DOCSLIB.ORG

Thinking Critically About Moral Issues9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thinking Critically About Moral Issues9 CH09.qxd 11/3/07 5:15 AM Page 305 Thinking Critically About Moral Issues9 Justify moral Make morality judgments a priority Promote happiness Discover the “Natural Law” The Thinker’s Guide to Moral Decision-Making Your moral compass Consider the Consider the ethic of justice ethic of care Choose to be Develop an a moral person informed intuition Accept responsibility © Houghton Mifflin 305 CH09.qxd 11/3/07 5:15 AM Page 306 306 Chapter 9 Thinking Critically About Moral Issues he abilities that you develop as a critical thinker are designed to help you think Tyour way through all of life’s situations. One of the most challenging and com- plex of life’s areas is the realm of moral issues and decisions. Every day of your life you make moral choices, decisions that reflect your own internal moral compass. Often we are not aware of the deeper moral values that drive our choices, and we may even be oblivious to the fact that the choices we are making have a moral com- ponent. For example, consider the following situations: • You consider purchasing a research paper from an online service, and you plan to customize and submit the paper as your own. • As part of a mandatory biology course you are taking, you are required to dis- sect a fetal pig, something which you find morally offensive. • A friend of yours has clearly had too much to drink at a party, yet he’s insist- ing that he feels sober enough to drive home. • The romantic partner of a friend of yours begins flirting with you. • You find yourself in the middle of a conversation with people you admire in which mean-spirited things are being said about a friend of yours. • Although you had plans to go away for the weekend, a friend of yours is extremely depressed and you’re concerned about leaving her alone. • A good friend asks you to provide some “hints” about an upcoming exam that you have already taken. • You and several others were involved in a major mistake at work, and your supervisor asks you to name the people responsible. • A homeless woman asks you for a donation, but you’re not convinced that she will use your money constructively. • Although you have a lot of studying to do, you had promised to participate in a charity walk-a-thon. These and countless other situations like them are an integral part of the choices that we face each day as we shape our lives and create ourselves. In each case, the choices involved share the following characteristics: • The choices involve your treatment of other people (or animals). • There may not be one obvious “right” or “wrong” answer, and the dilemma can be discussed and debated. • There are likely to be both positive and/or negative consequences to yourself or others, depending on the choices that you make. • Your choices are likely to be guided by values to which you are committed and that reflect a moral reasoning process that leads to your decisions. • The choices involve the concept of moral responsibility. Critical thinking plays a uniquely central role in helping us to develop enlight- ened values, use informed moral reasoning, and make well-supported ethical © Houghton Mifflin CH09.qxd 11/3/07 5:15 AM Page 307 What Is Ethics? 307 conclusions. Most areas of human study are devoted to describing the world and how people behave, the way things are. Ethics and morality are concerned with helping people evaluate how the world ought to be and what courses of action people should take; to do this well, we need to fully apply our critical-thinking abil- ities. Thinking critically about moral issues will provide you with the opportunity to refine and enrich your own moral compass, so that you will be better equipped to successfully deal with the moral dilemmas that we all encounter in the course of living. As the Greek philosopher Aristotle observed: The ultimate purpose in studying ethics is not as it is in other inquiries, the attain- ment of theoretical knowledge; we are not conducting this inquiry in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, else there would be no advan- tage in studying it. This was precisely how Socrates envisioned his central mission in life, to remind people of the moral imperative to attend to their souls and create upstanding char- acter and enlightened values within themselves: For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of your soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching. What Is Ethics? Ethics and morals are terms that refer to the principles that govern our relationships with other people: the ways we ought to behave, the rules and standards that we should employ in the choices we make. The ethical and moral concepts that we use to evaluate these behaviors include right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, fair and unfair, responsible and irresponsible. The study of ethics is derived from the ancient Greek word ethos, which refers to moral purpose or character—as in “a person of upstanding character.” Ethos is also associated with the idea of “cultural customs or habits.” In addition, the ety- mology of the word moral can be traced back to the Latin word moralis, which also means “custom.” Thus, the origins of these key concepts reflect both the private and the public nature of the moral life: we strive to become morally enlightened people, but we do so within the social context of cultural customs. ethical, moral of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character Ethical and moral are essentially equivalent terms that can be used interchange- ably, though there may be shadings in meaning that influence which term is used. For example, we generally speak about medical or business “ethics” rather than © Houghton Mifflin CH09.qxd 11/3/07 5:15 AM Page 308 308 Chapter 9 Thinking Critically About Moral Issues “morality,” though there is not a significant difference in meaning. Value is the gen- eral term we use to characterize anything that possesses intrinsic worth, that we prize, esteem, and regard highly, based on clearly defined standards. Thus, you may value your devoted pet, your favorite jacket, and a cherished friendship, each based on different standards that establish and define their worth to you. One of the most important value domains includes your moral values, those personal qualities and rules of conduct that distinguish a person (and group of people) of upstanding character. Moral values are reflected in such questions as • Who is a “good person” and what is a “good action”? • What can we do to promote the happiness and well-being of others? • What moral obligations do we have toward other people? • When should we be held morally responsible? • How do we determine which choice in a moral situation is right or wrong, just or unjust? Although thinking critically about moral values certainly involves the moral customs and practices of various cultures, its true mandate goes beyond simple description to analyzing and evaluating the justification and logic of these moral beliefs. Are there universal values or principles that apply to all individuals in all cultures? If so, on what basis are these values or principles grounded? Are some ethical customs and practices more enlightened than others? If so, what are the reasons or principles upon which we can make these evaluations? Is there a “good life” to which all humans should aspire? If so, what are the elements of such a life, and on what foundation is such an ideal established? These are ques- tions that we will be considering in this chapter, but they are questions of such complexity that you will likely be engaged in thinking about them throughout your life. Who is a moral person? In the same way that you were able to define the key qual- ities of a critical thinker, you can describe the essential qualities of a moral person. Thinking Activity 9.1 WHO IS A MORAL PERSON? Think of someone you know whom you consider to be a person of outstanding moral character. This person doesn’t have to be perfect—he or she doubtless has flaws. Nevertheless, this is a person you admire, someone you would like to emu- late. After fixing this person in your mind, write down this person’s qualities that, in your mind, qualify him or her as a morally upright individual. For each quality, try to think of an example of when the person displayed it. For example: Moral Courage: Edward is a person I know who possesses great moral courage. He is always willing to do what he believes to be the right thing, even if his point of view is unpopular with the other people involved. Although he may endure © Houghton Mifflin CH09.qxd 11/3/07 5:15 AM Page 309 What Is Ethics? 309 criticism for taking a principled stand, he never compromises and instead calmly explains his point of view with compelling reasons and penetrating questions. If you have an opportunity, ask some people you know to describe their idea of a moral person, and compare their responses to your own. For millennia, philosophers and religious thinkers have endeavored to develop ethical systems to guide our conduct.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Pragmatic Study of Fallacy in George W. Bush's Political Speeches Pjaee, 17(12) (2020)
    A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES PJAEE, 17(12) (2020) A PRAGMATIC STUDY OF FALLACY IN GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLITICAL SPEECHES Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy1, Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi2 1,2University of Karbala - College of Education. Dr. Ghanim Jwaid Al-Sieedy , Haider Rajih Wadaah Al-Jilihawi , A Pragmatic Study Of Fallacy In George W. Bush's Political Speeches , Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 18(4). ISSN 1567-214x. Keywords: Political speeches, Pragmatics, Fallacy, Argument. Abstract: A fallacy can be described as the act of issuing a faulty argument to support and reinforce a previously published argument for purposes of persuasion. However, a fallacy is a broad subject that has been addressed from several viewpoints. A few experiments have tried to counter the fallacy pragmatically. However, the attempts above have suffered from shortcomings, which made them incomplete accounts in this regard. Hence, this study has set itself to provide pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, forms, methods, and applications are concerned. These models use many models produced by several academics and the researchers themselves' observations. The validity of the established models was tested by reviewing seven speeches by George W. Bush taken before and after the war in Iraq (2002-2008). The analyses demonstrated the efficacy of the models created. Mostly because they have yielded varied results, it is clear that fallacy is a process of stages, with each round distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies. 1. Introduction: The fallacy has been regarded as a critical issue by numerous studies investigating the definition from different lenses.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Bio-Fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences
    Bio -fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences By Gaymon Lamont Bennett Jr. A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Paul Rabinow, Chair Professor Stefania Pandolfo Professor Ignacio Chapela Spring 2011 Abstract Bio-fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences by Gaymon Lamont Bennett Jr. Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Professor Paul Rabinow, Chair Bio-fabrication: Experiments and Experiences in Ethics and Sciences provides an account of an experiment I undertook in ethics and anthropology as part of the International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology, the BIOFAB. It offers an analysis of the facility‘s programmatic attempt to actualize a core claim of the new field of synthetic biology: that living beings can be conceived as collections of interoperable genetic components, constructed through rational design, standardized, and fabricated at scale. It provides a diagnosis of the scientific, vocational, and ethical limits of this endeavor. And demonstrates why, in the end, loyalty to truth and seriousness required an exit from the both the mode and stakes of my undertaking. My experiment with the BIOFAB constituted a distinctive and final phase of a five-year project to design Human Practices, which began as part of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC).
    [Show full text]
  • So You Say: Demonstrated Facts V. Unsupported Assertions
    So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Prepared by: Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and W. Michael Gillette, Associate Justice (retired) Oregon Supreme Court Shareholder: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Prepared for: 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Copyright © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications Wilsonville, Oregon So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Page 1 So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) W. Michael Gillette, Association Justice, Oregon Supreme Court (retired) I. Burdens of Proof A. “Burden of Proof” Defined: 1. Duty placed upon a party to a civil or criminal action to prove or disprove a disputed fact. 2. “Burden of Proof” is also used as a synonym for “Burden of Persuasion” which is the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed fact. B. Preponderance of the Evidence Defined: 1. Evidence, as a whole, shows fact to be proved is more probable than not. 2. The existence of the fact at issue is more likely than not. 3. The greater weight of the credible evidence. 4. More evidence or more credible evidence than evidence offered in opposition to it. C. Clear and Convincing Evidence Defined: The existence of a particular fact is highly probable or reasonably certain. This standard may be used in some jurisdictions when the issue is whether a person was guilty of deceit or fraud—a matter that had to be proved at common law by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 a Great Big List of Fallacies
    Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense Appendix 1 A Great Big List of Fallacies To avoid falling for the "Intrinsic Value of Senseless Hard Work Fallacy" (see also "Reinventing the Wheel"), I began with Wikipedia's helpful divisions, list, and descriptions as a base (since Wikipedia articles aren't subject to copyright restrictions), but felt free to add new fallacies, and tweak a bit here and there if I felt further explanation was needed. If you don't understand a fallacy from the brief description below, consider Googling the name of the fallacy, or finding an article dedicated to the fallacy in Wikipedia. Consider the list representative rather than exhaustive. Informal fallacies These arguments are fallacious for reasons other than their structure or form (formal = the "form" of the argument). Thus, informal fallacies typically require an examination of the argument's content. • Argument from (personal) incredulity (aka - divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false. • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed so extensively that nobody cares to discuss it anymore. • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. • Argumentum verbosium – See proof by verbosity, below. • (Shifting the) burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with (or assumes) what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    THE ROLE OF REASONING IN CONSTRUCTING A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT 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 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. Disputed Facts; Disputed Law.. 9 2. The Hypothetical Syllogism... 10 a. The Conditional Syllogism.. 10 b. The Conjunctive Syllogism... 10 c. The Disjunctive Syllogism.. 10 3. The Dilemma.. 10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 42 Fallacies for Free
    42 FALLACIES Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere For Free Forty Two Fallacies (For Free) By Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere, [email protected] Legal Information This book is copyright 2002‐2010 by Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere. It may be freely distributed for personal or educational use provided that it is not modified and no fee above the normal cost of distribution is charged for it. Fallacies and Arguments In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric Tool Chest by Steven Strang
    Rhetoric Tool Chest By Steven Strang “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”—Aristotle Key Terms 1. Rhetor = the speaker or writer or creator of an artifact, an artifact that is intended to persuade someone of something 2. Rhetorician = someone who studies or teaches the art of rhetoric [Crowley 436) 3. Rhetorical critic = someone who analyzes discourse/artifacts using rhetorical tools 4. Rhetorical Criticism/Rhetorical Analysis = the process of close reading artifacts, looking not only at the overt meaning, but also considering the assumptions (stated and unstated), the strategies and techniques used, the implied audience, the tensions between the stated and implied purpose, the “how it is said” + the “why it is said that way” as well as the “what it says,” etc. (SMS) 5. Artifact = anything created by a human in order to communicate with other humans. 6. Text can a synonym for artifact, but text often refers to a written or verbal artifact. 7. Unit of Analysis = is one significant rhetorical element or rhetorical strategy. Often in discussions (and in this course), “unit of analysis” is a blanket term that covers all the concepts in this handout. a. A unit that is incredibly significant for one text might be totally insignificant for another text. i. For instance, for a free verse poem, the unit “rhyme” would be useless since, by its very definition, a free verse poem does not rhyme. ii. For a text which displays little literary impulse or craft, using the unit “memorable phrasings” or “parallel structure” would not reveal much about the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Media and Information Literacy in Adult Education
    MEDIA AND INFORMATION LITERACY IN ADULT EDUCATION Project no 2018-1-FR01-KA204-048213 Table of contents INTERACTIVE CONTENT Click and go to the page WORKSHOP Introduction 3 29 Fake News WORKSHOP Media and Information Literacy 4 30 Assemblage Non-formal education system WORKSHOP 5 and benefits 32 Headline Basket WORKSHOP Presentation of the Toolkit Target Audience 6 and group dynamics 35 Deconstruction Instructions for Media Bingo 7 38 Newspaper Analysis CARD GAME EXEMPLAR 8 Tell your Story 41 Newspaper Analysis CARD GAME Instructions for Comparative 9 More Than One Story 42 Newspaper Analysis EXEMPLAR Puzzle 10 48 Comparative Analysis WORKSHOP Top 10 Logical Critical thinking, social representations 11 50 Fallacies in Politics and the portrayal of the reality WORKSHOP Printable Critical Thinking Cards 13 Media Literacy: Bias in Media 57 WORKSHOP WORKSHOP Terminology: global 16 Social media channels 65 and EU perspectives WORKSHOP WORKSHOP 24 Visuals on social media 68 ETA CARD GAME Activities and materials 25 Percipio 74 to address radicalisation issue WORKSHOP PROJECT PARTNERS 26 First Impression 81 NB It's a link icon. If you see it, click it. Introduction “Media and information literacy in adult education” is an Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships project for four partners from France, Croatia, Estonia and Spain. The coordinator of this project is Mitra France non-governmental organisation from France. The project is funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission. The general objective of this project was to exchange good practices and test innovative methods in media and information literacy that were collected in this Toolkit. The activities of this project increased the ability of participants to think critically about the content they receive through social media.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fallacies
    List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion.
    [Show full text]