California State University Clear and Present Thinking Discussion At least 1.5 page for each question, double space. please submit seperate word doc for ea

California State University Clear and Present Thinking Discussion At least 1.5 page for each question, double space. please submit seperate word doc for each question. So there is 5 question that mean you need to submit 5 different word doc.Thanks you for your understanding.In this module you will:Develop your understanding of the history of critical thinking.Develop your understanding of world views on critical thinking. http://www.brendanmyers.net/storage/ClearAndPresentThinking-2ndEdition.pdf
In this module you will:
1.
2.
Develop your understanding of the history of critical thinking.
Develop your understanding of world views on critical thinking.
Read Chapter 1 of Clear and Present Thinking by Myers (open source)
Optional Review Question #12: Which change in critical thinking did you find most interesting?
Why?
Read Chapter 2 of Clear and Present Thinking by Myers (open source)
Optional Review Question #13: What limits does our worldview put on us?
Optional Review Question #14: How can we improve our worldview?
Read Chapter 3 of Clear and Present Thinking by Myers (open source)
Optional Review Question #15: What is your most interesting bad habit of thinking?
Optional Review Question #16: What is your most interesting good habit of thinking?
Clear and
Present Thinking
Project Director
Brendan Myers ( cegep Heritage College)
Contributors to the first edition
Brendan Myers, Charlene Elsby (Purdue University
Fort Wayne) Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray (University of
Waterloo) Nola Semczyszyn ( Franklin & Marshall
College) Natalie Ellen, editor (University of Guelph)
Contributors to the second edition
Brendan Myers (lead author)
Charlene Elsby (contributor, chapter 7)
Alex Zieba
(cegep Heritage College, contributor, chapter 10.1.)
Editor / Proofreader
Melinda Reidinger
(Anglo-American University of Prague)
Layout and Design
Nathaniel Hébert, winterhebert.com
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
To view a copy of this license, visit
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/
For all other enquiries,
please visit brendanmyers.net
Published by Northwest Passage Books
Gatineau, Québec, Canada
2017.
ISBN
978-0-9939527-9-1
Clear and
Present Thinking
A handbook in logic
and rationality.
Second edition,
2017
Northwest
Passage Books
Contents
Clear and Present Thinking
Table of Contents
Introduction: What is thinking? 07
Is logic difficult? 08
Why is good thinking important? 11
About the Organization Of This Book 13
Chapter One: An Outline
History of Logic 15
1.1 We Usually Say It Began In Greece 15
1.2. With Men Like Socrates of Athens (469-399 BCE) 17
1.3. But It Also Began In China… 18
1.4. …And in India, As Well 20
1.5. Plato Of Athens (c. 424-348 BCE) 21
1.6. Aristotle of Stagira (384-322 BCE) 22
1.7. The Great Library of Alexandria (c. 295 BCE) 23
1.8. The Arabs and the Persians 25
1.9. Then Suddenly, It Was the Middle Ages… 26
1.10. …Followed by Early Modernity, and
the Enlightenment 28
1.11. David Hume (1711-1776) 31
1.12. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) 32
1.13. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) 33
1.14. They Made Words Like Numbers, and
Built Thinking Machines 34
1.15. The Early Twentieth Century 37
1.16. The Quest for a Logically Perfect Language 37
1.17. Western Philosophy Today: A House Divided 39
1.18. Summary comment 40
Chapter Two: Informal Logic—Questions,
Problems, and Worldviews 43
2.1. Intellectual Environments 43
2.2. World Views 46
2.3. Framing Languages 48
2.4. Problems and Limit Situations 51
2.5. Observation and Objectivity 52
2.6. Questions 54
2.7. Differing World Views 57
2.8. Value Programs 58
Chapter Three: Informal Logic—
Habits of Thinking 61
3.1. Self-Interest 61
3.2. Saving Face 62
3.3. Peer Pressure 63
3.4. Stereotyping and Prejudice 64
3.5. Excessive Skepticism 65
3.6. Intellectual Laziness 65
3.7. Using “Deepities” 67
3.8. Bullshitting 67
3.9. Relativism 68
3.10. The Consequences of Bad Habits 70
3.11. Curiosity 70
3.12. Self-Awareness, and Socratic Wisdom 71
3.13. Physical Health 71
3.14. Courage 72
3.15. Healthy Skepticism 73
3.16. Autonomy 74
3.17. Simplicity 74
3.18. Patience 75
3.19. Consistency 75
3.20. Open-ness and open-mindedness 75
3.21. Asking for help 76
3.22. Summary remarks 77
Chapter Four: Basics of Formal Logic 79
4.1. A few words about words 79
4.2. Definitions 80
4.3. Sense and Reference 81
4.4. Implicature 82
4.5. Propositions 82
4.6. Truth 84
4.7. Categorical Propositions 85
4.8. More Kinds of Propositions 88
4.9 Parts of Arguments 90
Chapter Five: Arguments 95
5.1. Deductions 95
5.2. Categorical Syllogisms 95
5.3. Enthymemes 97
Contents
Clear and Present Thinking
5.4 Using Venn Diagrams to find the validity of
a categorical syllogism 98
5.5. Modus Ponens or Affirming the Antecedent 100
5.6. Affirming the Consequent: Modus Ponens’
Invalid Half-Brother 101
5.7. Modus Tollens or Denying the Consequent 102
5.8. Denying the Antecedent: Fallacy! 102
5.9. Hypothetical Syllogism 103
5.10. Disjunctive Syllogism 104
5.11. Adjunction 105
5.12. Dilemmas 106
5.13. Constructive Dilemma 106
5.14. Destructive Dilemma 107
5.15. Induction 107
5.16. Inductive Generalization 108
5.17. Statistical Syllogism 109
5.18. Induction by Shared Properties 110
5.19. Induction by Shared Relations 112
5.20. Exercises for Inductions 112
7.19. Naturalistic Fallacy 139
7.20. Complex Question Fallacy 139
7.21 Equivocation 139
7.22. Begging the Question 140
7.23. False Dilemma 140
7.24. Hasty Generalization 140
7.25. Faulty Analogy 140
7.26. Tu Quoque 141
7.27. Slippery Slope 141
7.28. The Fallacy Fallacy 141
Chapter Six: Science and
Scientific Reasoning 115
6.1. Scientific Method 115
6.2. What Counts as a Scientific Claim? 116
6.3. A Formal Definition of ‘Science’ 119
6.4. Scientific Evidence and its Roots in Empiricism 120
6.5. Underdetermination and Overdetermination 122
6.6. Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 124
6.7. Science and Its Values 125
Chapter Seven: Fallacies 131
7.1. Appeal to Authority 131
7.2. Appeal to Force 132
7.3. Appeal to Emotion 132
7.4. Appeal to Tradition 133
7.5. Appeal to Novelty 133
7.6. Appeal to Ignorance 133
7.7. Shifting the Burden of Proof 133
7.8. Appeal to Popularity 134
7.9. Fallacy of Accident 134
7.10. Amphiboly 135
7.11. Fallacy of Composition 136
7.12. Fallacy of Division 136
7.13. Straw Man Fallacy 136
7.14. Red Herring 136
7.15. Abusing The Man 137
7.16. False Cause 138
7.17. Non Sequitur Fallacy 139
7.18. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle 139
Chapter Eight: Reasonable Doubt 143
8.1 What is reasonable doubt? 143
8.2. Doubting your own eyes and ears 145
8.3. Doubting your Common Sense 146
8.4. Doubting your Emotions, Instincts, and Intuitions 148
8.5. Confirmation Bias 149
8.6. Lack of evidence 151
8.7. Contradictory Claims 152
8.8. Conspiracy theories 152
8.9. Doubting experts and professionals 154
8.10. Scams, Frauds, and Confidence Tricks 156
8.11. Information and Media Literacy 159
8.12. The Business Model of Media 159
8.13. Analysing the Form and Content 164
8.14. Propaganda and Disinformation 165
8.15. Fake News 170
8.16. Advertising and Marketing 172
Chapter Nine: Moral Reasoning 175
9.1. Features of Moral Arguments. 175
9.2. A Taxonomy of Moral Theories. 176
9.3. Utilitarianism 177
9.4. Deontology 179
9.5. Areteology / Virtue Theory 181
9.6. Social Justice 183
9.7. Ethics of Care 185
9.8. Discourse Ethics 186
Chapter 10: Activities! 189
10.1. Finding Your Online Diversity Quotient 189
10.2. The Socratic Dialogue Game 192
10.3. Nomic: The Game of Self-Amendment 193
10.4. Thought Experiments 194
Epilogue: Why can’t we all just get along? 196
Glossary of Terms in Logic and Philosophy 198
Acknowledgments
This second edition was financially supported by the
contributions of over 170 people, through
the Kickstarter.com fundraising website, including:
Joshua Smith
Richard Shea
Robert Tharp
Ellen Seebacher
Bernd Buldt
Deanna Smith
Mike Little
Debbie Goldsmith
Joe Roy
trit
Eric Hortop
Anthony Coppola
Jussi Myllyluoma
Steffen Nyeland
Kay M Purcell
John Beckett
Tom
Devin Kibler
Bart Salisbury
Graham Engel
Steven Hosford
Holly Bird
Truls Bjørvik
Chris Wityshyn
Rafael Dellamora
Tristan Knight
Shirelle Capstick
Karen MacLeod
Ben Rossi
Glenn McCrimmon
JD Ferries-Rowe
Cynthia Savage
Christopher White
Nayel hakim
Ellen Behrens
Introduction
Is logic difficult?
Introduction: What is thinking?
It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with
this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps the most intimate
and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you
‘think’ about thinking, the more mysterious it can
appear. Do our thoughts appear in our minds because
of the electro-chemical workings of our brains? Or do
thoughts come from something that can’t be described
by science, such as a soul? Are there deeper levels to the
scientific explanation of thinking, for instance involving sub-atomic quantum effects? Or do our thoughts
come from pure magic? Does it fit the case to say that
our thoughts ‘come from’ some place? Or that they
‘appear’ in our minds? Are the workings of the mind
very different from the workings of the heart? Or are
emotions and feelings only another kind of thinking?
Might the same be said of intuitions, or inspirations, or
dreams?
Let’s say, as a starting place, that thinking is an
activity of the mind. We can direct this activity towards
all kinds of different purposes, from everyday questions like how to spend your money or what to have
for dinner tonight, to the highest and deepest matters
like the meaning of life. You are thinking, right now, as
you read this sentence. Knowing that you are thinking
is a bit like knowing what the colour red looks like, or
knowing the taste of an apple: you’re sure you know
what it is, but you might find it difficult to explain to
others.
Thinking about thinking can also be complicated
in other ways. Many people believe, for instance, that
thinking is a very different matter from feeling; and
that the mind and the heart are always going to move
you in fundamentally different ways. Some people
believe that computers, or animals, are capable of
thinking, even if their way of thinking is somehow different from that of humans. Some people believe there
are things that the thinking mind cannot discover on
its own, and that there are other forms of knowing:
intuition, or religious faith, or some sort of inspiration. And some might say that the question ‘what is
thinking?’ cannot be answered at all. We could also ask
personal questions about the nature of thinking, such
as: ‘who is it that knows that he or she knows?’ Who is it
that is aware of thinking? And is not that awareness of
thinking itself a kind of thinking?
It’s a little bit beyond the purpose of this book
to investigate those questions. But if you happen to
find yourself curious about some of those questions,
or wondering how do you know that you know
something, or if you find yourself thinking about the
nature of thinking itself, you may be well on your way
toward becoming a philosopher! We, the authors and
contributors of this book across two editions, would
like to show you how it is possible to reason about
everything. More than that: we’d like to show how
it’s possible to reason clearly, systematically, logically,
and most of all helpfully, about everything; and that
doing so can be quite personally satisfying, and even
pleasurable.
Logic, as we shall define it for this book, is the
study of thinking. Or, to be more precise, it is the study
of the procedures of good thinking. And reason, as
we shall define it here, is organized curiosity. You can
probably see how these two terms are related to each
07
Introduction
Is logic difficult?
other. And you can probably see how there’s nothing
especially strange, or frightening, or emotionally cold,
or un-spiritual about them. Logic and reason, taken
together, form the most powerful and historically
successful source of knowledge ever devised. It is the
foundation of science and technology; it enables clear
communications in politics, economics, and social
relations; it is the standard of excellence in education;
it dwells in the heart of the world’s most inspirational
art and religion. And it belong to everyone.
in many of the ways we relate to each other and the
world. Logic examines not what people ought to think,
but it examines how we actually do think – when we
are thinking clearly!
Here’s a very short exercise which may help to
show you that you already have within your mind
everything you need to understand logic and critical
reasoning. (It’s similar to an exercise that was used by
the philosopher Aristotle, and modern philosophers
still use it as a way of saluting our predecessors.)
Consider the following two sentences:
Is logic difficult?
1. All men are mortal.
You might hear people say that they are no good at
math, or at computer programming, or at some other
kind of activity that requires a lot of concentration.
When I was in high school, I used to believe that
I was very bad at math. I resented going to math
classes, and so I didn’t study, and (therefore!) scored
poorly on tests and exams. But one day I found myself
making my own video games on my Commodore 128
computer, with no other help besides the dictionary of
commands. Then a few years later I was coding HTML
scripts by hand, which I learned to do by reading the
source codes of other people’s web sites. I eventually
realized that I was actually rather good at logic, or
rather that I could be really good at it if I wanted to be.
Thinking rationally and critically is much the
same thing. It’s actually fairly easy, once you get into
the habit of doing it. Most people are born with an
ability to perform complex computational tasks built
right into their brains. It’s true that we often make
mistakes when we try to calculate big numbers in our
heads, or when we try to calculate probabilities without much information to start with. Nonetheless, the
ability to think deliberately, precisely, and analytically
is a large part of what it is to be human. Indeed, every
human language, all 8,000 or so of them, have complex
computational operators built right into the grammar
and syntax, which we use to speak and be understood
about anything we may want to talk about. When we
study logic, we study (among other things) those very
operators as they work themselves out, not only in our
thinking, but also in our speaking to each other, and
08
2. Socrates is a man.
As almost anyone can see, these two sentences
have a relationship to each other. For one thing, there’s
a topic of discussion that appears in both of them:
‘men’. Both sentences also follow the same grammatical structure: they name an object and they name at
least one property that belongs to, or can be attributed
to, that object. But they also have another, more subtle
relation to each other. That subtle relation tells you
what should follow next. Here are three possibilities:
a. Therefore, we’re having Greek tonight!
b. Therefore, Socrates is a nerd.
c. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
To most people, the answer is so obvious that
I don’t need to state which one it is. That’s because
logical and rational thinking, as already mentioned, is
something we all naturally do, all the time.
That example, it may interest you to know, was
used by the philosopher Aristotle more than two
thousand years ago, and it is still a favourite among
philosophy teachers today: we use it as a way of tipping the hat to our predecessors.
Let’s look at three other examples, which might
show a little more of how that subtle relation works.
1. All the houses built in that neighbourhood are post-
Introduction
war bungalows.
2. My house is in that neighbourhood.
3. Therefore –
a. My house is a rotting, decrepit shack.
b. My house is a grand chateau.
Is logic difficult?
Going only with the information that we have been
given, option C cannot be the correct answer. The best
answer, in each case, is option D. Of all the four options offered here, option D has the strongest support
from the statements that came before it.
c. Long John Silver was a rotten businessman.
d. My house is a post-war bungalow.
1. Every morning, if it is going to be a sunny day, the
rooster in the yard crows.
2. Tomorrow is probably going to be a sunny day, just
like the last few days.
3. Therefore –
But look again at the options A and B in all three
examples. These options were not as silly as option
C. They might follow correctly and logically from the
statements that came before them, if only we had a
little bit more information. Without your deliberate,
conscious awareness, your mind probably filled in that
extra information with statements like these ones:
a. That rooster is more reliable as the TV weather
man.
1. Maybe all the postwar bungalows in this neighbour-
b. One of these days, I’m going to kill that horrible
hood are rotting, decrepit shacks.
creature!
2. Maybe the rooster has never got it wrong so far, un-
c. My old clock on the wall is a family heirloom.
like the TV weatherman, who makes mistakes all the
d. Tomorrow morning, that rooster will probably
time.
crow again.
3. The reason I’ll be hiding in my bedroom is because I
will want to read the book in a place where no one will
1. If the surprise birthday present is a Harry Potter book,
disturb me.
it will be a great gift.
4. People who give great gifts deserve to be thanked.
2. The surprise birthday present is a Harry Potter book.
3. Therefore –
a. I’m going to hide in my bedroom for a few
hours.
b. I really owe the person who gave it to me a big
thank-you!
c. I have to fix the leaky roof over the kitchen today.
d. It’s a great gift.
In each of these examples, the best answer is
option D. So long as the first two statements are true,
then the third one, option D, must be true. You also
know that in both examples, option C doesn’t belong.
It has nothing to do with the two statements that came
before it. To claim that option C should come next is
not logical. Perhaps option C would make sense if it
was part of a joke, or a very complicated discussion of
housing development plans for pirates, or inheritance
laws involving clocks and farm animals, or how author
J.K. Rowling doesn’t like leaky houses. But in these
examples, we do not have that extra information.
None of these statements appeared among the
initial premises of the argument. Nothing in the initial
premises told you anything about these possibilities.
They come from outside the argument as presented
so far. But that subtle relation between statements
allowed you to add something consistent and plausible
to the argument in order to move the argument from
the premises you had, to conclusions A or B. You
might even fill the space with more than one sentence
to make the move, as we did in the third possibility
above.
Logic is the study of relations among ideas like
these. If you could handle these three examples here
with ease, then you can handle everything else in this
textbook just as easily.
Many people believe that philosophy is something
rather vague, wishy-washy, or simplistic. You’ll hear
people quote a line from a popular song or movie, and
then they’ll say, ‘That’s my philosophy.’ But there’s a lot
more to it than that; and a person who merely repeats
09
Introduction
Linear and Non-Linear Thinking
a popular saying and calls it philosophy has not been
doing enough work. Philosophical questions are often
very difficult questions, and they demand a lot of effort
and consideration and time. That much deserves to be
acknowledged. However, if you learn to think logically,
and if you grow into the habit of thinking logically,
you will find that the difficulty of philosophical questions becomes no longer frightening. Indeed you may
find that kind of difficulty an interesting invitation.
And this will spread to other areas of your life. Are
you planning to start a new business, and the barriers
to entry seem dauntingly high? Are you arranging the
seating at a wedding reception where a third of the
guests hate each other? Got some other super-hard
problem to solve? Challenge accepted!
plain. So instead of explaining that process, we mystify
it away with hard-to-define words like ‘intuition’ and
‘se…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment