CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCING TO PHILOSOPHY
Meaning and Nature of Philosophy
Philosophy
 difficult to define philosophy in terms of a specific subject matter/
clear-cut
 Its contents is not the specific subject matters/it has no a specific
subject matter to primarily deal with
 Its contents is issues, which are universal in nature
Etymologically
 comes from two Greek words ―philo‖ and ―sophia‖/sophy
 love of wisdom respectively
 pursuit / seeking of wisdom
wisdom consists of a critical habit and eternal vigilance/attention
about all things and a reverence/respect for truth, whatever its form,
 is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as
 existence,
 knowledge,
 truth,
 beauty,
 law,
 justice,
 validity,
 mind,
 language
 is not as elusive/intangible, vague/ as it is often thought to be
 is not remote from our various problems
 It is a rational and critical /Philosophical enterprise that tries to answer fundamental questions
 “An active imaginative process of formulating proper questions and
resolving them by rigorous, persistent analysis”.
 It involves
 reason,
 rational criticism,
 examination,
 analysis
 is pure reasoning
 Modes of Philosophy
 more of an activity rather than a body of passive knowledge
 we learn philosophy
 by doing it
 by philosophizing
 to be confronted with philosophical questions,
 to use philosophical language
1. Speculative Philosophy
 systematically speculates/guess, wonder/ about and upon all things both real as well as the
abstract
 can be sub-divided into Metaphysics and Epistemology
2. Prescriptive Philosophy
 seeks to set
 standards,
 grounds or criteria for the judgments of values, conduct and art
 seeks to establish the objectivity or subjectivity of concepts for
 good and bad,
 right, and wrong,
 beautiful and ugly etc
 seeks to establish some fundamental laws for judging
3. Analytic Philosophy
 Basic Features of Philosophy
 a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe
 informal personal attitude
 is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply held conceptions
and beliefs
 view things from different points of view
 live in a changing universe
 deal with an area of human experience
 is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole
 seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences and human experience
 is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the meaning of
words and concepts
 expose confusion and nonsense and to clarify the meaning and use of terms in science
and everyday affairs
 is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for which
philosophers always have sought answers
 presses its inquiry into the deepest problems of human existence
 Core Fields of Philosophy
A. Metaphysics
 derived from the Greek words
“meta” means (―beyond ―upon or ―after
•physika, means (―physics
 the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature of reality or existence
 Metaphysics primarily deals questions like
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 Can reality be grasped by the senses, or it is transcendent?
 What makes reality different from a mere appearance?
 What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
 Is there a cause and effect relationship between reality and appearance?
 Does God exist, and if so, can we prove it?
 Are human actions free, or predetermined by a supernatural force?
 What is human being? A thinking mind? A perishable body? Or a combination of both?
 What is time?
 What is the meaning of life?
 Aspects of Metaphysical questions

1. Cosmological Aspect
 the study of theories about the origin, nature, and development
of the universe as an orderly system
 How did the universe originate and develop?
 Did it come about by accident or design?
 Does its existence have any purpose?
2. Theological Aspect
 deals with conceptions of God
 Is there a God?
 If so, is there one or more than one?
 What are the attributes of God?
 If God is both all good and all powerful, why does evil exist?
 If God exists, what is His relationship to human beings and the real‘
world of everyday life?
1. Anthropological Aspect
 deals with the study of human beings
 What is the relation between mind and body?
 Is mind more fundamental than body, with body depending on mind, or vice
versa? What is humanity‘s moral status?
 Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral?
 To what extent are individuals free?
 Do they have free will, or are their thoughts and actions determined by their
environment, inheritance, or a divine being? Does each person have a soul?
 If so, what is it?
1. Ontological Aspect
 the study of the nature of existence, or what it means for anything to exist.
 Is basic reality found in matter or physical energy (the world we can sense), or is it
found in spirit or spiritual energy?
 Is it composed of one element (e.g., matter or spirit), or two (e.g., matter and
spirit), or many?‖
 Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely orderable by the human mind?
 Is it fixed and stable, or is change its central feature?
 Is this reality friendly, unfriendly, or neutral toward humanity?
 B. Epistemology
 Etymologically
 derived from the Greek words
 episteme, meaning ―knowledge, understanding‖,
 logos, meaning ―study of

 studies about the

 nature,
 scope,
 meaning, and possibility of knowledge
 deals with issues of knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason,
experience, and faith
 referred to as ―theory of knowledge
 the study of the nature, source, and validity of knowledge
 covers two areas: the content of thought and thought itself
 Seeks to answer of the basic questions as
 What is true?
 Sources of human knowledge

 One source of information alone might not be capable of supplying people with all knowledge
 see the various sources as complementary
1. empiricism
 knowledge obtained through the senses
 the very nature of human experience
2. rationalism
 based upon logic
 obtained through reasoning
3. intuition
 immediate feeling of certainty
4. revelation
 presupposes /take as fact /a transcendent supernatural reality that breaks into the natural order
 God‘s communication
 religiously believed that:-
 omniscient source of information
 absolute and uncontaminated
 accepted by faith and cannot be proved or disproved empirically

5. authority
 C. Axiology

Etymologically
drive from two Greek words-
Axios‖, meaning ―value, worth‖,
logos‖, meaning ―reason/ theory/ symbol /
science/study
the philosophical study of value
the worth of something
asks the philosophical questions of values
philosophical questions
What is a value?
Where do values come from?
How do we justify our values?
Who benefits from values?
Etc.
 Axiology deals
 Ethical values
 aesthetic values
 political and social values
 Ethics

 is a science that deals with the philosophical

study of
 moral principles, standards, values, codes, and
rules
 Ethics raises various questions including;
What is good/bad?
What is right/wrong?
Are moral principles universal?
Etc.
 has three main branches:
normative ethics,
meta-ethics,
 applied ethics
 Normative ethics
study and determine precisely the moral rules,
principles, standards and goals
a critical study of the major theories about
which things are good
which acts are right
which acts are blameworthy
 Examples of normative ethical studies

 Consequentialism or Teleological Ethics,

 focus on the consequences/end
 can be grouped as;
 egoism
 only to the moral agent
 Altruism
 to everyone except the moral agent
 Utilitarianism
 Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

 Deontological Ethics,
 emphasis on rules rather than on consequences
 morality is matter of obligation
 Virtue Ethics
 the character of the moral agent
  Meta-ethics
 technical philosophical discipline
 deals with investigation of the meaning of ethical
terms
good or bad
right or wrong
 Applied Ethics
 attempts to explain, justify, apply moral rules,
principles, standards,
 Aesthetics
 the theory of beauty
 deals with
beauty
art,
enjoyment,
sensory/emotional values,
perception, and matters of taste and sentiment

Social/Political Philosophy
 studies about of the value judgments operating in a civil society,
be it social or political
 What form of government is best?
 What economic system is best?
 What is justice/injustice?
 What is society? ETC.
 D. Logic

 a philosophical study of arguments/point of view

 methods and principles of right reasoning
Importance of Learning Philosophy
 provides the tools need to critically examine lives as well as the world
 It helps one to
 analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems
 develop the culture of general problem solving skills
 promoting the ideal of self-actualization
 self-fulfillment,
 creativity,
 self-expression,
 realization of one‘s potential,
 being everything one can be
 Important contributions of self-actualization

 Intellectual and Behavioral Independence:

 ability to develop one‘s own opinion and beliefs
 Reflective Self-Awareness
 Inviting us to critically examine the essential
intellectual grounds of our lives
 Flexibility, Tolerance, and Open-Mindedness
 Understand the evolutionary nature
 Creative and Critical Thinking
 Refine our powers of
 analysis
 abilities
 reason
 evaluate
 Conceptualized and well-thought-out value systems in morality, art, politics,
and the like.
 formulate feasible evaluations
 CHAPTER TWO
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
Logic
 Derived from Greek word ‘Logos’
 word
 Discourse/dialogue
 Reason
 sentence
 truth
 rule
 the science of reasoning
the science /the study of correct processes of thinking or reasoning
 the organized body of knowledge, or science that evaluates arguments
 a philosophical science that evaluates arguments
 the study of methods for evaluating arguments
 the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought
 Benefit of Studying Logic

 sharpens and refines our natural gifts to think, reason and argue
 helps us to
 develop the skill needed to construct sound arguments of one‘s own
 distinguish good arguments from bad arguments
 understand and identify the common logical errors in reasoning
 develop the system of methods and principles that we may use as
criteria for evaluating the arguments of others
 increase our confidence when we criticize the arguments of others
 produce individuals who are critical, rational and reasonable both in the
sphere of public and private life
 Argument
 is a group of statements
statement
 is a sentence that has a truth-value
Eg. 1. Dr. Abiy Ahmed the current Prime
Minister of Ethiopia. T
2. Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region. T
3. Ethiopia was colonized by Germany. F
 the primary subject matter /chief concern/of logic
 a collection of statementspremises and one conclusion
 contains at least one premise and one and only one
conclusion
 Examples of argument
•All crimes are violations of the law.
•Theft is a crime.
•Therefore, theft is a violation of the law

Premise
is a statement that set forth /provide/ the reason or
evidence
statements that supposedly justify the claim/implies

Conclusion
 is a statement, which is claimed to follow from the given
 Identify premises from a conclusion
 looking at an indicator word

 Some Conclusion Indicators

Therefore Wherefore Accordingly
Provided that It must be that
Entails that Hence It shows that
Whence Thus Consequently
We may infer We may conclude
It implies that As a result
So It follows that
 Identify premises from conclusion…

 the statement that follows the indicator word

can usually be identified as the conclusion
Example:
Women are mammals.
Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal
 some typical Premise Indicators
Since As indicated by because
Owing to seeing that Given that As For
In that
May be inferred from Inasmuch as

For the reason that

a statement that follows the indicator word can usually
be identified as a premise
Example:
You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating
on exams is punishable by the Senate Legislation of the University
 Techniques of Recognizing Arguments

 not all passages that contain two or more statements

are argumentative
 There are various passages that contain two or more
statements but are not argumentative
 There are no hard and fast rules for telling when a
collection of statements is intended to be an argument
 it is harder to tell that the collection of statements is
intended to be an argument if there is no indicator
• In a general way, a passage contains an argument if it
purports to prove something.
 Techniques of rec…

 There must be a claim that the supposed evidence or reasons supports

or implies something (inferential claim) not necessary actual
evidence or true reasons

 Inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit

 Explicit inferential claim usually asserted by premise or conclusion
indicator words
e.g there is smoke
because, there is fire
 Implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship
between the statements in a passage, but the passage contains no
indicator words
 Note:-
 the mere existence of premise & conclusion indicators in a passage does
not guarantee the presence of an argument
 indicators being used to indicate the occurrence of a premise or
conclusion
e.g
 Ethiopia has a long history in constitutional traditions. since 1995 the
country has guided by a federal constitution.
since is used as time indicator
the passage in fact doesn’t contain an argument
there is not any inferential claim in it (process of
reasoning)
 Since the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia includes fundamental human and
democratic rights of the people, it is relatively better than all constitutions
which had been formulated before.
 since is used as a premise indicator
 Non-argumentative Passages

 lack a claim that anything is being proved or

 lack inferential claim
e.g
 Warning  Shut your mouth!
 Pieces of advice I advise you to improve your behavior before you
graduate
 Belief and Opinion In my opinion, abortion is a crime against
humanity
 Reports
 Elaborations
 Description
 A single Conditional statements
 Types of Arguments

 Based on
the kind of connection existed between the
premises and the conclusion (structure)
the degree of strength of the reasoning process
existed
certainty or probability of the reasoning process
 Types of Arguments

Strength of the
reasoning
process
Mr. kebede always wears white
shoes to work
Mr. kebede will be coming to 1. Deductive arguments
work on Friday  Move from general to specific  structurally
Therefore, Mr. kebede will wears
 conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty or
white shoes on Friday
necessity  strength of the reasoning process
 the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the
premises

it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are
All human beings are mortal

Darartu is a human being

Structurally
Therefore Darartu is a mortal
 Inductive arguments

 Move from specific to general structurally

 conclusion is claimed to follow only probably strength of
the reasoning process
 it is improbable for the conclusion to be false given that the
premises are true
Structurally

Mr. kebede wore white shoes to

work on Monday
Mr. kebede wore white shoes to
work on Tuesday
Mr. kebede wore white shoes to
99% of accounting students become work on Wednesday
rich Therefore, Mr. kebede always
Lema is an accounting student wears white shoes to work
Therefore, Lema will become rich

Strength of the
reasoning
process
Factors that influence the decision about the deductiveness or inductiveness of an argument

1. The occurrence of special indicator words

Certainly Deductive arguments indicators
Necessarily
Absolutely
Definitely

probable‖
Improbable
Plausible Inductive arguments indicators
Implausible
Likely
Unlikely

Reasonable to conclud
1. The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclusion
 If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the
argument is clearly deductive
 If, the conclusion of an argument does not follow with strict necessity but does
follow probably, the argument is inductive

Example-1:
All Ethiopian people love their country. The conclusion follows with strict necessity
Debebe is an Ethiopian. from the premises
Therefore, Debebe loves his country.

Example-2: The conclusion does not follow from the premises

The majority of Ethiopian people are poor. with strict necessity, but it does follow with some
Alamudin is an Ethiopian. degree of probability
Therefore, Alamudin is poor.
 1.

3. The character or form of argumentation the arguers use

Deductive Argumentative Forms

A. Argument based on mathematics

 the conclusions depend on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement
eg.
 There are 2 bananas and 3 orange in the bag. Therefore
there are 5 fruits in the bag

 The sum of two odd numbers is always even. Thus, the

result of
3 and 9 is an even number

10

10 A=100 10

10
A. Arguments based on definition
 the conclusion is claimed to depend merely up on the definition of some words or
phrase used in the premise
 premises already define the truth of the conclusion
eg
 Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells the truth
 Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor
 God is omniscient, it follows that He knows everything

B. Syllogisms
 arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one conclusion
 can be categorized into three groups
1. categorical,
2. hypothetical, and syllogism

3. disjunctive
 Categorical syllogism
All A is B  each of its statements usually begin begins with
All C is A  all‖
All Egyptians are Muslims.
Therefore All C is B  no‖
No Muslim is a Christian
 some Hence, no Egyptian is a Christian.
 Hypothetical syllogism
 a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its
If X, then y. premises
If y, then Z. eg.
If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
Therefore if X, then Z
If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.
Disjunctive syllogism
 a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e. an ―either … or‖
statement.)

eg.

Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.

Rewina is not Eritrean.
Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian
 Inductive Argumentative Forms
 the content of the conclusion is in some way intended to ―go beyond‖ the content of the premises
 consist:
A. Prediction
 predictions about the future
 the future cannot be known with certainty
eg. Because certain clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall within twenty-four hours
B. An argument from analogy
 an argument that depends on the existence of similarity between two things
C. An inductive generalization
 Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristic, it is argued that all the
members of the group have that same characteristic.
D. An argument from authority
Concluding according to
 eyewitness
 known person/documents
D. Arguments based on sign
 if the sign symbolizes situation
eg traffic symbol, park symbol
e. A causal inference
 knowledge of a cause to knowledge of the effect
 Evaluating Arguments
1.Deductive Argument in terms of
valid deductive argument
invalid deductive argument
sound deductive argument
unsound deductive argument
 Valid deductive argument

 if the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion must be

true
 Is a matter of strict necessity
 the conclusion follows with strict necessity from
the premises
 it is a good argument
 the validity of argument is the connection between premise
and conclusion rather than on the actual truth or falsity of the
statement formed the argument
 the premises do in fact support the conclusions
 validity is something that is determined by the relationship
between premises and conclusion
 EG1.
 All automakers are computer
manufacturers.
 United Airlines is an automaker.
 Therefore, United Airlines is a
computer manufacturer
 Because the conclusion actually /necessarily
followed from the premises with a strict necessity
Eg2. All cats are Mammals
All Mammals are Animals
Therefore All cats are Animals

Eg3. All snakes are reptiles

All reptiles are Animals
Therefore all snakes are Animals
 Invalid deductive argument

 The conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the
premises
 There is one arrangement of truth and falsity in the premises
and conclusion that does determine the issue of validity
 That is if argument has true premises and false conclusion
Because the conclusion did not actually eg.
follow from the premises with a strict All philosophers are critical thinkers. (Tp)
necessity Plato was a critical thinker. (Tp)
Therefore, Plato was a philosopher. (Tc)
Eg 2. all cats are animals
all mammals are animals
Therefore all cats are mammals

Eg3. All snakes are reptiles

All snakes are Animals
Therefore all reptiles are animals
four possibilities of Truth Value arguments or combinations of validity and truth of deductive arguments

Premise conclusion validity

T T allows for both

T F Invalid

F T allows for both

F F allows for both

 Sound deductive argument
 a deductive argument that is valid and has all true
premises
 Sound Argument = A valid argument + All true
premises
Unsound deductive argument
 a deductive argument that is either valid with one or
more false premises, or invalid, or both
 Valid but at least one false premise
 Invalid but all its premises are true
 Invalid and at least one false premise
 Inductive Arguments in terms of

Strong
weak
Cogent
un Cogent

Strong inductive argument

 an argument such that if the premises are assumed
true, it is improbable for the conclusion to be false
 the conclusion follows probably from the premises
 Weak inductive argument

 an argument such that if the premises are

assumed true, it is probable for the conclusions
to be false
the conclusion does not follow probably from
the premises combination of strength and truth of Inductive arguments

Premises Conclusion Strength

T T Allows both

T F weak

F T Allows both

F F Allows both
 Cogent inductive argument
 an inductive argument that is strong and has
all true premises
 Cogent Argument = A strong argument + All true
premises
uncogent inductive argument
 an inductive argument that is either strong with
one or more false premises, or weak, or both
 Chapter Three
Language, Meaning, and Definition
Language is too broad to be defined in a single expression
 Serves various functions in our day-to-day lives
 is a body of standard meanings of words
 the form of speech used as a means of expressing the
 feeling,
 emotion,
 desire,

Major functions of languages

1. to convey information cognitive meaning
2. to express or evoke feelings  emotive meaning
1. Cognitive meaning of terms
 It is a terminology that convey information
 Used to refer contents of reality of some thing
 They are objective and could be judged as true or false
Example: 1
Ethiopia has a main airline of its own.
Abebe is a teacher.
There are living volcano in Ethiopia
Examples 2
The Russian revolution, which occurred in March
1917, was caused in part by the defeat of the
Russian army at the hands of the Germans and
by the subsequent collapse of the Russian
economy.
2. Emotive meanings
 Express;
feelings,
valuing emotions,
prejudice,
attitude,
 are subjective.
They could not be judged as true or false
Example: 1
 He is a disgusting lecturer.
 Her beauty is beyond every ones imagination
The president concluding an interesting conversation.
Example: 2.
The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of
punishment in which hapless prisoners are
 Deficiency of Cognitive Meanings:
 Vagueness abstract
 Ambiguityuncertain/doubtful
Eg . Love,
Vague peace,
 impossible to tell if the expression applies or does not apply rich
 allow for a continuous range of interpretations
 meaning is hazy, obscure, and imprecise
Ambiguous
 can be interpreted as having more than one clearly distinct meaning in a given context eg.
Light, mad
Forms of Disputes in Logic
1. Verbal disputes  arise over the meaning of language
Eg.
Mullu: I‟m afraid that Dagim is guilty of cheating in the exam. Last night he confessed to me
that he was sate closer to Tsedale, who is the most excellent student in our class, and takes
almost all answers from her.
Worku: No, you couldn‟t be more mistaken. In this country, no one is guilty until proven so in a
Factuall disputes arises over a disagreement about facts

Eg.
Debebe: I know that Gemada stole a computer from
the old school house. Zeynaba told me that she saw
Gemada do it.
Maru: That‟s ridiculous! Gemada has never stolen
anything in his life. Zeynaba hates Gemada, and
she is trying to pin the theft on him only to shield
her criminal boyfrien
 The Intension and Extension of
Terms
 Term
 is any word/ arrangement of words that may serve as the
subject of a statement.
 consists of --
Common Names  Animal ; House
Descriptive Phrases Red things ,
Proper Names  Kebede ; North America
 Words
 are usually considered to be symbols
 the entities they symbolize are usually called meanings
 Intentional meaning

 consists of the qualities/ attributes that the term

connotes
known as connotation
eg. The intension of the term “cat"
being fury
having four legs
emitting certain sounds
 Extensional meaning

 Consists of the members of the class that the term

denotes.
 known as denotation
eg. The extension of Inventor
 T. Edison
 A Graham bell
 Wright brothers

• The Intentional of Inventor

• Clever
• Initiative
• Creative
 The relationship b/n intentional & extensional meanings of terms

Increasing intension/decreasing extension

Increasing extension/decreasing intension
Examples
Increasing intension: animal mammal feline tiger
Decreasing extension: animal mammal feline
tiger
Increasing extension: tiger feline mammal animal
Decreasing intension: tiger feline mammal animal
 Science, philosophy, social science, logic

Increasing intention?
Science  Social science  philosophy  Logic

Increasing extension?
Logic  philosophy  Social science  Science
 The Meaning of Definition

 the meaning of a given term

 a group of words that assigns a
meaning to some word or group of
words
 consists of two parts
1. Definiendum
2. Definiens
definiendum

 the word or group of words that is supposed to be defined

definiens

 is the word or group of words that does the defining

eg. Bachelor means unmarried man

definiens
definiendum
 Types of Definitions
A. Stipulative definition
 It arbitrary assigns a meaning to a word for the first time
 replace a more complex expression with a simpler one
 cannot be ‘‘true’’ or ‘‘false’’
B. lexical definition
 used to report the meaning that a word already has in a language
 Dictionary definitions
 can be true or false
 used to eliminating the ambiguity
C. Précising Definitions
 used to reduce the vagueness of a word

D. Theoretical Definitions
 gives a certain characterization to the entities
 cannot be true nor false
E. Persuasive Definitions
 produce a favourable or unfavourable attitude
 influence the attitudes of the reader or listener
 assigning an emotionally charged or value-laden meaning
 Techniques of Definition

1. Extensional (Denotative) Definitions

 assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the members of the class
 it has three ways of indicating the members of a class
A. Demonstrative (ostensive) definitions
 pointing to them
 point to one after the other saying that
this, this and this…
B. Enumerative definitions
 assign a meaning to a term by naming
the members of the class
 naming them individually
C. Definition by subclass
 assigns a meaning to a term by naming
subclasses of the class
Examples: Crops mean maize, teff,
barley, sorghum, wheat, and the like.
 Intentional (Connotative) Definitions

 assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the

qualities or attributes
 it has four strategies
A.Synonymous definition= by meaning
B.etymological definition= origin of word
C.operational definition= science & conditional
D.Definition by genus and difference= broad definition
 Criteria for Lexical Definitions

A Lexical Definition Should

Conform to the Standards of Proper Grammar
Convey the Essential Meaning of the Word Being
Defined
Be neither Too Broad nor Too Narrow
Avoid Circularity
Not Be Negative When It Can Be Affirmative
Avoid Affective Terminology
Indicate the Context to Which the Definiens
Pertains
 Chapter Four
Basic Concepts of Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking
 thinking
 clearly intelligently
 fairly,
 rationally,
 objectively,
 independently
 an active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief of
knowledge
 exercising skilled judgment or observation
 effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments
 is the act of deliberately analysis information
 is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards
 Standards of Critical Thinking

 clarity,
 precision,
 relevance,
 Consistency,
 logical correctness,
 completeness,
 Fairness
 accuracy,
 Clarity
 clear understanding of concepts
 clearly expressing both language and thought
 free of obscurity and vagueness
Consistency
 quality of always behaving in the same
way/ having the same opinions
Eg.
I believe in one God and I also agree with people may worship
many gods
 I believe in one God and I disagree with people worship many
gods
 Logical Correctness

 reason correctly
 Well supported beliefs
 Conclusion is logically formed

from the premises

eg.
All cars have a wheel. Sinotrac is a car. Therefore sinotruc
has a wheel.
not All cars have a wheel. Sinotrac is a car. I don’t think
sinotruc has a wheel.
 Precision
• being
• exact,
• Accurate
• careful
• Details
• specific
Fairness
• open minded
• Impartial
• free of biases
 Accuracy

 not Garbage in, garbage out.‖

 correct / true, timely information
Completeness
 consider many aspects
 look at issues from different points of view
Relevance
 logical connection
points that bear on the issue
do not collect any information
 Principles of Good Argument
 The Structural Principle
 a well-formed argument
 does not use reasons that contradict each other
 conclusion deserves our acceptance
 Relevance Principle
 provides some reason to believe
 draw appropriate conclusions from evidence
 Acceptability Principle
 accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of
acceptability
 Sufficiency Principle
 provide relevant and acceptable reasons
 Rebuttal Principle
 anticipate and effectively refute the force of the most serious criticisms
 meet other side directly
 Principles of Critical Thinking
 Fallibility Principle
 willing to accept the fact that he or she is imperfect
 Truth Seeking Principle
 willing to examine alternative positions seriously
 allow other participants to present arguments
 takes the form of discussion
•
 Clarity Principle
 be free of any kind of linguistic confusion
 clearly separated from other positions and issues
 Burden of Proof Principle
 held accountable for his or her own actions
 logically obligated to produce reasons
 Principle of Charity
 given the benefit of any doubt
 being fair with one another‘s arguments
 Suspension of Judgment Principle
 wait until there is more of a basis for decision
 Resolution Principle
 accept conclusion and consider the issue to be settled
 Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers

 honest with themselves,

 acknowledging what they don't know
 strive for understanding
 base judgments on evidence
 interested in other people's ideas
 thinking before acting
Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers
pretend they know more than they do,
 ignore their limitations
assume their views are error-free
unwilling to pay attention to others' views
 Barriers to Critical Thinking

 Lack of relevant background information,

 poor reading skills,
 bias,
 prejudice,
 superstition
 Egocentrism(self-centered thinking)
 Sociocentrism (group- centered thinking)
 Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes(hasty
generalization)
 Relativistic Thinking or saying truth is a matter of opinion
 Wishful Thinking(myths)
 Benefits of Critical Thinking

Skills and Dispositions

open minded
recognize and assess your own assumptions
Critical Thinking in the Classroom
used to know how you acquire what you know
Critical Thinking in Life
avoid making foolish personal decisions
promoting democratic processes
 CHAPTER FIVE
FALLACIES
 mistake/ a deficiency/frequently committed in reasoning
 an error in reasoning
 the creation of some illusion that makes a bad argument appear/seem good
 deceptive / cheating argument
 a violation of standard argumentative(a good argument) rules or criteria
 both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies
 fallacy is the violation of one or more of these criteria of a good
argument.
General criteria of a good argument
 Relevance,
 acceptability,
 Sufficiency,
 Reputability
 FALLACIES……
 grouped in two :
 Formal fallacies
 informal fallacies

 Formal fallacies
contains a structural defect or problem
improper arrangement of terms or statement
found only in deductive arguments such as
categorical syllogisms,
disjunctive syllogisms,
hypothetical syllogisms
 Informal fallacies

 attacks the very content of the argument

 subject matter of argument
 committed in different forms
why Informal Fallacies made?
to support a certain conclusion b/c of lack of
sufficient evidence  deceive others
unintentional  deceive themselves
 Classification of Informal Fallacies

1. Fallacies of Relevance
 committed due to an irrelevant conclusion
 the connection between premises and conclusion is
emotional.
 there is no logical connection b/n premises and conclusion

A. Appeal to Force
 involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or
psychological well-being to the listener
 often occurs when children argue
with one another
eg1. Child to playmate: Ethio-lijoch is the best
show on ETV; and if you don’t believe it, I’m
going to call my big brother over here and he’s
going to beat you
eg2. Drunker to his boss: Mr. Getachew, you
know that you are my best boss and your wife
also trust you on me. Today, I do not have cents
in pocket and I am in serious addiction at this
time. Give me 100 birr and let I drink a bottle of
beer. If not, I will inform your wife the mistake
you did yesterday.
 B. Appeal to Pity

 arguer attempts to support a

conclusion by merely by evoke pity (feeling
of sorrow/kindness ) from the reader or listener
 mainly occurred between
students and Instructors
lawyers and clients
traffic police and illegal drivers
 C. Appeal to The People

 desires to get the reader or listener as he/she is to be loved,

esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others
 has two approaches
A.direct
 addressing a large group of people
 a kind of mob mentality
B. indirect
 directs his or her appeal to one or more individuals separately
 common in most advertising industries
 includes such specific forms as
 a bandwagon argument,
 the appeal to vanity
 appeal to snobbery.
Eg.
Student to invigilator on exam. Teacher, you signed
on my exam sheet illogically because I did not cheat
the exam. Teacher, I have health problem in my
abdomen and doctors ordered me to have mini-
physical fitness at least one time in 20 minute and this
is why you suspect me due to looking my body
movement and signed on exam paper. Teacher, I have
also economic problem and if you did not erase this
signature, my life become dark. Therefore, surely I did
not take part on cheating and please erase this
signature from my exam sheet.
 C1. Appeal to bandwagon

 emphasis that the majority choice is correct one and

recommended audience to join them
 Everyone else is doing it(believing it), thus you should
too
Eg1.This new seed is good because there are many
peoples in the seed office to buy.
Eg2. The majority of people in Ethiopia accept the
opinion that child circumcision is the right thing to
do. Thus, you also should accept that child
C2. Appeal to vanity
 associates the conclusion with someone who is
admired
 excessive pride of once own achievement
 may use the famous individuals
 the argument is associates the conclusion with
someone who is admired

Eg. who will be buy this new fashioned car, the

one which was first used by famous Ethiopian
athletes called Almaz Ayana.
 C3. Appeal to snobbery

based on exaggerated respect desire to be

regarded as superior to others
the argument is associates the conclusion with our
desire to be rich /powerful
Eg. look the number of stars on the chest of this
commander. You should know that these all stars are
not for ordinary police man. Do hard and get such
position.
D. Argument Against the Person
 fallacious of criticism of the opinion of others against person
himself/herself who assert it
 occurs in three forms
A. Ad hominem abusive
verbally abusing
responder attacks arguer personally
Eg1. Teddese‟s idea about virtue of family planning is illogical,
since he was poor economically and how such good ideas produced
by poor people like Taddese.
Eg 2: Chaltu‟s idea about managing female genital mutilation is
not true. I do not have evidence whether she have such good idea or
not. Please look what her face and dirty cloth looks like. Therefore,
such golden idea cannot be initiated by such dirty women.
B. Adhominem circumstantial
 the respondent attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument
 the responder claim that the arguer argues as he/she does b/c
of his/her circumstances
Eg1. We heard that Aster saying that quiz one should be
changed because many students scored less than three out of
ten. Aster idea should be rejected because of she scored zero.
Eg 2: Haileselassie I of Ethiopia argued in the League of
Nations that member states should give hand to Ethiopia to
expel the fascist Italy from the country. But the member states
should not listen to the king. Haileselassie I argue in this way
because he wants to resume his power once the Italian are
expelled from Ethiopia.
C. The tu quoque (“you too” or you also) fallacy
the second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be
hypocritical or arguing in bad faith citing features in the
life or behavior of the first arguer
Eg1. Child to parent: Your argument that I should stop
stealing candy from the corner store is no good. You told me
yourself just a week ago that you, too, stolen candy when you
were a kid.
Eg 2 Patient to a Doctor: Look Doctor, you cannot advise me
to quit smoking cigarette because you yourself is a smoker.
How do you advise me to quit smoking while you yourself is
smoking?
 E. Fallacy of Accident

 committed when a general rule is misapplied to a

specific case
Eg1. Everyone has the right to their property. Drunker man
wants his gun to fight. Therefore you should give him back
gun.
Eg2. citizens have constitutionally guaranteed to follow and
exercise the religion they want. Therefore, Ato Dejene has
the right to follow Buddism and exercise in the class room.
F. Fallacy of Straw Man
 committed when an arguer distorts/misrepresent an
opponent’s argument
Eg. proponents, we have to continue giving special tutor for
female students in MWU to make them well efficient.
Opponents: it follows that you forget that all MWU lecturers give
special tutor for female students since its inauguration and no
change at all. As result, it is better to stop giving special tutor for
female students in MWU
G. Missing the Point
 Premises of an argument support the conclusion, which has nothing to
do with the correct conclusion.

Eg. In different situation, I attempted to study logic to score better

grade. However, still it is not clear for me. So, I should stop studying
logic course at all
 I. Red Herring
 committed when the arguer diverts the attention
of the reader or listener by changing the
subject
 arguer must change the original subject of the
argument
 have the effect of drawing the reader/listener off
the track
Eg. Mokonnen: Do you know, Sultan that Mengistu has got B + grade
on Logic course?
Sultan: I hope you know that Mengistu and Logic teacher are relative
and Mengistu who is arrogant in our class is always running to logic
teacher office. So, B + grade not totally deserve him.
 1.

2. fallacies of weak induction

 Occur because the connection between

premises and conclusion is not strong
enough to support the conclusion
 It violates the principles of sufficiency
 consists:
A. Appeal to Unqualified Authority,
B. Appeal to Ignorance
C. Hasty Generalization,
D. False Cause,
E. Weak Analogy,
F. Slippery Slope,
 A. Appeal to Unqualified Authority

 occurs when the cited authority or witness is not

trustworthy
 or if the reliability of the authority may be
reasonably doubtable
Eg. professor Addisu, who is the famous economist in east Africa
informed us on yesterday‟s meeting that HIV/AIDS have no treating
medicine. Accordingly, those individuals who have HIV/AIDS disease
in their blood have no chance to live long.
 B. Appeal to Ignorance
 Occurred When the premises of an argument state
that nothing has been proved or improved
 no evidence is given for the truth values of conclusion
Eg. No one has proved that God exists. Therefore God
must not exist.
 C. Hasty Generalization

 argument that proceeds from the knowledge

of a selected sample to some claim about the
whole group
 conclusions are drawn from a small sample
size
Eg. I „have met three dogs and all of them were friendly.
So, all dogs are friendly.‟
D. False Cause fallacy
Committed when the conclusion depends on the
supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does
not cause Y at all.
D1. post hoc fallacy
after this,
therefore
on account of
because of
the consequence of
arrive at certain conclusion by claiming that one thing is the cause
of another thing because it precedes in time
Eg. It‟s raining. And I left my umbrella at home. But, it‟s only
raining because I left my umbrella at home. If I had brought the
umbrella with me, it would be bright and sunny.” Example two:
Tadde, I got Logic mid-exam zero because I forgot stating the name
of God on the beginning of the exam. Always when I began with the
name of God, I score better
D2.
Correlation
 not the cause for the cause
 Committed when a person assumes that one event must
cause another just because the events occur together in a
regular basis
Eg. “All of the really fast runners wear Nike shoes. So, if I get
some Nike shoes, I will be a really fast runner too!”
D3. Oversimplified Cause Fallacy
 Occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain
effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes and
represents it as if it were the sole cause.
Eg. The quality of education in our grade schools and high schools has
been declining for years. Clearly, our teachers just aren‟t doing their job
these days.
 E. Slippery Slope
 is a variety of false cause fallacies
 arguer assumes that series of events or actions happen or follow
one from the other as a result of the first cause in a series
Eg. “If you smoke cigarettes, you‟ll try marijuana. If you try
marijuana, you ‟ll try heroin. If you try heroin, you‟ll become
addicted to cocaine. So, you don‟t want to smoke cigarettes
F. Weak Analogy
 Committed when the significant differences between two
or more things are ignored
 its basic structure is
 Entity A has attributes a, b, c & z
 Entity B has attributes a,b,c.
 Therefore, entity B probably has attribute z also
Eg. Solomon‟s new car is bright blue, has leather
upholstery, and gets excellent gas mileage. Hana‟s new
car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery.
Therefore, it probably gets excellent gas mileage, too.
 3. Fallacies of Presumption
 include
A. begging the question,
B. complex question,
C. false dichotomy,
D. suppressed evidence
A. Begging the question,
 request for the source
 committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion
that inadequate premises provide adequate support for
the conclusion by leaving out a key premise
 start with the known and then determine the unknown
 B. Complex Question
 It is committed when a question contains a hidden
assumption
 leading question is followed
C. False Dichotomy
 either…or fallacy
 is called
black-and –white thinking,
false alternatives,
false dilemma and
 limited alternatives
 characterized by two extreme alternatives
D. Suppressed Evidence
 characterized by failing to include key evidence in the premise
 the arguer leaves a key premise out of the argument
 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity

A. Equivocation
occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends
on the fact that a word or phrase is used in two
different senses in the argument
B. Amphiboly
arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation
 5. Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy

 include
composition
 division
A. composition
 committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on
the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of
something onto the whole
 goes from parts to whole
B. Division
is the exact reverse of composition
goes from whole to parts
END! Thank you