CRITICAL THINKING & LOGIC

(F116)

Mr. Foday Augustine Bangura

Foundation Courses
 What is Thinking?
Thinking is a purposeful,
organized cognitive
process that we use to
make sense of our
world.
 Types of Thinking
• Analyzing
• Evaluating Problem
ProblemSolving
Solving
•Reasoning Decision
DecisionMaking
Making

New
Ideas

Critical Left Right Creative

Thinking Thinking
 What is Critical Thinking?
“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined
process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing,
synthesizing, and/or evaluating information
gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and
action. “
- Michael Scriven & Richard Paul
 The goals and objectives
of Critical Thinking?
Critical Thinking helps people to:
• Effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments.
• Discover and overcome personal prejudices and
biases.
• Formulate and present convincing reasons in support of
conclusions.
• Make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to
believe and what to do.
Critical Thinking entails
Reasoning

Analyzing CRITICAL Evaluating

THINKING
SKILLS

Decision Making Problem Solving

 Logic
• Does this really make sense?
• Does that follow from what you said?
• How does that follow?
• But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be
true?
Logic is the science of thinking. Its chief concern is the operations of man’s prime
faculty, his reason. St. Thomas Aquinas, since the Middle Ages, advised that
“A student should address himself to logic before the other sciences, because it
deals with their common procedure.”
Aristotle, more than a thousand years before Aquinas, said “…it is absurd to seek
at the same time knowledge and the way of attaining knowledge...” (Metaphysics,
995 a 12-15).Therefore knowledge begins with logic.

When the combination of thoughts are

mutually supporting and make sense in combination,
the thinking is "logical.“

Source: http://www.fctl.ucf.edu/tresources/content/Ruland-CriticalThinkingStandards.pdf
 Importance of Critical Thinking to
educated people
Academic Performance
– It helps us understand the arguments and beliefs of others
– It helps us to critically evaluate those arguments and beliefs
– It helps us develop and defend our well-supported arguments and beliefs.

Workplace
– Helps us to reflect and get a deeper understanding of our own and others’
decisions
– Encourages open-mindedness to change
– helps us in being more analytical in solving problems

Daily life
– Helps us to avoid making foolish personal decisions.
– Promotes an informed and concerned citizenry capable of making good
decisions on important social, political and economic issues.
– Helps in the development of autonomous thinkers capable of examining their
assumptions, dogmas, and prejudices.
 Barriers to Critical
Thinking
Common Barriers
• Lack of relevant background information • Distrust of reason
• Poor reading skills • Stereotyping
• Poor listening skills • Unwarranted assumptions
• Bias • Relativistic thinking
• Prejudice • Scapegoating
• Superstition • Rationalization
• Egocentrism • Wishful thinking
• Socio-centrism • Short-term thinking
• Peer pressure • Selective perception / attention
• Mindless Conformism • Selective memory
• Mindless non-conformism • Overpowering emotions
• Provincialism • Self-deception
• Narrow-mindedness • Face-saving
• Closed-mindedness • Fear of change
 Barriers to Critical Thinking
Five Powerful Barriers to Critical Thinking:

Self-centered thinking
self-interested thinking
self-serving bias Egocentrism and Resistance to Change

Group-centered thinking
Group bias Ethnocentrism and Cultural Conditioning
Conformism
Beliefs that are presumed to be true without adequate evidence or justification
Assumption
Stereotyping Hasty Generalizations

Believing that something is true because one wishes it were true. Wishful
Thinking
The truth is “just a matter of opinion”
Relativism Relativistic
 Subjectivism Thinking
 Cultural relativism
1. What is Thinking? Thinking is a purposeful, organized cognitive process that
Summary
we use to make sense of our world.

2. Types of Thinking Creative & Critical Thinking

3. What is Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking is the general term given to a wide range of
cognitive and intellectual skills needed to: Effectively
identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments; Discover and
overcome personal prejudices and biases; Formulate and
present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and
Make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe
and what to do. Critical thinking skills emphasized in this
course, include: Reasoning, Analyzing, Evaluating, Decision
Making and Problem solving.

4. Critical Thinking Standards Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth,

Logic and Fairness

5. Benefits of Critical Thinking Academic performance, workplace and daily life.

6. Barriers to Critical Thinking Examples include Egocentrism, Socio-centrism,

Unwarranted Assumptions, Wishful Thinking, and
Relativistic Thinking

7. Characteristics of a Critical Open-mindedness, independent thinking, self-awareness,

Thinker passionate, insightful, honest and intellectual humility,
intellectual courage, and welcome criticism, etc.
 Mass Media and News
• What is Mass Media?
1. Mass Media is a collective term for all media technologies, for instance
the internet, newspapers, television, film and radio,
which are used for mass communication by organizations which control
these technologies. The term was established in the 1920s to describe
the nationwide radio networks and mass-circulation of magazines and
newspapers.
2. Mass media is a means of public communication that reaches a large
number of people in a short time.
3. Mass media is media which is intended for a large audience.
The Mass media has contributed to making the world a global village.
 TV, Radio, Newspaper and
hearsay
• The impact of TV and Radio on thoughts and
behavior (class discussion)
Positive:
Negative:
• Newsworthiness: - News sources

- Values
- Objectivity
Socratic Method:
Appropriate Persuasive
Language.
Supporting Claims and
Counterclaims
 Arguments
• What do you think an argument is?
• On many occasions people understand
argument to be a kind of a verbal conflict
- which often becomes extremely
pointless and frustrating. This is the
commonly understood sense of the term.
 Technical definition of an
•
argument
An argument is an attempt to show that something is true by providing
evidence for it. More theoretically, it is a group of propositions in which
one is said to follow from at least one another.
• An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish
a proposition. In other words, an argument is a set of assertions one of
which is understood or intended to be supported by the other(s).
• Example: Mothers are females. It is immoral to kill persons.
Yeabu is a mother. Abortion is the killing of persons.
Therefore, Yeabu is a female. Therefore, abortion is immoral.

The sentence “Yeabu is a female” is the statement that the other

sentences intended to support.
 Elements of an argument
• An argument consists of three (3) elements: premises, inference and conclusion
• Premises are statements of (assumed) fact which are supposed to set forth the
reasons and/or evidence for believing a claim. The claim, in turn, is the conclusion:
what you finish with at the end of an argument. When an argument is simple, you
may just have a couple of premises and a conclusion:
• All politicians are liars.
• All liars are despicable.
• Therefore, all politicians are despicable.
• Inferences are the reasoning parts of an argument, they link the premises with the
final conclusion. They express the idea that some matter of fact is related to the
sought-after conclusion. This is the attempt to link the factual claim to the
conclusion in such a way as to support the conclusion. .
• Without an inferential claim, there would be no clear connection between the
premises and the conclusion.
 SIGNAL WORDS

• What are signal words? – These ae the words or

expressions that introduce premises and conclusions.
They should be used in making cogent arguments.
• Premise-signals: since, because, for, as, in as much as, otherwise,
in view of the fact that, for the reason that.

• Conclusion-signals: Therefore, thus, accordingly, we may infer,

which shows that, points to the conclusion that, as a result.
 Types of arguments
• Deductive and Inductive arguments:
deductive arguments reason from the whole to the part whereas inductive
arguments reason from the part to the whole.
Example of a deductive argument:
All humans are mortals. ………………………………………………… (universal proposition)

Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. ………………………………………………… (particular proposition)

Example of an inductive argument:

Socrates is mortal. …………………………………………………….……………(particular
propositions)
Plato is mortal.
Aristotle is mortal.
Therefore, all humans are mortal…………………………………………………(universal proposition)
 syllogisms
• The word syllogism comes from a Greek
word meaning “propositions considered
together.”
• The most common form of a deductive
argument is the syllogism. This is a type
of argument consisting of two premises
and a conclusion.
 Movie: The Great
Debaters
• Discuss and analyze each of the debates
and arguments postulated in the movie
 FALLACIES
• A fallcy is a defect, an error in reasoning in an argument. Fallacies are of two types:
formal and informal.
• Formal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning due to a failure in following the rules for
the formal structure of valid arguments.
• Example of a formal fallacy:
All men are human.
All women are human.
Therefore, all women are men.
• Informal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning due to carelessness regarding
relevance and clarity of language. These fallacies bear direcetly on issues of truth
and falsity.
• There are many forms of ionformal fallacies. And these are of the gereatest concern
for intellectuals. We outline here some of the most common ones. Mastery of these
fallacies will prevent many unnecessary blunders in discussions.
 INFORMAL FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
• The fallacies share the most common characteristics that the arguments in
which they occur have premises that are logicall irrelevant to the
conclusion.
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force) employs threat, intimidation,
pressure, etc., as tools of persuasion. Eg.
“How di go dae go” is the best program on Radio Maria; and if you don’t accept it, I’m going to
inform Ezekiel Thullah Jr. and he will chastise you.

2. Argumentum ad Hominem: Abusive ( argument which directs abuse at

the individual) irrelevantly attacks the person making a claim rather than
attacking the claim itself. Eg.
Mr. Kamara is arguing in favour of legalizing marijuana. His arguments are nothing but a trash. In
fact he was a criminal homosexual advocating drug use.
 INFORMAL FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
(continued)
3. Argumentum ad Hominem: Circumstantial ( argument which appeals to
the circumstances of the individual) seeks to undermine a claim by calling
attention to the (irrelevant)circumstances of the one making the claim. Eg.
The Dalai Lama argues that China has no business in Tibet and that the West should do something
about it. But the Dalai Lama just wants the Chinese to leave and so he can return as leader.
Naturally he argues this way. Therefore, we should reject his arguments.

4. Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to popular opinion) seeks to

strengthen a claim by emotional appeal to the passions and
prejudices of listeners. Eg.
Of course you want to buy a smart phone. Why, 90 percent of UNIMAK students use smart phones.

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, admired, esteemed, valued, recognized

and accepted by others. The appeal to the peple uses these desires to get
the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.
INFORMAL FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE (continued)
4. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity) is a special form of
Argumentum ad Populum, directing attention from the relevant evidence
by arousing pity and sympathy for the plight of someone. Eg.
Student to disciplinary committee: I admit that I cheated in the exams. But if you suspend
me for one year, my reputation will be ruined, my strict father will not pay my fees anymore, I’ll
probably not be able to continue my education. My future will be bleak. So take pity on me.

4. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to unqualified authority) is an

appeal to an unqualified expert or irrelevant authority. This occurs when
the cited authority or witness lacks credibility for several reasons: the
person might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced,
might have the motive to lie and disseminate misinformation,, or might lack
the requisite ability to recall or to perceive. Eg.
Pa Sorie, the blacksmith of Malal Mara, has pronounced that the Gross Domestic Product of Sierra
Leone has seen an exponential upsurge this year.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation occurs when a word or expression changes its meaning in
the course of an argument, a particular word contains 2 different senses
within an argument. Eg.
Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. But the law of gravity is a law. Therefore, the
law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority.

2. Amphiboly (literally; “thrown on both sides”) is an ambiguous

grammatical construction that can be understood in two ways. Eg.
John told Henry that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has at least the courage to admit
his own mistakes.

The fallacy occurs when something is concluded on the bases of the

unintended meaning of the amphibolous expression.
3. Misplaced accent consists of so emphasizing a word or expression , or
omitting relevant information, as to yield a misleading sense.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity continued
4. Composition results from attributing the characteristics of the parts of a
whole to the whole itself: Eg
If every player on the team is good, then it’s a good team”.
OR
Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.

5. Division (the reverse of the Fallacy of Composition) attributes the

characteristics of the whole to its parts. Eg
“The team is good, so each of its players is good” .
 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumptions
1. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance) affirms the truth
of something on the bases of the lack of evidence on the contrary: X must
be the case, since it has not or cannot be shown to be false. Eg.
People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evicdence for the existence of
extraterrestrials, and no one has ever succeded. Therefore, we must conclude that
extraterrestrials do not exist.

2. Petitio Principii (begging the question) occurs when the conclusion of an

argument is already present, usually disguised, in one of its premises.
Circular reasoning: Eg
what he claims must be true, because he always speaks the truth”.
OR
Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.

•
 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumptions
continued
• 3. False Cause or false dilemma is the fallacy consisting in either
(a) confusing an effect or a feature of a condition with the cause of the
condition (non causa pro causa, “taking what is not the cause for the
cause”), or
(b) (b) identifying X as the cause of Y merely on the grounds that X occurs
before Y (post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after this, therefore because of this”).
Eg.
Either you let me attend the show To-Night or I’ll be miserable for the rest of my life. I know you
don’t want me to be miserable fort the rest of my life, so it follows that you will let me attend the
show.
OR
Since you entered my room I discovered that my computer has been stolen. You are the only one
that entered my room, therefore, you might have stolen it.