Critical Thinking

“GIVE place here to some further

consideration of thought. You will
never become great until your own
thoughts make you great, and
therefore it is of the first
importance that you should
THINK.”
 Critical Thinking
• Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the finest computers on the earth.
But, like any other muscle in your body, it needs to be exercised to work its
best.
• That exercise is called THINKING.
I think, therefore I am. - Rene Descartes
 Have you ever wondered…
• Why is the sky blue?
• Is time travel possible?
• Why doesn’t s/he like me?
• Why does God not intervene in our affairs?
 What is critical thinking?
• Given our propensity to believe fake news, draw incorrect conclusions, and
make decisions based on emotion rather than reason, it might even be said
that critical thinking is vital to the survival of a democratic society.
• Critical thinking is the act of analyzing facts to understand a problem or
topic thoroughly.
• The critical thinking process typically includes steps such as collecting
information and data, asking thoughtful questions and analyzing possible
solutions.
 Why critical thinking is important
• Critical thinking skills are essential in every industry at every career level,
from entry-level associates to top executives. Good critical thinkers can work
both independently and with others to solve problems.
• Issues such as process inefficiencies, management or finances can be
improved by using critical thought. Because of this, employers value and seek
out candidates who demonstrate strong critical thinking skills.
 Lets think…
• How do you put a giraffe in the refrigerator?
• How do you put an elephant in the refrigerator?
• The lion king is hosting an animal conference. All animals attend …except
one. Which one does not attend?
• There is a river you must cross but it is used by crocodiles, and you don’t
have a boat. How do you manage it?
 How to think critically
• 1. Identify a problem or issue.
• 2. Create inferences on why the problem exists and how it can be solved.
• 3. Collect information or data on the issue through research.
• 4. Organize and sort data and findings.
• 5. Develop and execute solutions.
• 6. Analyze which solutions worked or didn’t work.
• 7. Identify ways to improve the solution.
 How to think critically
• Being objective is a fundamental part of critical thinking.
• That means analyzing the problem without allowing personal bias, emotions
or assumptions to influence how you think.
• A strong critical thinker will only analyze a problem based on the context and
facts collected after conducting thorough and impartial research.
WHAT IS LOGIC?
There’s an ancient view, still widely held, that what makes human beings
special—what distinguishes us from the “beasts of the field”—is that we
are rational. What does rationality consist in?
One can say that we manifest our rationality by engaging in activities that
involve reasoning—making claims and backing them up with reasons,
acting in accord with reasons and beliefs, drawing inferences from
available evidence, and so on.
This reasoning activity can be done well and it can be done badly; it can
be done correctly or incorrectly.
Logic is the discipline that aims to distinguish good reasoning from bad.
Reasoning
Reasoning is an inferential process that takes as input some attitudes of a subject,
and yields as output the formation or modification of other attitudes.
Reasoning is purposeful thinking and goal directed.
Example:
If you want to build a house, your reasoning states that the purpose is to escape
rentals or being destitute.
You would undergo a thinking process of how to raise and save funds for the
project, think of who will design the house, who will build it, how much it will cost,
where should you buy the plot, etc.
The goal ultimately is to own a house.
What is to Reasoning?
• To reason is to QUESTION the world and thus to engage critically with the
possibilities and alternatives which the world offers. Is what we “know” the only
answer on the issue? Is it cast in stone? Could there be other explanations than
what I just know?
• Examples:
• What is marriage?
• How did Moses and the Israelites cross the Red sea?
• How did the flood of Noah cover the entire earth?
• Who did Cain marry after fleeing from home?
Basic Notion in Reasoning
Reasoning involves claims or statements—making them and backing
them up with reasons, drawing out their consequences.
Propositions are the things we claim, state, assert.
Propositions are the kinds of things that can be true or false. They are
expressed by declarative sentences. We use such sentences to make all sorts
of assertions, from routine matters of fact (“the Earth revolves around
the Sun”), to grand metaphysical theses (“reality is an unchanging,
featureless, unified Absolute”), to claims about morality (“it is wrong to
eat meat”).
 Argument
The fundamental unit of reasoning is • An argument is a collection of
the argument. statements.
In logic, by “argument” we don’t mean a • One of these statements is the
disagreement, a shouting match; rather, CONCLUSION, whose truth or
we define the term precisely: acceptability the argument tries to
establish.
Argument = a set of propositions, one
of which, the conclusion, is (supposed • The other statements are PREMISES
to be) supported by the others, the that are intended to support the
premises. conclusion, or to convince you that the
conclusion is true or acceptable.
 Argument

• Put differently, an argument is a collection of statements

in which at least one statement (a premise) is offered as
the reason for accepting another statement (the
conclusion).
• The premises of an argument are supposed to lead to, or
provide support for, the conclusion.
 Argument
• If we are reasoning by making claims and backing them up with
reasons, then the claim that is being backed up is the conclusion of
an argument; the reasons given to support it are the argument’s
premises.
• If we’re reasoning by drawing an inference from a set of statements,
then the inference we draw is the conclusion of an argument, and
the statements from which it is drawn are the premises.
 Argument
• We include the parenthetical hedge—“supposed to be”—in the definition to
make room for bad arguments.
• A bad argument, very roughly speaking, is one where the premises fail to
support the conclusion; a good argument’s premises actually do support the
conclusion.
 ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS
The following passage expresses an argument:

You shouldn’t eat at Hungry The universe is vast and complex. And yet
does it not also display an astonishing
Lion. Why? First of all, because degree of order? The planets orbit the sun
they pay their workers very low according to regular laws, and animals’
wages. Second, the animals that minutest parts are arranged precisely to
provide their meat are raised in serve their purposes. Such order and
deplorable conditions. Finally, complexity cannot arise at random. The
the food is extremely unhealthy. universe must therefore be the product of
a Designer of enormous power and
intellect, whom we call God.
• Again, the ultimate purpose of logic is to evaluate
arguments—to distinguish the good from the bad. To do so
requires distinctions, definitions, principles, and techniques.
For now, we will focus on identifying and reconstructing
arguments.
• The first task is to explicate arguments—to state explicitly
their premises and conclusions. A perspicuous way to do this
is simply to list declarative sentences expressing the relevant
propositions, with a line separating the premises from the
conclusion, thus:
1.Hungry Lion pays their workers very low wages.
2.The animals that provide Hungry Lion’s meat are raised in
deplorable conditions.
3.Hungry Lion’s food is very unhealthy.
4./∴/∴ You shouldn’t eat at Hungry Lion.
 Arguments – Types of Reasoning
Four types of reasoning will be our focus here: deductive
reasoning, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning and
reasoning by analogy.
 Deductive Reasoning
"Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning.
Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts with a general statement or
hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion,
according to California State University."(Bradford)
Deductive reasoning is sometimes referred to as top-down logic.
Deductive reasoning relies on making logical premises and basing a conclusion around those premises.
 Deductive Reasoning
As one might imagine from the above information, deductive reasoning
is used heavily in science.
However, beyond that, one is likely to use deductive reasoning within
one's daily life both at work on a fairly regular basis.
For example, a manager of a company might notice a budget has been
exceeded and deduces that travel expenses should be cut back to
manage a business's finances better.
 Aristotle and deductive reasoning
• The Greek philosopher Aristotle, who is considered the father of deductive
reasoning, wrote the following classic example:

• P1. All men are mortal.

• P2. Socrates is a man.

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Aristotle and deductive reasoning
Aristotle’s example is called a syllogism. A syllogism uses deductive reasoning to
arrive at a conclusion that is based on two or more propositions that are assumed to be
true.

This is also called a premise premise conclusion argument. The premises

of Aristotle's logical argument -- that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man -
- are self-evidently true.
Because the premises establish that Socrates is an individual in a group whose members
are all mortal, the inescapable conclusion is that Socrates must likewise be mortal.
• To correctly counter the conclusion of this argument, one must be able to disprove
one of the premises.
 Deductive Reasoning
The following rule of modus ponens, for instance, eliminates “if ”:
• If A then B
• A
• Therefore B.
modus ponens
1.the rule of logic which states that if a conditional statement (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the
antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
2.an argument using the rule of modus ponens.
 Deductive Reasoning
• As legal reasoning is the subject of this course, the following legal syllogism
can be used:

• P1. Criminal offences are unlawful.

• P2. Theft is a criminal offence
• C. Therefore theft is unlawful.
This syllogism is illustrated in Figure 1.
This syllogism is illustrated
In the diagram the arrows and numbering illustrate the steps in the process.
First, there is a ‘major premise’, a general statement that is known to be true. It
describes two categories of things, one that fits inside the other.
Second, there is a minor premise, another statement we know to be true, which
engages with the smaller category of the major premise and the specific case at hand.
The third step allows us to take what is known from the first two premises and
conclude something new about the case, which is that it fits within the largest
category.
The circles in the diagram represent how the categories fit together in deductive
reasoning: ‘B’ fits within ‘A’ and ‘C’ fits within ‘B’, so ‘C’ must also fit within ‘A’.
The syllogism can therefore be broken down as follows:

1. major premise – criminal offences (category B) are unlawful

(category A)
2. minor premise – theft (case C) is a criminal offence (category
B)
3. conclusion – therefore theft (case C) is unlawful (category A).
 This syllogism is illustrated
The logic in this form of reasoning is certain.
The conclusion must follow from the premises: A = B and B = C,
so A = C.
Put another way, because the category of ‘criminal offences’ is
entirely contained within the category ‘unlawful’, and the specific
case of theft is a member of the category of ‘criminal offences’,
theft must also be a member of the category ‘unlawful’.
 Drawing a conclusion from deductive
reasoning
• Consider the following major and minor premises and deduce the appropriate
conclusions from them.
a. All dogs are mammals.
Labradors are dogs.
b. All dogs are reptiles.
Labradors are dogs.
c. The ‘neighbour principle’ creates a duty of care.
Donoghue falls within the neighbour principle.
 Syllogism
While the logic is certain, however, this does not mean that all
conclusions drawn using this method are necessarily true.
In fact, the truth of the concluding statement is entirely dependent
on the truth of the premises on which that conclusion is based and
following the reasoning process properly.
These are not guaranteed by the structure of the syllogism itself.
 Syllogism

P1: All Blacks are Africans.

P2: Zambians are Africans.
.: Therefore, all Zambians are Blacks.
The truth of the conclusion can be compromised in a number of
ways:

1. if the major or minor premise is in fact untrue

2. if the major premise only applies to some of the cases in category B,
meaning that it does not fit entirely within category A
3. if the minor premise is true but unrelated to the categories in the
major premise
4. if the order of the logic of the categories gets mixed up in any way.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument proves its conclusion ONLY if it is both valid and
sound.
Validity: An argument is valid when, IF all of it’s premises were true, then
the
conclusion would also HAVE to be true.
In other words, a “valid” argument is one where the conclusion
necessarily follows from
the premises. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the conclusion to be false if the
premises are true.
Here’s an example of a valid argument:

1. All philosophy courses are courses that are super exciting.

2. All logic courses are philosophy courses.
3. Therefore, all logic courses are courses that are super exciting.

Note #1: IF (1) and (2) WERE true, then (3) would also HAVE to be true.
Note #2: Validity says nothing about whether or not any of the premises
ARE true. It only says that IF they are true, then the conclusion must
follow. So, validity is more about the FORM of an argument, rather than
the TRUTH of an argument.
So, an argument is valid if it has the proper form. An argument can have
the right form, but be totally false, however. For example:
1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.
The argument just given is valid. But, premise 2 as well as the
conclusion are both false.
Notice however that, IF the premises WERE true, then the conclusion
would also have to be true. This is all that is required for validity. A valid
argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion.
Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is
valid. (2) Its premises are true. In other words, a sound argument has the
right form AND it is true.
Note #3: A sound argument will always have a true conclusion. This
follows every time these 2 criteria for soundness are met.
Do you see why this is the case? First, recall that a sound argument is
both valid AND has true premises. Now, refer back to the definition of
“valid”. For all valid arguments, if their premises are true, then the
conclusion MUST also be true. So, all sound arguments have true
conclusions.
Looking back to our argument about Daffy Duck, we can see that it is
valid, but not sound. It is not sound because it does not have all true
premises. Namely, “All ducks are mammals” is not true.
So, the argument about Daffy Duck is valid, but NOT sound. Here’s an
example of an argument that is valid AND sound:
1. All rabbits are mammals.
2. Bugs Bunny is a rabbit.
3. Therefore, Bugs Bunny is a mammal.
In this argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is
necessarily true (so it is valid). AND, as it turns out, the premises ARE
true (all rabbits ARE in fact mammals, and Bugs Bunny IS in fact a
rabbit)—so the conclusion must also be true (so the argument is sound).
 Deductive syllogisms
Deductive syllogisms depend on a The important thing to remember about
strict order of logic that cannot easily deductive reasoning at this stage is that the
logic is flawless when applied correctly.
be altered.
If the premises are true and the statements
The idea of deduction in general – are properly constructed in relation to one
reasoning from the general to the another, the conclusion will always be true.
specific – is not quite so strict, but But the syllogism itself says nothing about
you have to make sure each category the truth of the premises or the construction
of objects fits entirely within the of the statements; if either of these is flawed
wider category above it to be certain then the conclusion is also fallible.
of a categorical conclusion.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning involves drawing a general conclusion from
specific examples. When inductive reasoning takes place, the process is
generally the reverse of deductive reasoning.
It involves finding out the name of the wider category A of things
that correctly describes all of the observable objects in that category.
This can then be used to say something new about the specific case C
that you are dealing with at the time.
It is done by observing what you already know from a number of
existing examples, collecting that knowledge together and forming a
general rule about all of those examples that should also apply to other
examples in the same category.
It is rarely possible, for example, to observe all possible instances of
something.
Therefore a general conclusion based on some specific instances
that purports to account for all instances will not always or
necessarily be true.
It will only probably be true based on the available evidence.
Look at this example, which might come up if you were
wandering around ancient Greece:
 Step 1
Observe examples:
• This human Socrates is Greek.
• And this human Plato is Greek.
• And this human Euripides is Greek.
 Step 2 (hidden step)

• Collect them together based on shared characteristics.

 Step 3
Broader conclusion based on Step 2:

• Therefore all humans (category B) are Greek (category A).

 Step 4
Apply to specific case:

• Therefore this other human Herodotus (case C) is also Greek (category A).
If you happen to see only Greek men, then you might
logically but incorrectly conclude that all humans are Greek.
(You might also incorrectly conclude that all humans are
men.)
The logical relationship between the statement categories is
consequently less certain than with deductive reasoning, and
is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Inductive reasoning
Inductive Reasoning
In this example, as you have not been made aware of the existence of Barack Obama
or Marie Curie from your experience, you have received incomplete information about
the nationality of humans, which has resulted in a discrepancy in the general rule you
have constructed from that information, that all humans are Greek.
As Figure 3 illustrates, there is no necessary connection between those in the category
of Greek humans and those in the broader category of humans.
If you then use deductive reasoning to apply a flawed general principle derived from
inductive reasoning to a specific case, you may end up with a statement about the case
that is not true.
It happened to be true that Herodotus was Greek, but if your case had been Marie
Curie, this conclusion would not be true as she was French-Polish.
Inductive reasoning is not as rigorous as deductive reasoning
in terms of its logical process.
Instead, it is the process of building a hypothesis, a theory
about a general rule, from the evidence available that both
supports that theory and contradicts competing theories.
The more evidence there is available, the higher the
probability that the conclusion, the general rule, will be
correct, but this can never be known for certain.
 Reasoning by Analogy
Reasoning by analogy involves drawing specific conclusions from other specific
examples based on the similarities between them – the fact that they are ‘analogous’ to
one another.
When reasoning by analogy takes place, the objective is to say something specific
about the case at hand based on the fact that it is ‘like’ other examples in certain ways.
This can look a lot like how judicial reasoning takes place using case precedents.
Consider Figure 3.
Figure 3 Reasoning by analogy
Description
Here you are aware of the characteristics of your specific case
(step 1), and you are aware of a number of previous cases
that may share some of these characteristics with your case.
You locate the examples that share the material characteristics
of your case (step 2). These form a loose collection of
analogous experiences (category A) which are similar to a
general principle in inductive reasoning.
In step 3, based on the similarities, you assume that your case
has other similar characteristics to the analogous experiences,
effectively placing your case within the same category as
them.
In judicial reasoning, this usually involves applying the same
legal outcome to your case as was applied to the analogous
precedent case or cases.
 Description - Analogy
The conclusion using reasoning by analogy is
much less likely to be certain than for deductive However, it might be that they share other similarities
reasoning. with your specific case that you did not think of, or did
not consider important.
It is sometimes considered a form of inductive In reality, therefore, your case may belong in a different
reasoning, and is unstable because it relies heavily category from that which you placed it on your
conclusion.
on the choices that you make about which pre-
existing examples are similar to your case and Or it may belong with both sets of examples at once, and
you have had to make a choice about which cases are
why. more similar in more important ways to yours to decide
which legal outcome to transfer across.
The green exceptions in the diagram represent
The truthfulness of the conclusion is entirely dependent
cases that you did not consider to be analogous to on the strength and accuracy of the analogies drawn.
your case in important ways, so they are excluded.
Abductive Reasoning: taking your best shot
Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of
observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation
for the set.
Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making
that does its best with the information at hand, which often is
incomplete.
A medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning:
given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would
best explain most of them?
Likewise, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they
must consider whether the prosecution or the defense has the
best explanation to cover all the points of evidence.
While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there
may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case,
they make their best guess based on what they know.
While cogent inductive reasoning requires that the evidence
that might shed light on the subject be fairly complete, whether
positive or negative, abductive reasoning is characterized by lack
of completeness, either in the evidence, or in the explanation,
or both.
A patient may be unconscious or fail to report every symptom,
for example, resulting in incomplete evidence, or a doctor may
arrive at a diagnosis that fails to explain several of the
symptoms. Still, he must reach the best diagnosis he can.
Reasoning by Intuition
Have you ever had a moment where you felt as though
something wasn't right? Perhaps stepping into a parking lot
late at night, or feeling negative around someone without
knowing why? And if you've experienced this before, have
you shrugged it off, dismissing it as illogical nonsense?
Reasoning by Intuition
Instinct is our innate inclination toward a particular behavior (as
opposed to a learned response).
• A gut feeling—or a hunch—is a sensation that appears quickly
in consciousness (noticeable enough to be acted on if one
chooses to) without us being fully aware of the underlying
reasons for its occurrence.
Intuition is a process that gives us the ability to know something
directly without analytic reasoning, bridging the gap between the
conscious and nonconscious parts of our mind, and also
between instinct and reason.