DOCSLIB.ORG

Clear and Present Thinking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clear and Present Thinking Clear and Present Thinking A handbook in logic and rationality. Clear and Present Thinking Project Director: Brendan Myers (CEGEP Heritage College) Authors: Brendan Myers Charlene Elsby (Queen’s University) Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray (University of Waterloo) Nola Semczyszyn (Franklin & Marshall College) Editor / Proofreader: Natalie Evans (University of Guelph - Humber) Layout and Design: Nathaniel Winter-Hébert, Lana Winter-Hébert www. winterhebert.com Version 1.1 (21st May 2013) Northwest Passage Books This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ For all other enquiries, please visit brendanmyers.net Clear and Present Thinking A handbook in logic and rationality. Version 1.1 Northwest Passage Books Contents Contents Acknowledgments 2.2.2 Self-Awareness 39 Introduction 7 2.2.3 Health 40 2.2.4 Courage 40 Chapter One: Questions, Problems, 2.2.5 Healthy Skepticism 41 and World Views 15 2.2.6 Autonomy 41 2.2.7 Simplicity 42 1.1 Intellectual Environments 15 2.2.8 Precision 42 1.2 World Views 17 2.2.9 Patience 43 1.3 Framing Language 19 2.2.10 Consistency 43 1.4 Problems 20 2.2.11 Open-ness and Open-Mindedness 43 1.5 Observation 21 2.2.12 Asking for help 44 1.6 Questions 23 2.3 A few summary remarks for Chapter Two 45 1.7 Differing World Views 25 2.4 Exercises for Chapter Two 45 1.8 Value Programs 26 1.9 World Views, Civilization, and Conflict 27 Chapter Three: Basics of 1.10 Exercise for Chapter One 28 Argumentation 47 Chapter Two: Habits of Good and 3.1 Propositions 47 Bad Thinking 33 3.2 Parts of Arguments 49 3.3 Truth and Validity 50 2.1.1 Self-Interest 33 3.4 Types of Statements (Modern Logic) 50 2.1.2 Saving Face 34 3.5 Category Logic 53 2.1.3 Peer Pressure 34 3.6 Some Common Deductive Argument Forms 54 2.1.4 Stereotyping and Prejudice 35 3.6.1 Modus Ponens 55 2.1.5 Excessive Skepticism 36 3.6.2 Modus Tollens 56 2.1.6 Intellectual Laziness 36 3.6.3 Categorical Syllogisms 57 2.1.7 Relativism 37 3.6.4 Enthymemes 58 2.1.8 The Consequences of Bad Habits 39 3.6.5 Hypothetical Syllogism 58 2.2.1 Curiosity 39 3.6.6 Disjunctive Syllogism 60 Contents 3.6.7 Adjunction 61 4.24 Weak Analogy 77 3.6.8 Dilemmas 61 4.25 Exercises for Chapter Four 78 3.7 Induction 63 3.7.1 Inductive Generalization 64 Chapter Five: Reasonable Doubt 81 3.7.2 Statistical Syllogism 65 3.7.3 Induction by Shared Properties 66 5.1 What is reasonable doubt? 81 3.7.4 Induction by Shared Relations 67 5.2 Contradictory Claims 83 3.8 Scientific Method 67 5.3 Common Sense 84 3.9 Exercises for Chapter Three 68 5.4 Emotions, Instincts, and Intuitions 84 5.5 Looking at the evidence 86 Chapter Four: Fallacies 73 5.6 Conspiracy theories 87 5.7 Propaganda and Disinformation 88 4.1 Appeal to Authority 73 5.8 Doubting experts and professionals 81 4.2 Appeal to Force 73 5.9 Doubting your own eyes and ears 92 4.3 Appeal to Pity 74 5.10 Scams, Frauds, and Confidence Tricks 93 4.4 Appeal to Tradition 74 5.11 Doubting the Mass Media 96 4.5 Appeal to Novelty 74 5.12 Doubting the News 97 4.6 Appeal to Ignorance 74 5.13 Doubting Advertisments and Marketing 99 4.7 Appeal to Popularity 74 5.14 Exercises for Chapter Five 100 4.8 Accident Fallacy 74 4.9 Amphiboly 75 Chapter Six: Moral Reasoning 103 4.10 Fallacy of Composition 75 4.11 Fallacy of Division 75 6.1 Features of Moral Arguments 103 4.12 Red Herring 75 6.2 Moral Theories 104 4.13 Straw Man Fallacy 75 6.2.1 Utilitarianism 105 4.14 Abusing the Man 75 6.2.2 Deontology 107 4.15 False Cause 76 6.2.3 Virtue Theory / Areteology 108 4.16 Non Sequitur Fallacy 76 6.2.4 (Distributive) Justtice 110 4.17 Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle 76 6.3 Summary Remarks: Why can’t 4.18 Naturalistic Fallacy 76 we all just get along? 111 4.19 Loaded Question Fallacy 76 6.4 Exercises for Moral Reasoning 112 4.20 Equivocation 76 4.21 Begging the Question 77 4.22 False Dilemma 77 4.23 Hasty Generalization 77 Acknowledgments This project was financially supported by the dona- Gresham, Carol Waller, John Pritchard, Mark tions of over 700 people, through the Kickstarter.com Cumisky, Ed Kowalczewski, Tamarra Wallace, fundraising platform, including: Cheri Lovell, JD Ferries-Rowe, Maria Laine, Ralph Warnick, Cletus Stell, Lucas York, Jeff Chen, Michael Sena, Lisa Isaacson, Dag Hovden, William Linda Demissy, Jeffrey Wyndham, Jonathan Tapia, Andrews, Bill Dourte, Joseph de Leon, Douglas Carl Witty, Charlene Elsby, Jennifer Bezanson, Rod Bass, Dean Holbrough, Grant Haavaldsrud, Jussi MacPherson, Jennifer Hunt, Kadri Weiler, T. Scarlet Myllyluoma, Peter C. March, Deborah Spiesz, Evan Jory, Jennifer Hunt, Theo Geer, Teo Bishop, Grummell, Robert Carnochan, Angela Gallant, Julien St-Laurent, Tammy Longe, Holly Bird, Nic Kevin J. Maroney, Stephanie McMillen-Sherry, Daines, Gillian Watson, Chris Rybisky, Sydney Md. Muazzam B. Sham Khiruddin, David Lim, Mark Lancaster, Fernando Villasenor, Ruth Merriam, Wendelborn, Thomas Bourke, James Husum, Doug David Burch, Katt Taylor, Kevin L. Krakauer, Matan Eves, Bruce Becker, Bob Levin, Simon Lieutaud, Nassau, Jon Nebenfuhr, Bill Hovingh, Thomas Steven Hosford, Brian LaShomb, Colin Boswell, Darlington, Robin Powell, Peter Wolanski, Fabiola John Fox, Jason Piterak, Dirk Renckens, Sam Martin, Cequinne Reyamoir Sky, Robert Moore, Sabra, Bobby G Berney, Hannah Hiles, Albion Brian Baskerville, Claire Verney, Melissa Kean, Gould, Enrico Chir, Richard L Skubic, Corwin Melissa Reid, Ian McNab, Deirdre Hebert, Rory Samuelson, Zac Trolley, Melanie Meixner, Andrew Bowman, Jennifer Neal, Phil Kessler, Nick Warner, Bowser, Danny Witting, Melinda Reidinger, Hugh Long, Turlough Myers, Pat Bellavance, Graeme Barber, Matthew Slatkin, Barbara Jacobi, Chris Nichols, Michael Brown, Sarah Clements, Jennifer Mott, Melody Lake, Philipp Schneider, Stevie Miller, Marcos Gomez, Lisa Tamres, Karen Nicholas Pietrzak, Elizabeth A. Stout, Andrew Schreiber, Idalia Nelson, Debbie Carman, T Thorn Ma, Bernadette Martinez, Dominic Caplan, John Coyle, John Beckett, Selene Vega, Soli Johnson, Baksa, Todd Penland, Christian R. Meloche, Lianne Lavoie, Jennifer Ramon, Brian Figgins, Ivan Yagolnikov, John Merklinghaus, Matthew Amanda Strong, Lydia Ondrusek, Neil Negandhi, Habermehl, Burrell Crittendon, Scott Morris, Seto Konowa, Bart Salisbury, John Rahael, Nancy Sean Herron, Glenn Slotte, Björn Fonseca, Jay Allin, H Lynnea Johnson, Katherine Lawrence, Welshofer, David Fugate, Ty Sawyer, David Sosulski, Samuel Basa, Jim Burrows, Robert E. Stutts, Damion Moser, Thomas Brincefield, Paul Schultz, Daryn Tsuji, Deanna Victoria, Frederick Polgardy, Kevin Tibbs, Nicholas Dunne, Chris Felstead, Jim Elodie Crespel, Walter Erskine, Wilma Jandoc, Hill, Jayson Mackie, Matthew Suber, Sam Sgro, Nanci Quinn, Rachel Porteous, Teree McCormick, Mike Kallies, Garry Crossland, Michael Gradin, Bailey Shoemaker Richards, Ana de Montvert, John Bernardo, Elena Martinez, Justin Minnes, Brian Andrew, Nick Mailer, Gavin Lambert, Mike Ranti Junus, Mark Phelps, Susanne Huttner, Little, Antonina York, Laura Packer, Cynthia Andrea Hess, Simon Ward, Thomas Langenbach, Acknowledgments Alex Gibson, Philippe Chanelet, Skye Nathaniel C.D. Carson, Sheena MacIsaac, Andy Lawton, Schiefer, Julian Greene, Jennifer Gibson, James Rebecca Turner, Ivan Lewis, Ryoji Nakase, Deborah Foster, Kennita Watson, Robert Meeks, Corina Goldsmith, Truls Bjørvik, James R. Hall, William Thornton, Hilary Sadowsky, Eric Hortop, Joann Healy, Gareth Thomas, Todd Showalter, Russ Neff, Keesey, Alison Lilly, Millard Arnold IV, Adam Daw, Brittany Wilbert, Tobias Ammann, Mj Patterson, Garth Elliott, Mary Henderson, Mike Mallory, JD Joe Salek, Mostafa Faghfoury, Caroline Kenner, Hickey, Andrew Dulson, Stanley Yamane, Aurora Joshua Smith, Homam Alattar, Mara Georges, Jade Pichette, Jennifer M Shaw, Kami Landy, Bryan Bonifacio, Chad Hobson, Ryoichi Kinoshita, Gaston Croteau, Seonaid Lee, Dan Pierson, David O’Brien, Glenn McCrimmon, Susan Grant- Adrienne Dandy, Ealasaid haas, Roland Conybeare, Suttie, Mike Smith, Benjamin Wade. William Blumberg, Regina P. Wade, Christye Gruen, Maria Bement, Michelle Bar-Evan, Raja Thiagarajan, Nicholas George, Larry Wood, Kerry Michalski-Russell, Michael Green, Paul Fischer, Kiran Reddy, Thomas King, Edward Hinkey, Bryce Bederka, Martin Gray, Nick Allott, Jonas Schiött, Sara Korn, Jessica Heaston, Dan Reshef, Kevin Chin, Donald & Sabrina Sutherland, Derric Pruitt, Ben Rossi, Chris Rose, Deanna Jones, David Churn, Solomon Matthews, Judith Wouk, Gary Gibson, Rob C. Agnew, Robert Young, Kay M Purcell, John Benner Jr, Mark Bisignano, Stephen Antonello, Ed Deeley, Jochen Schmiedbauer, Andrew Kwon, John Moreau, James E. Donnelly, Vanessa Smallbon, Niels Nellissen, Elaine Chen Jing, Russell Keenan, Nunzio Bizness, Rochelle McCune, Michelle MacAlpine, Rob Harshman, Kevin McKenzie, David Monreal i Prat, Taylor Judd, Charles Petras, Chrissandra Porter, Katherine Terban, Leon Higley, Yves Lacombe, Martin Kleen, Nathan Malik, Geoff Coxhead, Joe & Alisa Roy, S R Van Keuren, Alex Basson, Carey Head, Carol Bean, Margaret Colville, Valerie Voigt, Leon Samadi, Bruce Spurr, Steven Moy, Elemental Book & Curiosity Shop Inc., David Govoni, Jacob Thias, Introduction “Thinking … is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.” – Rudolph Steiner. 07 What is thinking? It may seem strange to begin a logic information and knowledge, aware of memories, and textbook with this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps aware of likely future probabilities and so on. Thinking the most intimate and personal thing that people do. is a first-order phenomenological insight: it’s a bit like Yet the more you ‘think’ about thinking, the more knowing what the colour ‘red’ looks like, or knowing mysterious it can appear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bharati Volume 4
    SARASVATI Bharati Volume 4 Gold bead; Early Dynastic necklace from the Royal Cemetery; now in the Leeds collection y #/me raed?sI %/-e A/hm! #N/m! Atu?vm! , iv/Èaim?Sy r]it/ e/dm! -ar?t jn?m! . (Vis'va_mitra Ga_thina) RV 3.053.12 I have made Indra glorified by these two, heaven and earth, and this prayer of Vis'va_mitra protects the race of Bharata. [Made Indra glorified: indram atus.t.avam-- the verb is the third preterite of the casual, I have caused to be praised; it may mean: I praise Indra, abiding between heaven and earth, i.e. in va_kdevi Sarasvati the firmament]. Dr. S. Kalyanaraman Babasaheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti Bangalore 2003 PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com SARASVATI: Bharati by S. Kalyanaraman Copyright Dr. S. Kalyanaraman Publisher: Baba Saheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti, Bangalore Price: (India) Rs. 500 ; (Other countries) US $50 . Copies can be obtained from: S. Kalyanaraman, 3 Temple Avenue, Srinagar Colony, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600015, India email: [email protected] Tel. + 91 44 22350557; Fax 24996380 Baba Saheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti, Yadava Smriti, 55 First Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560020, India Tel. + 91 80 6655238 Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Annapurna, 528 C Saniwar Peth, Pune 411030 Tel. +91 020 4490939 Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Kalyanaraman, Srinivasan. Sarasvati/ S. Kalyanaraman Includes bibliographical references and index 1.River Sarasvati. 2. Indian Civilization. 3. R.gveda Printed in India at K. Joshi and Co., 1745/2 Sadashivpeth, Near Bikardas Maruti Temple, Pune 411030, Bharat ISBN 81-901126-4-0 FIRST PUBLISHED: 2003 2 PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com About the Author Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques
    Sample Activity Learning Critical Thinking Through Astronomy: Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques Joe Heafner [email protected] Version 2017-09-13 STUDENT NOTE PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT. 2017-09-13 Activity0105 CONTENTS Contents QuestionsSample Activity1 Materials Needed 1 Points To Remember 1 1 Fallacies and Distractions1 Student1.1 Lying................................................. Version 1 1.2 Shifting The Burden.........................................2 1.3 Appeal To Emotion.........................................3 1.4 Appeal To The Past.........................................4 1.5 Appeal To Novelty..........................................5 1.6 Appeal To The People (Appeal To The Masses, Appeal To Popularity).............6 1.7 Appeal To Logic...........................................7 1.8 Appeal To Ignorance.........................................8 1.9 Argument By Repetition....................................... 10 1.10 Attacking The Person........................................ 11 1.11 Confirmation Bias.......................................... 12 1.12 Strawman Argument or Changing The Subject.......................... 13 1.13 False Premise............................................. 14 1.14 Hasty Generalization......................................... 15 1.15 Loaded Question........................................... 16 1.16 Feigning Offense........................................... 17 1.17 False Dilemma............................................ 17 1.18 Appeal To Authority........................................
    [Show full text]
  • PAGANISM a Brief Overview of the History of Paganism the Term Pagan Comes from the Latin Paganus Which Refers to Those Who Lived in the Country
    PAGANISM A brief overview of the history of Paganism The term Pagan comes from the Latin paganus which refers to those who lived in the country. When Christianity began to grow in the Roman Empire, it did so at first primarily in the cities. The people who lived in the country and who continued to believe in “the old ways” came to be known as pagans. Pagans have been broadly defined as anyone involved in any religious act, practice, or ceremony which is not Christian. Jews and Muslims also use the term to refer to anyone outside their religion. Some define paganism as a religion outside of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism; others simply define it as being without a religion. Paganism, however, often is not identified as a traditional religion per se because it does not have any official doctrine; however, it has some common characteristics within its variety of traditions. One of the common beliefs is the divine presence in nature and the reverence for the natural order in life. In the strictest sense, paganism refers to the authentic religions of ancient Greece and Rome and the surrounding areas. The pagans usually had a polytheistic belief in many gods but only one, which represents the chief god and supreme godhead, is chosen to worship. The Renaissance of the 1500s reintroduced the ancient Greek concepts of Paganism. Pagan symbols and traditions entered European art, music, literature, and ethics. The Reformation of the 1600s, however, put a temporary halt to Pagan thinking. Greek and Roman classics, with their focus on Paganism, were accepted again during the Enlightenment of the 1700s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 1: Values and Economies
    The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 1: Values and Economies Collected Philosophical Essays by Giorgio Baruchello, PhD Gatineau, Quebec Canada Published by Northwest Passage Books, 2018. Complete Table of Contents Part I - Introductions The Cancer Stage of Capitalism Value Wars From Crisis to Cure Part II - Applications What Is To Be Conserved? An Appraisal of Political Conservatism Good And Bad Tourism Paul Krugman’s Banking Metastases Social Philosophy and Oncology On the Mission of Public Universities Part III - Implications Adam Smith, Historical and Rhetorical Cornelius Castoriadis and the Crux of Adam Smith’s Liberty The Price of Tranquility: Cruelty and Death in Adam Smith’s Liberalism Adam Smith Can Never Be Wrong Five Books of Economic History A History of Economics Epilogue: Good and Bad Capitalism This Sample Includes: Introduction 2 What Is To Be Conserved? An Appraisal of Political Conservatism 9 Copyright © 2018 by Giorgio Baruchello. All rights reserved. This sample of the text may be shared freely provided it is not modified in any way, not used for the reader’s commercial purposes, and that the author’s name remains attached to the work. 1 Baruchello / The Business of Life and Death, vol 1: Values and Economies The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 1: Values and Economies Introduction A direct descendant of the Ontario Agricultural College, the University of Guelph can boast among the members of its vast academic family two great Canadian intellectuals, who have never been afraid of tackling public affairs and economic matters with unswerving courage, subtle acumen and dazzling style. The first one is John Kenneth—“Ken”—Galbraith (1908–2006).
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 2: Politics, Law, and Society
    The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 2: Politics, Law, and Society Collected Philosophical Essays by Giorgio Baruchello, PhD Gatineau, Quebec Canada Published by Northwest Passage Books, 2018. Complete Table of Contents Part I - Socialist and Conservative Perspectives Einstein’s Socialism Cornelius Castoriadis and “The Crisis of Modern Society” Martha Nussbaum and John McMurtry Guilio Tremonti’s Exit Strategy: Ending the Tyranny of Finance Arthur Fridolin Utz’s Economic Ethics Hans Jonas qua Political Thinker Part II - Contemporary legal and social issues The ICESCR qua Civil Commons Europe’s Constitutions qua Civil Commons Iceland and the Crises Eight Noble Opinions and the Economic Crisis: Four Literary-philosophical sketches à la Eduardo Galeano This Sample Includes: Introduction 2 Einstein’s Socialism 6 Copyright © 2018 by Giorgio Baruchello. All rights reserved. This sample of the text may be shared freely provided it is not modified in any way, not used for the reader’s commercial purposes, and that the author’s name remains attached to the work. 1 Baruchello / The Business of Life and Death, vol 2: Politics, Law, and Society The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 2: Politics, Law, and Society Introduction As far as my generation is concerned, the single greatest geopolitical shake-up witnessed until now has been, without any doubt, the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991. This collapse marked the conclusion of a century-defining confrontation between East and West started with the Western Powers’ military involvement in the Russian Civil War, peaked with the invasion of Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and its allies, and continued by way of a prolonged arms race between the United States of America (US) and their former anti-Nazi Soviet ally.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking
    PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking Sessions 23 & 24 May 5th & 7th, 2020 Evaluating Arguments: Sufficient Evidence, Reasonable Inferences, Respectful Argumentation 1 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. Ø Here are four basic criteria which will all be satisfied by a good argument: I. The premises are true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners. So far, we have discussed fallacies that involve: • the use of language to present false or misleading evidence • the use of statistics to present false or misleading evidence, insufficient evidence, or to make faulty inferences – This week we’ll go into more detail about fallacies involving the use of language to present 2 insufficient evidence or to make faulty inferences. A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. • Fallacies that fail to satisfy this criterion of a good argument make faulty inferences: – they draw a conclusion that isn’t guaranteed (or extremely likely) to be true even if the premises are true. Ønon sequitur (Latin for ‘it doesn’t follow’) = when an argument draws a conclusion that just isn’t supported by the reasoning they have provided. ]P1] Dorothy is wearing red shoes today. [C] Obviously, red is Dorothy’s favorite color. » Many of the fallacies we’ll consider this week can be classified as subtypes of non sequiturs, • which draw particular types of conclusions from particular types of inadequate evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • KG 2010 Program
    Festival Rules Please read these rules as they are meant to maintain the well-being and safety of everyone attending. 1. As Raven’s Knoll has not yet succeeded in becoming a sovereign state, all laws of Canada and the Province of Ontario apply to everyone at KG. 2. Take ALL your garbage and recyclables home. If you have a legitimate reason why you can’t, Raven’s Knoll will do it for a fee. 3. No illegal substances, firearms or pyrotechnics (sparklers excepted) are allowed. 4. If you put the safety or well-being of others at risk, creating a hazard to the site or a situation that could have a hazardous outcome, you will be asked to leave. 5. KG is a safe space. Sexually aggressive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. 6. No underage drinking of alcohol is permitted. The legal drinking age in Ontario is 19. (Years from past lives do not count toward legal drinking age.) 7. Children under the age of 18 must be in the company of, OR have written permission from, a custodial parent or legal guardian to attend the festival. 8. Parents are responsible for their under-18 children at all times. Parents who do not, in the opinion of the Festival organizers, exercise good parental care of their children will be asked to leave. Children under 10 must be supervised at all times. 9. No child under age 12 may be left unattended near ANY body of water on the site. Children MUST be supervised by an adult at the beach.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ninth Mount Haemus Lecture
    THE ORDER OF BARDS OVATES & DRUIDS MOUNT HAEMUS LECTURE FOR THE YEAR 2008 The Ninth Mount Haemus Lecture How Beautiful Are They - Some thoughts on Ethics in Celtic and European Mythology by Dr. Brendan Myers Acknowledgement & Introduction Good afternoon everyone, Thank you, very sincerely, for inviting me to come and speak to you today. I think the Mount Haemus Prize is very prestigious, and I feel deeply honoured to have been chosen for it. When Philip Carr-Gomm first offered me this opportunity, I was delighted, and I began researching and writing on the topic of ancient Celtic and European virtue immediately. That was three years ago. A short essay became a long one; a long essay became a book; and that book was published. Therefore, six months before this paper was due, I suddenly realised I had written an entire book full of stuff that I could not use for today’s presentation! This paper, therefore, may be seen as a continuation of the research I began three years ago, although it will not be necessary to have read that book in order to follow the argument I shall present to you today. My title comes from an old Scottish folk song in praise of the faeries. Its relevance to my talk may not seem obvious until I’m nearly done, but don’t worry. It all fits together, at least in my own mind. I hope that you find my presentation worthy of the honour of the Mount Haemus prize. Since I am the first professional philosopher invited to deliver the Mount Haemus lecture (that is, professional in the sense that I am paid by a university to teach philosophy), I think it well to start by saying a little bit about the nature of my discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic I Format: Work Text (Digital Available August 2016)
    Logic I Format: Work Text (Digital Available August 2016) Course Objective The Logic I course introduces students to the science and art of right thinking or reasoning through the use of informal logic. After a short survey of the contributions of Greek philosophers, students will dive into an extended study of logical fallacies of relevance, presumption, and clarity. Fallacies include ad hominem personal attacks, appeals to fear, red herrings, equivocation, and sweeping generalizations. Students will analyze arguments and everyday conversations in order to identify and counter fallacies. The course concludes with an investigation into the principles of argumentative dialogue and the impact of language and emotions in debate. Course Prerequisites or Corequisites None Unit 1: Reasoning Understand that logic is “right thinking or reasoning.” Understand that logic is a wide field involving art, science, and skill. Recognize the contribution of Greek philosophers, Socrates and Aristotle, to the establishment of logic as a field of study. Understand the importance of logic in a classical education. Distinguish the difference between formal logic and informal logic. Compare and contrast inductive and deductive reasoning. Define fallacy. Recognize and analyze fallacious arguments of relevance. Recognize and describe ad hominem abusive fallacies. Recognize and describe ad hominem circumstantial fallacies. Recognize and describe tu quoque fallacies. Recognize and describe genetic fallacies. Recognize and describe mob appeal fallacies. Recognize and understand the subtle difference between an appeal to belief and an appeal to popularity. Recognize and describe snob appeal fallacies. Unit 2: The Contrast Recognize, classify, and describe an appeal to fear. Recognize and describe the appeal to force as a variation of the appeal to fear.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies: a Beginner’S Guide Which Logical Fallacy Would Be Your Favorite Pick from the List Below?
    Logical Fallacies: A Beginner’s Guide Which logical fallacy would be your favorite pick from the list below? Ad Hominem Attack: This is the best logical Appeal To Novelty: The Appeal to fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your you’re an idiot. crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best. Appeal To Emotion: See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad Appeal To Numbers: Millions think that this leaving and refusing to support us, and me fallacy is the best, so clearly it is. with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to Appeal to Pity: If you don't agree that get proper schooling. So really, if you look Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my how it will hurt the feelings of me and the fallacy here is the best. others who like it! Appeal To False Authority: Your logical Appeal To Tradition: We've used Appeal to fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this wrong? one is better. Argumentum Ad Nauseam: Argumentum Appeal to Fear: If you don't accept Appeal ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy. to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
    [Show full text]