mistake, in this case "genetic" does not mean that it has anything to do with genetics - "genetic" here means "of origin". Example: "God is just an idea that people came up with when science didn't exist."
4. The Strawman thinking error. A person here is guilty of this fallacy when he or she deliberately misrepresents or exaggerates the view of the counterparty, so that his or her point of view comes across better. With the Strawman it is often an exaggerated extreme conclusion that is drawn. Example: "Russian immigrants? Well then, we can just hand over the entire country to Putin! "

False dilemma

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

"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.

The "begging the question" error

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.

Which thinking errors are caused by emotion?

There are various mistakes in thinking where influencing emotions is an important factor:

1. "Argument from outrage": these are "arguments" based on anger. People who think that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights are guilty of this fallacy when they say that "fundamentalist people with a tunnel vision" want to determine what other people do in their bedroom.
2. "Scare tactics": this is when people are purposefully being frightened so that they obey other people's orders. An example of such a tactic is "argument by force". In this case, someone is threatened so that he or she feels compelled to accept someone's authority. An earlier mentioned example of this is "God exists, and if you don't believe that then you will go to hell."
3. "Appeal to pity": in this case someone receives special treatment because that person is found pitiful.
4. "Apple polishing": this thinking error occurs when someone praises someone else and hopes that this will cause the other person to change their opinion. An example is that a child says to his mother: "Mommy, you are so beautiful, can I have a cookie?"
5. "Guilt tripping": in this case someone talks to someone else about feeling guilty. An example is that someone says the following: "How can you not invite James? He would never do that to you! "
6. "Appeal to envy": someone is guilty of this mistake when he or she envies someone and thereby exaggerates the bad sides of that person. An example is that someone says: "He may be very rich, but he is not well-mannered."
7. "Appeal to jealousy": when playing with someone's jealousy.

What are other common errors?

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.

What are the inductive thinking errors? - Chapter 7

[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.

What are the fallacies when it comes to inductive generalizations?

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:

• Fallacy of hasty generalization: this fallacy occurs when the chance of an argument being correct is extremely overestimated because it was based on a sample that is too small. This is also called the "fallacy of Small Sample". We humans are quick to make this mistake by using a one-time personal experience for a general conclusion. Such a "small sample" can be a personal experience, or a group of friends or a neighbor, etc.
  • Fallacy of the Lonely Fact: when a conclusion is made based on a single fact. This is an alternative to the aforementioned thinking error.
  • Argument by Anecdote: this is a form of generalizing too quickly. Often an argument in this case is based on one person or event. The chance that an argument is correct is then overestimated.
• Generalizing from exceptional cases means that a statement is made based on a rare or biased sample. The latter is also called the "fallacy of biased sample". Another form of generalizing from exceptional cases is "self-selection fallacy". This is overestimating the correctness of a conclusion, which is derived from a relatively large but self-selected sample. An example is an online poll - people often forget that only a very specific group will find the poll at all.

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 weak analogy

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."

Mistaken appeal

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.

What are examples of unjustified cause-effect relationships?

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":

• Overlooking the possibility of coincidence: a writer overestimates the possibility that two sequential events happened by chance at the same time
• Overlooking a possible common cause: here a writer overestimates the possibility of a common cause, such as "I fell last night and this morning I had a headache," but I hereby forget to say that I had consumed way too much alcohol yesterday, which could very well be the cause of those two things.
• Overlooking the possibility of random variation: this ignores that variables fluctuate randomly. When it is wrongly decided that this random fluctuation is due to a certain explanation, this thinking error is involved. For instance; not every time you throw a stone it will be the same length away. You just don't have to immediately assign the fact that this time you drank red bull before you threw to be the cause of the fact that you threw further than ever, without taking into account that there may be some random fluctuation.
• Overlooking the possibility of regression: the chance of "regression to the average" is overestimated. Do you also occasionally have a day that doesn't go well? And if you then take a vitamin pill in the evening and it goes better the next day, then you commit the fallacy of overlooking the possibility of regression if you then put this on the vitamin pill.

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:

• Overlooking the possibility of coincidence, as mentioned earlier, where you overlook the chance of chance.
• Overlooking a possible common cause: where you overlook the existence of a common cause.
• Overlooking the possibility of reserved causation: a reverse cause-effect relationship may be drawn here. Example; successful people often drive expensive cars. Driving an expensive car makes you successful.
• Argument by anecdote: there is also a cause-related "argument by anecdote". A story is attempted to provide support for a cause and effect claim.

Slippery slope

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!"

What is meanty by the non-testable explanation?

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.

What are the different types of thinking errors? - Chapter 8

[TOC]

What are formal thinking errors?

The three formal errors of thinking that will be discussed are "confirmation of the consistent", "denial of the antecedent" and "the undivided middle."

Confirmation of the consequent

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)

Denial of the antecedent

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.

The undivided middle

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.

What are equivocation and amphiboly thinking errors?

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.

What are composition and distribution thinking errors?

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.

Composition reasoning error vs hasty generalization reasoning error

• Composition: from part to whole. If the reasoning is that what is true of a part of something must also be true of the whole thing of which it is part ("a machine is defective because one of the parts is defective" - ​​a machine can still do well even if a part is defective).
• Hasty generalization: from specific to generic. If the reasoning is that what is true for a member of a group is also true for other members of the group ("one of the parts of the printer is defective, so all parts are defective").

Distribution reasoning error vs accident reasoning error

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:

• Distribution: from whole to part. The average Dutch person has 3.5 bicycles. Jan is an average Dutchman. So he has 3.5 bikes. This statement is about the group / class as a whole and does not apply to Jan as an individual, since it is difficult to cycle on half a bike.
• Accident: from generic rule to specific case. Freedom of expression is laid down in the law. So John should not be prosecuted for shouting "fire!" last night during the concert. The law applies to every individual, so it concerns the accident fallacy.

What other errors are there?

Confuse statements with apologies

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.

Confuse contraries with contradictions

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.

Consistency and inconsistency

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 .

Incorrect calculation of chances

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).

The gambler's mistake

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).

Overlooking prior probabilities

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.

Incorrect induction conversion

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.

What deductive arguments are there? - Chapter 9

[TOC]

How can you analyse arguments?

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.

Categorical claims

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:

• The A-claim: "All ... are ...". Example: "All Protestants are Christians."
• The E-claim: "None ... are ...". Example: "No atheists are Christians."
• The I claim: "Some ... are ...". Example: "Some Christians are Arabic."
• The O-claim: "Some ... are not ...". Example: "Some Christians are not Catholic."

By "some" we mean "at least one."

Terms

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.

The conversion of claims

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.

What is the square of opposition?

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).

• A-claims and E-claims are called "contrary claims" because they can both be false, but both cannot be true.
• I-claims and O-claims are called "subcontrary claims" because they can both be true, but not both can be false.
• The A and O claims and the E and I claims are collectively called "contradictory claims" because they can never all be (equally) true and must therefore be contradictory.

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:

• If the A and / or E claim is / are true, or if the I and / or O claim is / are false, we can derive the truth values ​​from the remaining claims.
• When the A and / or E claim is (are) true, or when the I and / or O claim is (are) true, we can only determine the truth value of the "contradictory claim".

Which categorical actions can be undertaken?

1. Conversion

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:

• E-claim: "No Chinese are Africans" and "No Africans are Chinese." These claims are therefore the same.
• I claim: "Some capitals are major cities" and "Some major cities are capitals".

2. Turn around - ("obversion")

In addition to conversion, obversion is a second categorical implementation. Before this concept is explained, two other concepts must first be understood:

• Universe of discourse: the claims we make are context-bound. When a teacher enters the classroom and says that everyone has passed, students know that it is not about everyone in the whole world, but about people in the classroom itself. The context of the claim therefore basically determines the population of the claim.
• Complementary class: for every category within a universe or discourse there is a complementary category, for example "students" and "non-students". These are called complementary terms. Often this can be done simply enough by pasting "no" before, although in some cases there are specific words for it.

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:

• E-claim: "No fish are mammals" changes to A-claim: "All fish are not mammals".

All categorical claims, whether they belong in the A, E, I or O category, are the same as their opposite form.

3. Exchange ("contraposition")

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;

• A-claim: "All Arabs are Muslims." When counterposition is applied, it becomes "All non-Muslims are not Arabs."
• O-claim: "Some citizens are not voters". When contraposition is applied, it becomes "Some non-voters are not non-citizens".

Only A and O claims are the same as their counter position.

What are categorical syllogisms?

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:

1. All Americans are consumers.
2. Some consumers are not Democrats.
3. That is why some Americans are not Democrats.

All terms ("Americans", "consumers" and "Democrats") appear exactly twice in two different claims.

The terms of a syllogism get the following label:

• Major term (P): the term that appears as a predicate term in the conclusion of a syllogism. In the example this is "democrats"
• Minor term (S): the term that appears as the subject term in the conclusion of a syllogism. In the example this is "Americans.
• Middle term (M): the term that occurs in both premises, but not in the conclusion. In the example this is "consumers"

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:

• If one premise is an A or E premise, and the other is an I or O premise, the A or E premise must first be placed in the diagram. It is then immediately clear where the "X" should end up in the diagram.
• An "X" that can be placed in two "areas" is placed on the line that separates the two areas.
• If both premises are an A or E claim, and the conclusion is an I or O claim, placing the premises in the diagrams cannot produce a conclusion. This is because the A and E claims yield coloured areas, and I and O claims require an "X" that can be read from the diagram. This is solved as follows: when a circle has one non-coloured area, the "X" must be placed there.

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.

How can validity be tested?

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:

• The number of negative claims in the premises must be the same as the number of negative claims in the conclusion.
• At least one claim must be the distribution of the "middle term" (M).
• A term that is distributed in the conclusion of a syllogism must also be distributed in the premises.

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.

What other deductive arguments are there? - Chapter 10

[TOC]

What are truth tables?

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.

What types of truth tables are there?

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:

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:

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;

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."

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)

Equal claims / claims

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.

Symbolizing a claim

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.

"If" versus "Only if"

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.

What are necessary and adequate conditions?

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.

Unless

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.

What are truth-functional arguments?

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:

• Modus ponens: The confirmatory way. The schedule for this is:
  • If P, then Q
  • P
  • So Q
• Modus Tollens: The negative way. The schedule for this is:
  • If P, then Q
  • Not Q
  • Not P
• Chain argument Contains multiple premise, with an extra variable. The schedule for this is:
  • If P, then Q
  • If Q, then R
  • So, if P, then R

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.

What are the rules of deduction?

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.

Group 1: Elemental valid argument patterns

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.

• If P, then Q
• P
• So Q

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.

• If P, then Q
• Not Q
• Not P

Rule 3: Chain argument (CA)

This has the form: Premise 1: P → Q. Premise 2: Q → R. Conclusion: P → R.

• If P, then Q
• If Q, then R
• So, if P, then 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).

• P or Q
• Not P
• So Q

Rule 5: Simplification (SIM)

This has the form:

• P&Q → P P
• & Q → Q.

Rule 6: Conjunction (CONJ)

This rule takes the form:

• P
• Q
• So P&Q

Rule 7: Addition (ADD)

On the basis of this rule, two forms of deduction can be combined into a conjunction:

• P, conclusion: P \ / Q.
• Q, conclusion: P \ / Q.

Rule 8: Constructive dilemma (CD)

• P → Q.
• R → S.
• P \ / R. Conclusion: Q \ / S.

Rule 9: Destructive dilemma (DD)

1) P → Q. 2) R → S. 3) ~ Q \ / ~ S. Conclusion: ~ P \ / ~ R

Group 2: Truth-functional equivalents

Rule 10: Double opposition (DN)

• P → (Q \ / R),
• P → ~~ (Q \ / R).

Rule 11: Commutation (COM)

• P → (Q \ / R),
• P → (R \ / Q).

Rule 12: Implication (IMPL)

• (P → Q) ~ (P \ / Q).

Rule 13: Contraposition (CONTR)

• (P → Q) (~ Q → ~ P).

Rule 14: DeMorgan's Laws: (DEM)

• ~ (P&Q) (~ P \ / ~ Q),
• ~ (P \ / Q) (~ P & ~ Q).

Rule 15: Export (EXP)

• [P → (Q → R)] [(P&Q) → R].

Rule 16: Association (ASSOS)

• [P & (Q&R)] [(P&Q) & R].
• [P \ / (Q \ / R)] [(P \ / Q) \ / R].

Rule 17: Distribution (DIST)

• [P & (Q \ / R)] [(P&Q) \ / (P&R)]
• [P \ / (Q & R)] [(P \ / Q) & (P \ / R)].

Rule 18: Tautology (TAUT)

• P ∨ ~ P. A tautology is a sentence that is always true: it is raining, or it isn’t raining.

What is conditional evidence?

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.

Summary

• There are four types of truth tables: conjunction, negation, conditional, and disjunction.
• Sentences (and therefore claims) can be indicated by means of letters in truth tables.
• We can determine whether an argument is valid based on a truth table. This can be done, for example, by deduction.

What is inductive reasoning? - Chapter 11

[TOC]

What do analogy-based arguments look like?

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:

• Bill loves fishing.
• That's why his brother Sam loves fishing.

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.

What guidelines for critical thinking about an argument based on analogy are there?

These are a few guidelines for evaluating arguments based on analogy:

• The more similarities there are between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, the stronger the argument.
• The fewer similarities between the premise analogue and the conclusion analogue, the weaker the argument.
• If there is more than one premise analogue, the argument becomes stronger.
• If there is more than one premise analogue and there are not very many opposing premise analogues (a premise analogue that does not have the particular characteristic), the stronger the argument.

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.

When are you generalizing based on a sample?

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 more a-typical the sample is, the weaker the generalization. If you have a sample with primary school children, but you do this at a school for super smart children, the generalization will be weak.
• The less varied the sample is, the weaker the generalization. If you do a sample that is based around racism and you only interview white people, your results will be very monotonous.
• Generalizations based on samples that are too small to mirror the entire population. Three people are not very representative of a world of seven billion, for instance.

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.

What are statistical syllogisms?

If you want to reason from general to specific, it has the following form:

• "Most X’s are Y’s."
• "This is an X".
• Conclusion: "That is why this is (also) a Y".

Example:

• "Most teachers (X) are SP voters (Y)".
• "This is a teacher"
• Conclusion: "That is why he / she is an SP voter".

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.

What are causal statements?

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:

1. When something unusual happens, this does not necessarily have to be the cause of what follows. It is therefore important to look at whether something else unusual happened at the same time that could also be an explanation. This is called the paired unusual events principle.
2. Common variable principle: a variable that is common to multiple appearances of something can be related to causality. As; "20 men went out to eat yesterday and now 5 of those have abdominal pain. These 5 all ordered the chicken yesterday. The chicken is therefore the common variable here.
3. Covariation principle: when a variable in one phenomenon is accompanied by the variation in another phenomenon, there is covariation or correlation. There is then no direct causality. For example: it is assumed that X → Y. However, there is a third variable (the covariate) that causes X to lead to Y. This is noted as: X → Z → Y.

Which methods are there to confirm causal statements?

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.

How can statistical opportunities be calculated?

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.

How does Moral, Lawful and Ethical reasoning work? - Chapter 12

What are value judgments?

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.

What is the purpose of moral reasoning?

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."

Two principles of moral reasoning

1. The Consistency principle. If two separate cases do not differ in all relevant ways, they must be treated in the same way. If two separate cases are treated in the same way, they should not differ in all relevant ways. An example is if a teacher gives two students the same grade, despite the fact that student A did better than student B. The teacher violates the principle. If someone is suspected of violating the principle of consistency, it is up to the person who violates the principle to prove that he or she is not violating the principle.
2. Moral principles. A moral principle is a general value judgment. It refers to what should generally be done. An example is: "Stealing is wrong." Moral value judgments are formed from moral principles. An example is: "It is wrong of James to steal".

Consequentialism: utilitarianism, egoism and altruism

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.

The Duty theory: moral duties

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

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:

1. When is something a group, society or culture and what are the criteria for membership? How many groups, societies or cultures do you belong to? These questions make it difficult to determine which set of principles apply to someone.
2. Contradictory perspectives on moral principles can also be found within one group
3. Moral relativism can put you in a contradictory position. What a group finds can conflict with what you find yourself.

Moral subjectivism

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.

Religion

Religious relativism

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.

Religious absolutism

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.

What are virtue ethics?

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.

Legal reasoning

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.

"Appeal to precedent"

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.

Law perspectives

The same perspectives discussed in moral reasoning apply here too.

Legal moralism

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.

Damage principle

The "harm principle" is that banning X has the reason that X can harm others.

Legal paternalism

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.

Offense principle

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.

How is an aesthetic reasoning structured?

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.

• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they are meaningful or teach us the truth about something.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they have the capacity to convey values ​​or beliefs that are central to a culture or tradition. Objects are also aesthetically valuable when they are important to the artist who created them.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to create political or social change.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to create pleasure for those who can "feel" and values ​​it.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable if they have the capacity to create certain emotions that we value.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they have the capacity to create a special non-emotional experience, such as autonomy.
• Objects are aesthetically valuable when they express a special aesthetic property or form.
• There is no reasoned argument that can conclude that objects are aesthetically valuable or not.