Explaining the Relationship between Logic and Critical Thinking

Begins giving the definition of logic as the science that studies rational thought. The author explains that employing logical principles to our everyday lives can help us to determine goals and accomplish them in a genuine way. Logic is divided in three sections: induction which let us to complete our daily activities, the author mentions a perfect example of when we are in dark and we need to turn on the light, we discovered in the past that flipping the switch turns the light on, deduction which are assumptions and semantics which is the study of the words. On the other hand, we have critical thinking which is less formal and less organized than logic. Critical thinking is very important in everything in our daily lives; it can help us to be a successful person if we know how to critical think properly or to fail if we don’t use it accordingly.

Critical thinking is the analysis of a situation, the facts, data and evidence related to them to get a resolution of the problem. In order to understand the meaning of critical thinking the author gives us an example of a car that does not start and how our first thought is not to take it to the mechanic or tear down the engine. A person first analyses the situation, check the gas, then check the battery, and if you see those are not the problems then you proceed to the mechanic for the solution. After clearly understanding of logic and critical thinking in Section 16.3 I learned about premises and the conclusion which forms together an argument. Premises are supporting details we use to support a position on an ethical issue or a topic. The position we have to certain issue or topic is the conclusion.

Paying attention to the tone of voice of a sentence can help you identify the conclusion. For example: the key words in English that can help you to find easily the conclusion are; therefore, thus, consequently, hence, it follows that, implications are. Then, we have fallacies which are an unacceptable way of thinking or reasoning. In an informal fallacy premises (supporting details) do not support the conclusion. There are a lot of different fallacies, here are some of them:

• Appeal to authority fallacy: when you argue something is truly because it is given by an authoritative source. Example: A commercial claims that using Colgate toothpaste is the best option for brushing because Jennifer Lopez says it is the toothpaste she uses.

• Appeal to force: In this fallacy, you persuade to support a conclusion using violence, force or harm. For example: When you ask your boss for a deserved raise and he replies back that if your salary doesn’t work he can find quickly somebody for your position.

• Appeal to ignorance: Can take place in two forms: One is for lack of evidence being true, you think is false. For example: I never saw a purple rose; therefore purple roses do not exist. The second form is the opposite, arguing for the absence of disproof, to the presence of proof. For example, there is no evidence that purple roses exist; therefore purple roses exist.

• Appeal to pity or emotion: involves an appeal to the emotions of another to prove your conclusion. For example: A commercial showing hunger in Africa before asking for donations.

• Appeal to religion: when morality depends on God or religion. For example: When people argue that a woman should stay with her husband, even if that person doesn’t treat her appropriately just because the religion doesn’t believe in divorce. • Appeal to majority: Simply because more people believe that something is correct, it doesn’t mean that it is. For example: A group of people going to vote for a candidate, just because almost everybody is voting for him/her.

• Appeal ad Hominem: When one makes an argument and you react negatively to it because of the person making the argument. For example: When a person creates an argument about abortion, and the other person responds “the only reason why you are against abortion is because of your religious beliefs.”

• Begging the person fallacy: The claim is true, but you need to accept the premise to make it true. For example: Studying is good because it helps you to learn. Everybody should study.

• Irrelevant conclusion; red herring fallacy: Is when you respond to an argument arguing about something that is not even at discussion.

Redirecting one argument to another with the intention of distracting the audience. For example: “I know I had to do my homework, but can I do if my son was crying the all day.” Fallacies are common mistakes we make in our arguments that takes away the logic. It is very important to understand fallacies in order to identify false statements and identify what is true a not true about what we read or hear. Knowing a little about fallacies made me notice that I use fallacies in my life a lot and probably does not help me to express accordingly. Reading this chapter made me agrees that I am the kind of person that applies the authoritative fallacy all the time, I use to believe in everything a person says, just because the level of knowledge the person has or the authoritative source, instead of listening to the evidence first.

For example, my boss at work, which I consider is a person that has a lot of knowledge in politics, made me think that President Donald Trump was going to be a great president of this country, even that I consider myself democrat; I changed my opinion about democrats without listening to the evidence. I believed in him because of the authoritative source. Probably this is not the only fallacy I used in the past, but one of many. Another important point that I agreed with in the reading was the Gorgias belief about that we do not express accordingly because we cannot use appropriately our words.

In today’s date that all we do is sending text messages, instead of talking directly with the people, I think his belief is more than true. It happens to me a lot, that a single word can totally make you misinterpret an argument or make a person abandon it. According to the book the best way to avoid equivocation is by clearly defining the meaning of your argument so everybody involved in the discussion has a clear understanding.

Did you like this example?

6244

851