CRITICAL THINKING (LoCT 1011)

By – Friezer B.
Introduction: What Philosophy Is
 Man is a rational animal – Aristotle.
 ―It has been said so, all my life I have been searching for
which would support this‖ - Russell.
 Humans do things for a reason. We want certain
things, and we believe that acting in certain ways will
get us those things.
 Humans also reflect on and criticize the reasons we
do things. Do we have good reasons for our
reasons? Why do we want what we want? Why do
we believe what we believe?
 The capacity to reflect on one‘s reason – what
makes us human.
 What is philosophy?
 What things are philosophical?
 The conceptions of life and the world which we
call ‗philosophical‘ are a product of two factors:
i) inherited religious and ethical conceptions
ii) the sort of investigation which may be called
‘scientific’.
 Philosophy, as Burtrand Russel understood the
word, is something intermediate between theology
and science.
 Like theology, it consists of speculations on
matters as to which definite knowledge has, so
far, been unascertainable.
 Like science, it appeals to human reason rather
than to authority.
 All definite knowledge - belongs to science.
 All dogma - as to what surpasses definite
knowledge belongs to theology.
 But between theology and science there is a No
Man‘s Land, exposed to attack from both sides;
this No Man’s Land is philosophy.
 Philosophy is concerned with - almost all the
questions of most interest to speculative minds
are such as science cannot answer.
 Is the world divided into mind and matter?
 if so, what is mind and what is matter?
 Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of
independent powers?
 Has the universe any unity or purpose?
 Where did I come from?
 Who or what is responsible for my being?
 Why am I here? Why is anything here?
 Why is there something and not just nothing?
What is time? space? Is there life after death?
Does the universe have a beginning or is it
eternal?
 Is there a God?
 To such questions no answer can be found in the
laboratory.
 Theologies have professed to give answers, all
too definite; but their very definiteness causes
modern minds to view them with suspicion.
 The studying of these questions, if not the
answering of them, is the business of philosophy.
 Jaspers - the essence of philosophy is not the
possession of truth but the search for truth.
 Its questions are more essential than its answers,
and every answer becomes a new question
 Science tells us what we can know, but what we
can know is little, and
 if we forget how much we cannot know we
become insensitive to many things of very great
importance.
 Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic
belief that we have knowledge where in fact we
have ignorance
 The term philosophy literally means – ‗love of wisdom‘.
 A wisdom- which results from the pursuit of knowledge of
the most important parts of reality.
 Philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek
to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the
world in which they live, and their relationships to the
world and to each other.
 Philosophy- means thinking as hard and as clearly as one
can about some of the most interesting and enduring
problems that human minds have ever encountered (
those questions that we discussed earlier).
 What is ultimately real?
 What is the nature and limit of knowledge?
 What makes actions right or wrong?
 Philosophy is the contemplation or the study of
the most important questions in existence in
with the goal of promoting illumination and
understanding, a vision of the whole.
 It uses reason, sense perception and imagination
in its activity of analyzing and constructing
arguments and theories.
 The hallmark of philosophy is centered on
arguments.
 In the first book of the Metaphysics, Aristotle tells
us that ―it is through wonder that men now begin
and originally began to philosophize, wondering in
the first place at obvious perplexities, and then by
gradual progression raising question about the
greater matters too, for example, about the origin
of the universe.‖
 A feature which helps us to understand the
nature of philosophy, and is one of the chief
attractions of the subject, is its freedom of
thought: in philosophy no question is, on the face
of it, un-askable.
 Arthur Schopenhauer:
 ‗The two main requirements for philosophizing
are: firstly, to have the courage not to keep any
questions back; and secondly, to attain a clear
consciousness of anything that goes without
saying so as to comprehend it as a problem.‘
 The Value of Philosophy
 What is the value of philosophy and why we
ought to study it?
 Many men under the influence of science or
practical influence consider philosophy – useless
trifling, hair splitting, controversies on matters
which knowledge is impossible.
 This view of philosophy appears to result, partly
from a wrong conception of the end of life and
partly from the wrong conception of the kind of
good that philosophy strives to achieve.
 Philosophy like all sciences aims at knowledge.
 A kind of knowledge that can be attained by the
critical examination of the grounds of our
convictions, prejudices and beliefs.
 However, unlike mathematicians, mineralogists,
philosophers do not have any great success in
their attempt to provide definite answers.
 But not philosophers – this is partly because as
soon as definite knowledge concerning any
subject becomes possible – it ceases to be
philosophy.
 Philosophical reasoning is closely allied to scientific
reasoning – both look for an evidence and build hypothesis
– with the hope of coming closer to the Truth.
 Scientific experiments take place in laboratories, while the
laboratory of the philosopher is the domain of ideas – the
mind.
 The major areas of philosophy are :
 Metaphysics
(regarding the nature of the ultimate reality),
 Epistemology
( regarding the nature of knowledge and justification),
 Axiology
(regarding the nature of values– good/bad/right/wrong/beauty)
 Logic
( regarding correct reasoning).
 The ten commandments of philosophy – Pojman
1) Allow the spirit of wonder to flourish your breast.
- Philosophy starts with wonder about the universe; about who we are,
Where we came from, where we are going.
2) Doubt every claim you encounter until evidence
convinces you.
- be reasonably cautious, a moderate skeptic, suspicious of those who claim to
have the truth.
- The „known‟ – is like a cold that we get in the rainy season.
3) Love the Truth.
- Philosophy is an eternal search for Truth. A search which inevitably fails, yet
never defeated.
-
4) Divide and Conquer.
- Divide each problem and in to smallest essential components and so
you can analyze each unit carefully.
5) Collect and construct.
- Build a coherent argument or theory from component parts.
6) Conjecture and Refute.
- Make a complete survey of objections to your argument.
- Popper – philosophy is a system of Conjecture and Refutation ( close to
truth) .
7) Revise and Rebuild .
- Reject, revise and modify your beliefs.
- Acknowledge that you probably have false beliefs.
8) Seek Simplicity.
- Prefer simple explanation to the more complex.
9) Live the Truth!
- Appropriate your idea so that- lived truth will be correspondence of the
life to the thought.
10) Live the good!
- Let moral Truth transform your life.
 The questions that philosophy asks are so many and
varied:
 There is the need to divide these questions into
different categories.
 There are three fundamental questions that form the
core of any worldview
 What is ultimately real?
 How do we know this reality and justify it?
 If we know this reality, how then should we live
our lives meaningfully and with value?
 These three questions equally form the core branches
of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology and
Axiology.
 Logic is also a legitimate branch of philosophy.
 Metaphysics
 Metaphysics is the attempt to say what reality is.
 The study of what is ―most real.‖
 First, that which is most real is that upon which all else
is dependent.
 Second, that which is most real is that which itself is not
created or destroyed. It does not change.
 Cosmology, or how we think the most real things
have come into being, is one of the components of
metaphysics; another is ontology, the study of what
is.
 The beginning of Greek philosophy was marked by
metaphysics.
The Metaphysical Questions
 What is ultimately real?
 What is the ultimate stuff or material from
which everything existing is made?
 What is the universe made of?
 Is it made up primarily of matter?
 Does it also contain non-material things
like spirits?
 What is time? What is space? What is mind?
 Is there a God? If so, what sort of being is
God? What is the nature of God?
Ancient Materialism
 Thales (624–546 BCE, Miletus)—Reality is
ultimately water.
 Anaximander (610–546 BCE, Miletus)—Reality
is indefinite ―stuff‖ (apeiron).
 Anaximenes (585–528 BCE; Miletus)—Reality is
essentially air.
 Heraclitus (536–480 BCE; Ephesus)—Reality is
like fire.
 Democritus (460–371 BCE; Abdera)—Reality
consists of tiny atoms
 Epistemology
 Epistemology is concerned with the nature, origin, scope,
possibility, and limit of human knowledge.
 Episteme (meaning ―knowledge‖) and logos (meaning
―theory‖).
 It is about the nature of perceiving and about what we can
know—or may mistakenly think we know.
 This branch of philosophy is a necessary one that follows
behind metaphysics.
 The three chief questions that concern epistemology are:
 What is knowledge (or what does it mean to say “I know”)?
 How do we get knowledge?
 Can what we call “knowledge” be so sure that we cannot doubt
it?
 Axiology
 The term Axiology is derived from the Greek term
―Axios‖ which means value or worth.
 It can generally be defined as the study of value.
 This branch of philosophy comprises the three sub-
branches; ethics, aesthetics, and political
philosophy.
 Ethics
 The study of moral standards and how they affect
human conduct;·
 The branch of philosophy which helps in clarifying
moral terms and concepts;
 The aspect of philosophy which investigates human
conducts in so far as such conducts can be said to
be right or wrong
 Ethics is only concerned with human moral value
 Ethics is also concerned with the analysis of our
character and how that influences our action.
 The word ―ethics‖ comes from the Greek word
ethos which means ―character‖ or ―manners.‖
 Aesthetics
▪ A branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of
art, beauty, enjoyment, perception, and taste, with
the creation and appreciation of beauty.
▪ scholars in the field define aesthetics as ―critical
reflection on art, culture and nature.‖
▪ How people ought to evaluate potential instances
of beauty and artistic creation.
 Political Philosophy
 The early Greek philosophers asked questions about the
universe - Metaphysics.
 This was extended to their political communities
 Political Philosophy - studies fundamental questions
concerning the social or communal life of human beings.
 Plato- Political philosophy is an inquiry into the
nature of the good life,
 The nature of good community.
 It inquires - into the origin, nature and purpose of State.
 the principles of justification of power and governance
 Political Philosophy is the study of the relationship
between individuals and society.
 Political Philosophy - an attempt to justify certain
assumptions about the methods and aims of government,
state, justice, legitimacy.
 How are we to live in the society?
 What are the underlying principles of the State, of
authority and of political ideals?
 What is the best way to govern our interactions?
 What responsibilities do we have to each other?
 Logic
 Philosophy is very much about asking questions.
 Does God exist? What can we know? Is mind
distinct from the body? How do we know what is
right and what is wrong?
 Because not everyone agrees on the correct
answer to these questions.
 Hence, it is extremely important to give reasons
why we think one answer is better than another.
 Logic is a way of articulating more clearly the
reasoning that we ordinarily do when we tell
someone why we believe something.
 It is the study of propositions and their use in
argumentation.
 It is concerned with reasoning, and especially the
distinction between good reasoning and bad
reasoning.
 It is the theory of reasoning.
 It is the science dealing with the principles of
valid reasoning and argument.
 Logic is fundamentally about arguments
 As we have said earlier, philosophy is a rational
activity.
 “Why do we always have to follow the best reason?
Why don’t philosophers respect leaps of faith?”
 The initial response-
 ‗ Do you want a rational answer or not?’
 Even the appropriateness of reason has to be
addressed by reason.
 Thus, the need for the study of logic bases itself on
the ground of the basic necessity of human nature.
 Chapter One
Basic Concepts: Argument, Premise and
Conclusion
 Logic - may be defined as the organized body of
knowledge, or science, that evaluates arguments.
 The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods
and principles:
- as criteria for evaluating the arguments of
others.
- as guides in constructing arguments of our
own.
 The study of logic - increases our confidence that
we are making sense when we criticize the
arguments
 An argument, in its most basic form, is a group of
statements, one or more of which (the premises)
are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to
believe, one of the others (the conclusion).
 All arguments may be placed in one of two basic
groups:
 Those in which the premises really do support the conclusion
(Good arguments) and
 Those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to (Bad
arguments).
The purpose of logic - is thus to develop methods
and techniques that allow us to distinguish good
arguments from bad.
 First of all, an argument is a group of statements.
 A statement is a sentence that is either true or
false—in other words, typically a declarative
sentence.
E.g. Political candidates always tell the complete truth.
Ethiopia is located in East Africa.
Abubaker is a runner and Kenenisa is a football player.
 Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth
values of a statement.
 Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be
either true or false. Questions, proposals, suggestions,
commands, and exclamations.
 The statements that make up an argument are
divided into two:
One or more premises and one and only one
conclusion.
 The premises are the statements that set forth
the reasons or evidence, and
 The conclusion is the statement that the
evidence is claimed to support or imply (the
statement that is claimed to follow from the premises).
 E.g. All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Socrates is a philosopher.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.
 The first two statements are the premises; the
third is the conclusion.
 The premises really do support the conclusion,
and so the argument is a good one.
E.g. Some philosophers are atheists.
Russell is a philosopher.
Therefore, Russell is an atheist.
 In this argument the premises do not support the
conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and
so the argument is not a good one.
One of the most important tasks in the analysis of
arguments is being able to distinguish premises
from conclusions.
i) Through Indicator words:
Conclusion Indicators Premise Indicators
 Whenever a statement follows one of these
indicators, it can usually be identified as the
conclusion/ Premise.
E.g. Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the
pain. Consequently, torture is not a reliable method
of interrogation.
E.g. Given that every art and every inquiry, and similarly
every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good;
the good has rightly been declared to be that at which
all things aim
E.g. Expectant mothers should never use recreational
drugs, since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the
development of the fetus.
 This method only works only when the arguer makes an
explicit claim
 Contd.
 Sometimes an argument contains no indicators: When this
occurs (when the arguer implicitly claims);
 If so ask the following questions
- What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow
from the others?
-What is the arguer trying to prove?
-What is the main point in the passage?
The answer will lead us---- to the conclusion.
 The space program deserves increased expenditures in the
years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend
upon it, but the program will more than pay for itself in
terms of technological spinoffs. Furthermore, at current
funding levels the program cannot fulfill its anticipated
potential.
 1.2 . Recognizing Arguments

 Not all passages contain arguments.

 Logic deals with arguments. Thus, we need to
identify argumentative passages.
 In general, a passage contains an argument if it
purports to prove something; if it does not do so,
it does not contain an argument.
 Two conditions must be fulfilled:
1. At least one of the statements must claim to
present evidence or reasons.
2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence
or reasons supports or implies something
 Contd.
 The first condition expresses a factual claim-
the claim that evidences are provided.
 This second condition expresses what is called
an inferential claim- the claim that the
evidences support something (a certain kind of
reasoning process):
 Such a claim can be either explicit or implicit.
 An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted
by premise or conclusion indicator words – the
terms indicate that something is being inferred.
 Contd.
 An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential
relationship - but the passage contains no indicator words.
 In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or
implies something, keep an eye out for
(1) indicator words
 The mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means
guarantees the presence of an argument.
E.g. Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been
many technological developments.
E.g. Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit
for a major technological development.
In the first passage the word “since” is used in a
temporal sense, while in the second passage “since” is
used in a logical sense.
 Contd.
(2) the presence of an inferential relationship
- However, it is difficult.
(3) Typical forms of non-arguments.
 Let us now investigate some typical kinds of
non-arguments:
a) Simple Non-inferential Passages
- are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that
anything is being proved.
- Such passages contain statements that could be
premises or conclusions (or both),
 Contd.
 Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of
advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosely
associated statements, and reports.
 A warning is a form of expression that is
intended to put someone on guard against a
dangerous or detrimental situation.
- Watch out that you don’t slip on the ice.
 A piece of advice is a form of expression that
makes a recommendation about some future
decision or course of conduct.
- You should keep a few things in mind before
buying a used car.
 Contd.
 A statement of belief or opinion is an
expression about what someone happens to
believe or think about something.
- I believe our company will announce an
adjustment of salary in the coming few weeks.
 Loosely associated statements may be about the
same general subject, but they lack a claim that
one of them is proved by the others.
 A report consists of a group of statements that
convey information about some topic or event.
 Contd.
b) Expository Passages: is a kind of discourse that begins
with a topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that
develop the topic sentence.
- The objective only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is
no argument.
* There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and
gas. . Solid objects ordinarily maintain their shape and volume
regardless of their location. A liquid occupies a definite volume,
but assumes the shape of the occupied portion of its container. A
gas maintains neither shape nor volume. It expands to fill
completely whatever container it is in.
c) Illustrations: a statement about a certain subject combined
with a reference to one or more specific instances.
* Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be
represented by molecular formulas. Thus, oxygen is
represented by ―O2,‖water by ―H2O,‖ and sodium
chloride by ―NaCl.‖
 Contd.
 Illustrations are often confused with arguments -
Such arguments are often called arguments from
example.
d) Explanations: is a group of statements that
purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon.
 The event or phenomenon in question is usually
accepted as a matter of fact.
* The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because
light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the
atmosphere.
 Every explanation is composed of two distinct
components: the explanandum and explanans.
 Contd.
 The explanandum is the statement that describes the
event or phenomenon to be explained.
 The explanans is the statement or group of statements
that purports to do the explaining.
 Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments
because they often contain the indicator word ―because.‖
e) Conditional Statements: is an ―if . . . then . . .‖
statement.
- Every conditional statement is made up of two
component statements.
Antecedent: a statement which comes after ―if‖
Consequent:: a statement which comes after ―then‖
A single cond. Stat. is not an argument, but can serve as a PS
or Con.
 Cond.
 The relation between conditional statements and
arguments may now be summarized as follows:
1. A single conditional statement is not an
argument.
2.A conditional statement may serve as either the
premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument.
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement
may be re-expressed to form an argument.
 Conditional statements are especially important in
logic because they express the relationship
between necessary and sufficient conditions.
 Contd.
 A is said to be a sufficient condition for B
whenever the occurrence of A is all that is
needed for the occurrence of B.
 B is said to be a necessary condition for A
whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence
of B.
E.g. A – Being a Dog.
B - Being an Animal.
 Being an animal is a necessary condition for
being a Dog, while being a Dog is a sufficient
condition for being an animal.
 1.3. Deduction and Induction
• Arguments can be divided into two groups: deductive
and inductive.
Deductive argument is an argument in which the arguer
claims that it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false given that the premises are true.
- the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily
from the premises (necessary reasoning).
Inductive argument is an argument in which the arguer
claims that it is improbable that the
conclusion be false given that the premises are
true.
- the conclusion is claimed to follow only
probably from the premises(probabilistic
reasoning).
 Contd.
E.g. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees are instinctual.
Therefore, probably humans are instinctual.
E.g. All humans are rational beings.
Kant is a human.
Therefore, necessarily Kant is a rational being.
 The first arguments is inductive, while the
second is deductive.
The major distinction between inductive and
deductive arguments rests on the strength of an
argument’s inferential claim ( Reasoning Process).
 Contd.
 The distinction lies in how strongly the
conclusion is claimed to follow from the
premises.
 Three criteria in identifying whether a certain
argument is deductive or inductive:
(1) The occurrence of special indicator words.
(2) the actual strength of the inferential link
between premises and conclusion.
(3) The form or style of argumentation the arguer
uses.
TIP: the content of the conclusion
 Contd.
1. The occurrence of special indicator words
• Inductive indicators are ―probable‖ ―improbable,‖
―plausible,‖ ―implausible,‖ ―likely,‖ ―unlikely,‖ and
―reasonable to conclude.‖
• Deductive indicators are ―necessarily,‖ ―certainly,‖
―absolutely,‖ and ―definitely.‖
2. The actual strength of the inferential link
between premises and conclusion.
• If the conclusion necessarily from the premises,
the argument is clearly deductive.
• If the conclusion follows probably from the
premises, then it inductive.
 Contd.
• E.g. All entertainers are extroverts.
David Letterman is an entertainer.
Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.
Deductive - the conclusion follows with Necessarily
from the premises.
• E.g. The vast majority of entertainers are extroverts.
David Letterman is an entertainer.
Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.
Inductive – the conclusion follows Probably from
the premises.
 Cont.
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguer
uses.
Deductive Argument Forms
Many arguments have a distinctive character or form. Here
are some of deductive forms:
i) Argument based on Mathematics: the conclusion
depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric
computation or measurement.
E.g. Rahel earns twice as much as Tsion’s salary. Tsion’s
salary is 2000. Therefore, Rahel’s earns 4000 birr.
ii) An argument from Definition: the conclusion is claimed
to depend merely upon the definition of some word or phrase
used in the premise or conclusion.
E.g. Claudia is mendacious. It follows that she tells lies.
 Contd.
iii) A syllogism, in general, is an argument consisting of
exactly two premises and one conclusion.
a) A Categorical Syllogism is a syllogism in which each
statement begins with one of the words ―all,‖ ―no,‖ or
―some.‖
E.g. All Ethiopians are Africans.
All Africans are black people.
Therefore, all Ethiopian are black people.
b) A Hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a
conditional statement for one or both of its premises.
E.g. If you study hard, then you will pass the exam.
You have studied hard.
Thus, you will pass the exam.
c) A Disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a
disjunctive statement (i.e., an ―either. . . or . . .‖
statement) for one of its premises.
 Contd.
Inductive Argument Forms
• In general, inductive arguments are such that the
content of the conclusion is in some way intended
to “go beyond” the content of the premises. Here
are few forms of inductive argument.
A prediction is an argument that proceeds from
our knowledge of the past to a claim
about the future.
An argument from analogy is an argument that
depends on the existence of an
analogy, or similarity, between two
things or states of affairs.
 Contd.
Inductive Generalization is an argument that proceeds
from the knowledge of a selected sample to
some claim about the whole group.
An argument from authority is an argument that
concludes something is true because a
presumed expert or witness has said that it is.
An argument based on signs is an argument that
proceeds from the knowledge of a sign to a
claim about the thing or situation that the sign
symbolizes.
A causal inference is an argument that proceeds from
knowledge of a cause to a claim about an
effect, or, conversely, from knowledge of an
effect to a claim about a cause.
It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive
arguments listed here are not intended to be mutually
exclusive.
 Contd.
• Overlaps can and do occur.
• Arguments that occur in science can be either inductive
or deductive, depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional way-
Inductive: from particular to general. But this is wrong!!
Deductive: from general to particular.
A particular statement is one that makes a claim about
one or more particular members of a class.
• A general statement makes a claim about all the
members of a class.
1.4. Evaluating Arguments:
Validity, Strength, Soundness and Cogency
Every argument makes two basic claims:
1. A claim that evidence or reasons exist = Factual Claim
2. A claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support
something = Inferential Claim
 The evaluation of every argument centers on the
evaluation of these two claims.
 The more important of the two is the inferential claim,
because if the premises fail to support the conclusion (that
is, if the reasoning is bad), an argument is worthless.
 Thus we will always test the inferential claim first, then
the factual claim.
 1.4.1. Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity and
Soundness
a) Evaluation of Inferential claim: based on the evaluation of
the inferential claim, a deductive argument can either be Valid
or Invalid.
 Valid Deductive Argument is an argument in which it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the
premises are true.
 the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises.
 E.g. All television networks are media companies.
NBC is a television network.
Therefore, NBC is a media company.
 Invalid Deductive Argument is a deductive argument in
which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given
that the premises are true.
 the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity
from the premises,
E.g. All Ethiopians are black people.
All Africans are black people.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.
 There is no middle ground between valid and invalid.
 If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
 Validity is something that is determined by the
relationship between premises and conclusion.
 Contd.
 Truth and falsity of the premises and the conclusion
doesn’t determine validity, rather how necessarily
the conclusion follows the premises .
 Please refer page 43 of your text
Premise Concln. Validity
True True Valid/Invalid
True False Invalid
False True Valid/Invalid
False False Valid/Invalid

b) Evaluating factual claim: based on the evaluation of the

factual claim, a deductive argument can be
evaluated as Sound or Unsound.
 Contd.
 A sound argument is a deductive argument that
is valid and has all true premises.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to
be sound, and if either is missing the argument is
unsound.

Sound
Valid
Deductive Unsound
Invalid
1.4.1. Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength and Cogency

a) Evaluation of Inferential claim: based on the

evaluation of the inferential claim, a inductive
argument can be valued as Strong or Weak.
 Strong inductive argument is an argument in
which it is improbable for the conclusion to be
false given that the premises are true.
 The conclusion follows most probably from the
premises (most likely).
E.g. All dinosaur bones discovered to this day have been at
least 50 million years old. Therefore, probably the next
dinosaur bone to be found will be at least 50 million years
old.
 A weak inductive argument is an argument in
which the conclusion does not follow probably
from the premises, even though it is claimed to.
e.g. During the past fifty years, inflation has consistently
reduced the value of the American dollar. Therefore,
industrial productivity will probably increase in the years
ahead.
 The strength or weakness of an inductive argument
results not from the actual truth or falsity of the
premises and conclusion, but from the degree of
implication.
 Premises Conclusion Strength
True True Strong/Weak
True False Weak

False True Strong/Weak

False False Strong/Weak

b) Evaluating Factual Claim: based on the evaluation of

the factual claim, a inductive argument can be
evaluated as Cogent or Uncogent.
 Cogent Argument: is a inductive argument that is
strong and has all true premises.
 Both conditions must be met for an argument to
be Cogent, and if either is missing the argument is
Uncogent.
Cogent
Strong
Inductive Uncogent
Weak

------ End of Chapter One ------

 Chapter Two
Language: Meaning and
Definition
2.1. Varieties of Meaning
 Ordinary language, serves various functions in our
day-to-day lives.
 For our purpose, two linguistic functions are
particularly important:
1) to convey information
2) express or evoke feelings.
 The death penalty, which is legal in thirty-six states, has been
carried out most often in Georgia; however, since 1977 Texas
holds the record for the greatest number of executions.
 The death penalty is a cruel and inhuman form of punishment in
which hapless prisoners are dragged from their cells and
summarily slaughtered only to satiate the bloodlust of a vengeful
public.
 The first statement is intended primarily to convey
information.
 The second is intended to persuade us that the death
penalty is bad.
 These statements accomplish their respective
functions through the distinct kinds of terminology.
 Terminologies that convey information are said to
have cognitive meaning,
 Terminologies that express or evoke feelings are
said to have emotive meaning.
 The emotively charged statement about the death
penalty illustrates two important points.
 1st - statements of this sort usually have both
cognitive meaning and emotive meaning. Thus,
disengage the cognitive meaning of such statements
from the emotive meaning.
 2nd- part of the cognitive meaning of such statements
is a value claim.
 A value claim is a claim that something is good, bad,
right, wrong, or better, worse,…Thus, it is important
that we be able to disengage the value claims of
emotively charged statements
 The reason that people use emotive terminology
as often as they do : because the emotive
―clothing‖ tends to
 obscure the fact that a value claim is being
made, and
 gives psychological momentum to that claim.
Thus, readers and listeners are inclined to
swallow the value claim whole without any
evidence. -----the intellectual laziness.
Emotive terminology as it occurs in arguments:
 It allows the arguer to make value claims about
the subject matter of the argument without
providing evidence.
 It has a steamroller quality by which it tends to
crush potential counterarguments before the
reader or listener has a chance to think of them.
 This steamroller quality also tends to paralyze the
logical thought processes of readers or listeners.
 Some of the ways that cognitive meanings can be
defective are vagueness and ambiguousness.
 Vague if there are borderline cases in which it is
impossible to tell if the expression applies or does not
apply.
 The meaning is hazy, obscure, and imprecise. ―love,‖
―happiness,‖ ―peace,‖ ―excessive,‖ ―fresh,‖ ―rich,‖
―poor,‖ ―normal,‖
 ambiguous when it can be interpreted as having
more than one clearly distinct meaning in a given
context.
 For example, words such as ―light, ‖proper,‖
―critical,‖ ―stress,‖ ―mad,‖ ―inflate,‖ ―chest,‖ ―bank,‖
―sound,‖ and ―race‖ can be used ambiguously.
 The difference between ambiguity and vagueness
is that vague terminology allows for a relatively
continuous range of interpretations, whereas
ambiguous terminology allows for multiple
discrete interpretations.
 The role of vagueness and ambiguity in
arguments may be conveniently explored in the
context of conflicting arguments between
individuals.
 Disputes that arise over the meaning of language
are called verbal disputes.
 Some disputes arise over a disagreement about
facts, and these are called factual disputes.
 2.2 The Intension and Extension of Terms
 The study of meaning and definition is closely
related to the main task of logic.
 The basic units of any ordinary language are
words.
 Our main concern in this chapter, however, is not
with words in general but with terms.
 A term is any word or arrangement of words that
may serve as the subject of a statement.
 Terms consist of proper names, common names,
and descriptive phrases.
Proper Names Common Names Descr. Phrases
Harley Person The author of A Con. Logic
The United States Senate House Books in the Library

• Words that are not terms include verbs, non-

substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and all non-syntactic arrangements
of words.
 The previous section of this chapter explored the
cognitive meaning of language in general.
 The cognitive meaning of terms comprises two
kinds: intensional and extensional.
 The intensional meaning consists of the qualities
or attributes that the term connotes.
 the extensional meaning consists of the members
of the class that the term denotes.
 The intensional meaning of a term is otherwise
known as the intension, or connotation,
 and the extensional meaning is known as the
extension, or denotation.
 ―Intension‖ and ―extension‖ are roughly
equivalent to the more modern terms ―sense‖
and ―reference,‖ respectively.
 Concerning connotation, philosophers/ logicians take two
positions: objective and subjective.
 Dog lover and Dog hater…To avoid this problem, we
restrict the meaning of connotation to what is usually
called the conventional connotation.
 The conventional connotation … the attributes that the
term commonly calls forth in the minds of competent
speakers of the language.
 The connotation of a term remains more or less the same
from person to person and from time to time.
 The denotation of a term also typically remains the same
from person to person, but it may change with the passage
of time.
E.g. Currently living Dinosaurs‖---Non existent, thus Empty
Extension.
 They are said to denote the empty (or ―null‖) class, the
class that has no members
 The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an
important connection between extension and intension—namely,
that intension determines extension.
 Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increasing
extension, decreasing intension, and decreasing extension.
 A series of terms is in the order of:
 Increasing Intension-when each term in the series (except the
first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it.
E.g. Animal, Wild Animal, Carnivore, Lion
 Decreasing intension is the reverse of that of increasing
intension.
E.g. Lion, Carnivore, Wild Animal, Animal
 Increasing extension when each term in the series
(except the first) denotes a class having more
members than the class denoted by the term
preceding it.
E.g. Lion, Carnivore, Wild Animal, Animal
 Decreasing Extension – is the reverse of
increasing extension.
E.g. Animal, Wild Animal, Carnivore, Lion
 Definitions and Their Purposes
 There are various conflicting views about the
purpose of definitions.
 Plato - definitions were intended to explicate the
meaning of certain eternal essences or forms,
such as justice, piety, and virtue.
 For others, definitions are intended exclusively to
explicate the meaning of words.
 Definition as a group of words that assigns a
meaning to some word or group of words.
 Every definition consists of two parts: the
definiendum and the definiens.
 The definiendum is the word or group of words
that is supposed to be defined.
 The definiens is the word or group of words that
does the defining.
Logic is a science that evaluates an argument.
 The definiens is not itself the meaning of the
definiendum;
 It is the group of words that symbolizes (or that is
supposed to symbolize) the same meaning as the
definiendum.
1. Stipulative Definitions
- assigns a meaning to a word for the first time.
- Involve either coining a new word or giving a new
meaning to an old word.
 Purpose -to replace a more complex expression with
a simpler one.
 The need for a stipulative definition is often
occasioned by some new phenomenon or
development.
 Crossbreeding, to set up secret codes,
 A stipulative definition is a completely arbitrary
assignment of a meaning to a word for the first time,
there can be no such thing as a ―true‖ or ―false‖
stipulative definition.
2. Lexical Definitions
- is used to report the meaning that a word already
has in a language.
 Dictionary definitions are all instances of lexical
definitions.
 lexical definitions have the further purpose of
eliminating the ambiguity.
 an expression is ambiguous when it can be
interpreted as having two or more clearly distinct
meanings in a given context.
E.g. Light, race, bank, plant,
 May be true or false depending on whether it does or
does not report the way a word is actually used.
3. Precising Definitions
• is to reduce the vagueness of a word.
 vague if there are borderline cases
 in which it is impossible to tell if the word applies
or does not apply.
 Words such as ―fresh,‖ ―rich,‖ ―moment of death
‖and ―poor‖ are vague
 Sometimes the substance of a court trial may
revolve around the precise usage of a term.
 ―‗Poor‘ means having an annual income of less
than $4,000 and a net worth of less than
$20,000‖
4. Theoretical Definitions
 - assigns a meaning to a word by suggesting a theory that
gives a certain characterization to the entities that the term
denotes.
 suggests deductive consequences, further investigation
(experimental or otherwise),
 ―Heat‘‘ means the energy associated with the random
motion of the molecules of a substance.‖
 This definition does more than merely assign a meaning to
a word; it provides a way of conceiving the physical
phenomenon that is heat.
 Like stipulative definitions, theoretical definitions are
neither true nor false, strictly speaking.
 The reason is that theoretical definitions function as
proposals to see or interpret some phenomenon in a certain
way.
5. Persuasive Definitions
• The purpose of a persuasive definitionis to engender a favorable
or unfavorable attitude toward what is denoted by the
definiendum.
• This purpose is accomplished by assigning an emotionally
charged or value-laden meaning to a word
• Persuasive definitions amount to a certain synthesis of
stipulative ,lexical, and possibly, theoretical definitions backed
by the rhetorical motive.
• As a result of this synthesis, it masquerades as an honest
assignment of meaning to a term while condemning or blessing
with approval the subject matter of the definiendum.
• E.g. "Abortion‖ means the ruthless murdering of innocent human
beings.
• E.g. ―Capitalism‖ means the economic system in which
individuals are afforded the God-given freedom to own property
and conduct business as they choose.
2.4. Definitional Techniques
 In this section we will investigate some of the
techniques used to produce these definitions.
 These techniques may be classified in terms of the
two kinds of meaning, intensional and extensional
a) Extensional (Denotative) Definitions
 Assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the
members of the class that the definiendum denotes.
 There are at least three ways of indicating the
members of a class:
 pointing to them,
 naming them individually, and
 naming them in groups.
i) Demonstrative (ostensive)
 probably the most primitive form of definition.
 the pointing method
 the definiens is constituted at least in part by a gesture—
the gesture of pointing.
 Such definitions may be either partial or complete.
 E.g. ―Chair‖ means this and this and this—as you point
to a number of chairs, one after the other.
 If you were attempting to teach a foreigner your own
native language, most certainly be one of the methods
you would use.
 Because demonstrative definitions are the most
primitive, they are also the most limited.
 the obvious limitation that the required objects be
available for being pointed at.
ii) Enumerative definitions
 assign a meaning to a term by naming the members of
the class the term denotes.
 Like demonstrative definitions, they may also be either
partial or complete.
 ―Athletes‖ means a person such as Haile G/Sillassie, Tirunesh
Dibaba, Kenenissa Bekele Husain Bolt.
 Complete enumerative definitions are usually more
satisfying than partial ones because they identify the
definiendum.
iii) A Definition by subclass
 assigns a meaning to a term by naming subclasses of the
class denoted by the term.
 Such a definition, too, may be either partial or complete,
 ―Athletics‖ means sports like running, jumping and
throwing.
 Extensional definitions are chiefly used as techniques for
producing lexical and stipulative definitions.
 Lexical definitions are aimed at communicating how a
word is actually used.
 Dictionaries frequently include references to the
individual members (or to the subclasses) of the class
denoted by the word being defined.
b) Intensional (Connotative) Definitions
 Assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the qualities
or attributes that the word connotes.
 At least four strategies may be used to indicate the
attributes a word connotes.
i) Synonymous definition
 is one in which the definiens is a single word that
connotes the same attributes as the definiendum.
 ―Physician‖ means doctor.
 ―Intentional‖ means willful.
 A synonymous definition is a highly concise way of
assigning a meaning.
- Limitation : wisdom, envious
ii) Etymological definition
 assigns a meaning to a word by disclosing the word‘s ancestry
in both its own language and other languages.
 ―license‖ is derived from the Latin verb licere, which means
to be permitted,
 ―captain‖ derives from the Latin noun caput, which means
head.
 Etymological definitions have special importance for at least
two reasons.:
 The first is that the etymological definition of a word often
conveys the word‘s root meaning or seminal meaning from
which all other associated meanings are derived.
 Second, if one is familiar with the etymology of one English
word, one often has access to the meaning of an entire
constellation of related words.
iii) Operational Definition
 assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain
experimental procedures that determine whether or not
the word applies to a certain thing.
 A subject has ―brain activity‖ if and only if an
electroencephalograph shows oscillations when attached
to the subject’s head.
 A solution is an ―acid‖ if and only if litmus paper turns
red when dipped into it.
 Each of these definitions prescribes an operation to be
performed.
 Operational definitions were invented for the purpose of
tying down relatively abstract concepts.
iii) Definition by genus and difference
 Assigns a meaning to a term by identifying a genus term and
one or more difference words that, when combined, convey
the meaning of the term being defined.
 In logic, ―genus‖ simply means a relatively larger class, and
―species‖ means a relatively smaller subclass of the genus.
 The ―specific difference,‖ or ―difference,‖ is the attribute or
attributes that distinguish the various species within a genus.
E.g. Species Difference Genus
 ―Ice‖ means frozen water
 ― Husband‖ means married man
 ―Skyscraper‖ means very tall building
 Definition by genus and difference is the most effective for producing the five
kinds of definition.
Techniques Stipulative Lexical Precising Theoretical Persuasive

Demonstrative Yes Yes No Unusual Unusual

Enumerative Yes Yes No Unusual Unusual

Subclass Yes Yes No Unusual Unusual

Synonymous No Yes No No No

Etymological Yes Yes No No No

Operational Limited Yes Yes Unusual Unusual

Genus & Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Difference
 Reading Assignment:
Criteria for Lexical Definitions (Page 103)

-----End of Chapter two ------

Chapter Three: Informal Fallacies
Chapter Three:
Informal Fallacies