Workshop 4 - Critical Thinking
约 731 个字 预计阅读时间 2 分钟
- Speaker: Dr. Mackenzie Graham
What is Critical Thinking
Critical thinking involves the ability to evaluate and justify our beliefs or actions based on sound reasoning. A central question in this process is: Why should we accept a particular claim or adopt a specific course of action?
Good reasons are those that increase the likelihood of a belief being true or enhance the justification for an action. Conversely, bad reasons fail to provide such support and are therefore insufficient for rational belief or action.
The goal of critical thinking is to cultivate true beliefs while avoiding false ones. This requires that we only accept claims when they are supported by compelling evidence or reasoning.
What is an Argument
An argument consists of a set of statements (premises) that collectively provide support for a further statement (the conclusion).
A good argument is characterised by premises that provide strong support for the conclusion, thereby increasing its likelihood of being true.
A bad argument has premises that do not make the conclusion likely to be true.
Arguments impose a rational obligation on us to accept certain beliefs or adopt specific actions.
They aim to generate considerations that are universally applicable, regardless of individual context or perspective.
Arguing and reasoning constitute fundamental and inescapable aspects of human cognition and interaction.
Arguments are subject to objective standards, and we possess an intuitive understanding of what constitutes a good argument, irrespective of personal agreement or subjective opinion.
Critical thinking is not merely the expression of personal opinions but rather the rigorous evaluation of claims based on evidence and reasoning.
Not necessarily confrontational.
When we generalise, the argumentative stance is oriented towards persuading anyone or everyone, transcending individual biases or perspectives.
The strength of most arguments, particularly the most compelling ones, derives from their capacity for generalisability.
What are Some Common Types of Argument
- Deductive Arguments: The conclusion is entirely contained within the premises, with no additional information introduced.
- Ampliative Arguments (e.g., Inductive Arguments, Abductive Arguments): The conclusion extends beyond the information contained in the premises.
What Different Kinds of Arguments are
Deductive Argument
A deductive argument is defined as one in which the premises fully encompass the information presented in the conclusion.
This enables us to determine the truth or falsity of the conclusion solely based on the truth or falsity of the premises.
When the truth of the premises necessitates the truth of the conclusion, the argument is deemed VALID.
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the premises necessitate the truth of the conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
A valid argument is considered SOUND when its premises are not only true but also logically sufficient to guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Ampliative Arguments
Certain arguments, such as inductive and abductive arguments, are non-deductive and therefore cannot be classified as VALID or SOUND in the strict sense. Nevertheless, they provide compelling reasons for accepting the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive Arguments
Inductive arguments involve reasoning from specific instances to a broader generalisation, thereby extending the scope of the conclusion beyond the premises.
Inductive arguments, by their nature, do not provide absolute certainty for the truth of the conclusion.
There remains the possibility that additional evidence or observations could undermine the conclusion, highlighting the provisional nature of inductive reasoning.
Abductive Arguments
Abductive arguments involve deriving the most plausible conclusion from the available evidence, a process often referred to as inference to the best explanation.
Similar to inductive arguments, abductive arguments do not provide definitive proof for the truth of the conclusion.
Effective abductive arguments are typically characterised by two key features: explanatory fit and simplicity.
What are Some Common Types of Argumentative Fallacies
A common form of deductive argument looks like the following:
\(P_{1}: A \rightarrow B\)
\(P_{2}: A\)
\(C: B\)
This mode of inference is called Modus Ponens.
Another common form of valid inference looks like this:
\(P_{1}: A \rightarrow B\)
\(P_{2}: \neg B\)
\(C: \neg A\)
This is called Modus Tollens.
However, the following form:
\(P_{1}: A \rightarrow B\)
\(P_{2}: B\)
\(C: A\)
is an INVALID argument. And such form is called Affriming the Consequent.
Similarly, the following form:
\(P_{1}: A \rightarrow B\)
\(P_{2}: \neg A\)
\(C: \neg B\)
is an INVALID argument as well. And such form is called Denying the Antecedent.