LESSON 1: MEANING AND NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY

Intended Learning Outcomes:

After the successful completion of this chapter, you will be able to:

 Understand the meaning, nature and features of philosophy;

 Recognize the major fields of philosophy; and
 Understand why it is so important to learn logic and philosophy.
 Recognize the basic concepts of philosophy.
 Understand the meaning and nature of philosophy.

Lesson Overview

Because of its universal nature, it is difficult to define philosophy in terms of

a specific subject matter. However, we can define it etymologically as ‘love
of wisdom’. Thus, as a pursuit of wisdom, philosophy refers to the
development of critical habits, the continuous search for truth, and the
questioning of the apparent. In this lesson, students will be introduced with
the fundamental meaning, nature, and concepts of philosophy.

Dear learners, do you have a prior awareness of philosophy? If so,

how do you understand philosophy?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________

Philosophy deals primarily with issues. What contents philosophy has are not
the specific subject matters, but issues, which are universal in nature.
However, this should not lead us into thinking that philosophy is
incomprehensible. It is only to say that whenever you want to understand
philosophy, it is better to read different thoughts of philosophers, consciously
see its salient features by yourself, participate in it, and do it.

Socrates once stated that “Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and

philosophy begins in wonder”. It is true that most of us may not have a clear
knowledge about the history, nature, language, and issues of philosophy.
But, we all think and reflect in our own way about issues that matter us
most. We all have touched and moved by the feelings of wonder from which
all philosophy derives. Thus, we all participate, more or less, in philosophical
issues, even though thinking alone cannot make us philosophers.

Etymologically, the word “philosophy” comes from two Greek words: “philo”
and “sophia”, which mean “love” and “wisdom”, respectively. Thus, the
literal definition of philosophy is “love of wisdom”. The ancient Greek thinker
Pythagoras was the first to use the word “philosopher” to call a person who
clearly shows a marked curiosity in the things he experiences. Anyone who
raises questions, such as Does God exists? What is reality? What is the
ultimate source of Being? What is knowledge? What does it mean to know?
How do we come to know? What is value?, and the like, is really showing a
curiosity that can be described as a vital concern for becoming wise about
the phenomena of the world and the human experiences. Therefore, seeking
wisdom is among the various essences of philosophy that it has got from its
etymological definition. Nevertheless, this is not sufficient by itself to
understand philosophy, for not all wisdoms are philosophy.

What do you think is the wisdom that philosophers seek?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________

The wisdom that philosophers seek is not the wisdom of the expertise or
technical skills of professionals. Someone may be encyclopedic, and thus
seemingly intelligent, but he may actually be foolish when it comes to
understanding the meaning and significance of what he knows. According to
Socrates, wisdom consists of a critical habit and eternal vigilance about all
things and a reverence for truth, whatever its form, and wherever its place.
Based on the Socratic understanding of wisdom, philosophy, as a pursuit of
wisdom, is, thus, the development of critical habits, the continuous search
for truth, and the questioning of the apparent.

To interrogate the obvious means to deal creatively with the phenomenal

world, to go beyond the common understanding, and to speculate about
things that other people accept with no doubt. But, questioning/criticism is
not the final end of philosophy, though raising the right question is often
taken not only as the beginning and direction of philosophy but also as its
essence. Raising the right question is an art that includes the ability to
foresee what is not readily obvious and to imagine different possibilities and
alternatives of approaching the apparent. When we ultimately wonder about
the existing world, and thus raise different questions about its order, each
question moves us from the phenomenal facts to a profound speculation.

The philosophical enterprise, as Vincent Barry stated, is “an active

imaginative process of formulating proper questions and resolving them by
rigorous, persistent analysis”. Therefore, philosophy is a rational and critical
enterprise that tries to formulate and answer fundamental questions through
an intensive application of reason- an application that draws on analysis,
comparison, and evaluation. It involves reason, rational criticism,
examination, and analysis. Accordingly, we can say that Philosophy has a
constructive side, for it attempts to formulate rationally defensible answers
to certain fundamental questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature
of value, and the nature of knowledge and truth. At the same time, its critical
side is manifested when it deals with giving a rational critic, analysis,
clarification, and evaluation of answers given to basic metaphysical,
epistemological, and axiological questions.

The other thing, which is worthy of noting, is that philosophy is an activity. It

is not something that can be easily mastered or learned in schools. A
philosopher is a great philosopher, not because he mastered philosophy, but
because he did it. It is not his theory, but his extraordinary ability to critically
think, to conceptualize, to analyze, to compare, to evaluate, and to
understand- i.e., to philosophize- that makes him so. Of course, the product
of philosophizing is philosophy as a product. However, what makes someone
a great philosopher is not the produced philosophy, but his/her outstanding
ability to philosophize.

BASIC FEATURES OF PHILOSOPHY

1) Philosophy is a set of views or beliefs about life and the universe, which
are often held uncritically.
We refer to this meaning as the informal sense of philosophy or
“having” a philosophy. Usually when a person says “my philosophy is,”
he or she is referring to an informal personal attitude to whatever topic
is being discussed.
2) Philosophy is a process of reflecting on and criticizing our most deeply
held conceptions and beliefs.
This is the formal sense of “doing” philosophy. These two senses of
philosophy-”having” and “doing”- cannot be treated entirely
independent of each other, if we did not have a philosophy in the
 formal, personal sense, then we could not do a philosophy in the
critical, reflective sense. However, having a philosophy is not sufficient
for doing philosophy. A genuine philosophical attitude is searching and
critical; it is open-minded and tolerant- willing to look at all sides of an
issue without prejudice. To philosophize is not merely to read and know
philosophy; there are skills of argumentation to be mastered,
techniques of analysis to be employed, and a body of material to be
appropriated such that we become able to think philosophically. To
philosophize also means to generalize. Philosophers are reflective and
critical. They take a second look at the material presented by common
sense. They attempt to think through a variety of life’s problems and to
face all the facts involved impartially. The accumulation of knowledge
does not by itself lead to understanding, because it does not
necessarily teach the mind to make a critical evaluation of facts that
entail consistent and coherent judgment. Critical evaluations often
differ. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others disagree, first
because they view things from different points of view and with
different assumptions. Their personal experiences, cultural
backgrounds, and training may vary widely. This is especially true of
people living at different times and in different places. A second reason
philosophers disagree is that they live in a changing universe. People
change, society changes, and nature changes. Some people are
responsive and sensitive to change; others cling to tradition and the
status quo, to systems that were formulated some time ago and that
were declared to be authoritative and final. A third reason philosophers
disagree is that they deal with an area of human experience in which
the evidence is not complete. Different people may interpret the
evidence we do have in various ways. Despite these disagreements,
however, philosophers continue to probe, examine, and evaluate the
material with the hope of presenting consistent principles by which we
can live.
3) Philosophy is a rational attempt to look at the world as a whole.
Philosophy seeks to combine the conclusions of the various sciences and
human experience into some kind of consistent worldview. Philosophers
wish to see life, not with the specialized slant of the scientist or the
businessperson or the artist, but with the overall view of someone
cognizant of life as a totality. Although there are difficulties and dangers
in setting forth any worldview, there also are dangers in confining
attention to fragments of human experience. Philosophy’s task is to give
a view of the whole, a life and a worldview, and to integrate the
 knowledge of the sciences with that of other disciplines to achieve a
consistent whole. Philosophy, according to this view, attempts to bring
the results of human inquiry- religious, historical, and scientific into some
meaningful interpretation that provides knowledge and insight for our
lives.
4) Philosophy is the logical analysis of language and the clarification of the
meaning of words and concepts.
Certainly, this is one function of philosophy. In fact, nearly all
philosophers have used methods of analysis and have sought to clarify
the meaning of terms and the use of language. Some philosophers see
this as the main task of philosophy, and a few claim this is the only
legitimate function of philosophy. Such persons consider philosophy a
specialized field serving the sciences and aiding in the clarification of
language rather than a broad field reflecting on all of life’s experiences.
This outlook has gained considerable support during the twentieth
century. It would limit what we call knowledge to statements about
observable facts and their interrelations i.e., to the business of the
various sciences. Not all linguistic analysts, however, define knowledge
so narrowly. Although they do reject and try to “clean up” many non-
scientific assertions, many of them think that we can have knowledge of
ethical principles and the like, although this knowledge is also
experientially derived. Those who take the narrower view neglect, when
they do not deny, all generalized worldviews and life views, as well as
traditional moral philosophy and theology. From this narrower point of
view, the aim of philosophy is to expose confusion and nonsense and to
clarify the meaning and use of terms in science and everyday affairs.
5) Philosophy is a group of perennial problems that interest people and for
which philosophers always have sought answers.
Philosophy presses its inquiry into the deepest problems of human
existence. Some of the philosophical questions raised in the past have
been answered in a manner satisfactory to the majority of philosophers.
Many questions, however, have been answered only tentatively, and
many problems remain unsolved. What are philosophical questions? The
question “Did Ram make a false statement on his income tax return?” is
merely a question of fact. However, the questions “What is truth?” and
“What is the distinction between right and wrong?” have philosophical
importance. Sometimes we think seriously about fundamental life issues:
What is life and why am I here? Why is there anything at all? What is the
place of life in this great universe? Is the universe friendly or unfriendly?
Do things operate by chance or through sheer mechanism, or is there
some plan, purpose, or intelligence at the heart of things? Is my life
controlled by outside forces, or do I have a determining or even a partial
degree of control? Why do people struggle and strive for their rights, for
justice, for better things in the future? What do concepts like “right” and
“justice” means, and what are the marks of a good society? Often men
and women have been asked to sacrifice their lives, if need be, for
certain values and ideals. What are the genuine values of life and how
can it attained? Is there really a fundamental distinction between right
and wrong, or is it just a matter of one’s own opinions? What is beauty?
Should religion count in a person’s life? Is it intellectually valid to believe
in God? Is there a possibility of a “life after death?” Is there any way we
can get an answer to these and many related questions? Where does
knowledge come from, and can we have any assurances that anything is
true?

The above questions are all philosophical. The attempt to seek answers
or solutions to them has given rise to theories and systems of thought,
such as idealism, realism, pragmatism, analytic philosophy,
existentialism, phenomenology, and process philosophy. Philosophy also
means the various theories or systems of thought developed by the
great philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine,
Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche,
Royce, James, Dewey, Whitehead, and others. Without these people and
their thoughts, philosophy would not have the rich content it has today.
Even though we may be unconscious of the fact, we are constantly
influenced by ideas that have come down to us in the traditions of
society.

CORE FIELD OF PHILOSOPHY

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate nature

of reality or existence. It deal with issues of reality, God, freedom,
soul/immortality, the mind-body problem, form and substance
relationship, cause and effect relationship, and other related issues.
Metaphysicians seek an irreducible foundation of reality or ‘first
principles’ from which absolute knowledge or truth can be induced and
deduced. The term metaphysics is derived from the Greek words “meta”
means (“beyond”, “upon” or “after”) and physika, means (“physics”).
 Literally, it refers ‘those things after the physics.’ Aristotle’s writings on
‘first philosophy’ came after his treatise on physics, therefore, Aristotle’s
editor, Andronicus of Rhodes, named them metaphysics.

Here are some of the questions that Metaphysics primarily deals with:
 What is reality?
 What is the ultimately real?
 What is the nature of the ultimate reality?
 Is it one thing or is it many different things?
 Can reality be grasped by the senses, or it is transcendent?
 What makes reality different from a mere appearance?
 What is mind, and what is its relation to the body?
 Is there a cause and effect relationship between reality and
appearance?
 Does God exist, and if so, can we prove it?
 Are human actions free, or predetermined by a supernatural force?
 What is human being? A thinking mind? A perishable body? Or a
combination of both?
 What is time?
 What is the meaning of life?

It is evident that the question of reality is not as simplistic as it appears. If

the reality of a common floor is confusing, what about the larger problems
that presents themselves as humankind searches for the ultimate reality of
the universe?

Metaphysical questions are the most basic to ask because they provide the
foundation upon which all subsequent inquiry is based. Metaphysical
questions may be divided into four subsets or aspects.

A. Cosmological Aspect: Cosmology consists in the study of theories

about the origin, nature, and development of the universe as an
orderly system. Questions such as these populate the realm of
cosmology: “How did the universe originate and develop? Did it come
about by accident or design? Does its existence have any purpose?”
B. Theological Aspect: Theology is that part of religious theory that
deals with conceptions of and about God. “Is there a God? If so, is
there one or more than one? What are the attributes of God? If God is
both all good and all powerful, why does evil exist? If God exists, what
is His relationship to human beings and the ‘real’ world of everyday
life?”
 C. Anthropological Aspect: Anthropology deals with the study of
human beings and asks questions like the following: What is the
relation between mind and body? Is mind more fundamental than
body, with body depending on mind, or vice versa? What is humanity’s
moral status? Are people born good, evil, or morally neutral? To what
extent are individuals free? Do they have free will, or are their thoughts
and actions determined by their environment, inheritance, or a divine
being? Does each person have a soul? If so, what is it? People have
obviously adopted different positions on these questions, and those
positions influence their political, social, religious, and educational
ideals and practices.
D. Ontological Aspect: Ontology is the study of the nature of existence,
or what it means for anything to exist. Several questions are central to
ontology: “Is basic reality found in matter or physical energy (the world
we can sense), or is it found in spirit or spiritual energy? Is it composed
of one element (e.g., matter or spirit), or two (e.g., matter and spirit),
or many?” “Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely
orderable by the human mind? Is it fixed and stable, or is change its
central feature? Is this reality friendly, unfriendly, or neutral toward
humanity?”

Epistemology

Epistemology is the other field of philosophy that studies about the nature,
scope, meaning, and possibility of knowledge. It deals with issues of
knowledge, opinion, truth, falsity, reason, experience, and faith.
Epistemology is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”.

Etymologically, the word epistemology has been derived from the Greek
words episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning
“study of”. In other words, we can say that Epistemology is the study of the
nature, source, and validity of knowledge. It seeks to answer of the basic
questions as “What is true?” and “How do we know?” Thus, epistemology
covers two areas: the content of thought and thought itself. The study of
epistemology deals with issues related to the dependability of knowledge
and the validity of the sources through which we gain information.

The following are among the questions/issues with which Epistemology

deals:

 What is knowledge?  What does it mean to know?

 What is the source of knowledge? Experience? Reason? Or both?
  How can we be sure that what we perceive through our senses is
correct?
 What makes knowledge different from belief or opinion?
 What is truth, and how can we know a statement is true?
 Can reason really help us to know phenomenal things without being
informed by sense experiences?
 Can our sense experience really help us to know things beyond our
perception without the assistance of our reasoning ability?
 What is the relationship and difference between faith and reason?

Epistemology seeks answers to a number of fundamental issues. One is

whether reality can even be known. Skepticism in its narrow sense is the
position claiming that people cannot acquire reliable knowledge and that any
search for truth is in vain. That thought was well expressed by Gorgias, the
Greek Sophist who asserted that nothing exists, and that if it did, we could
not know it. A full-blown skepticism would make intelligent action impossible.
A term closely related to skepticism is agnosticism. Agnosticism is a
profession of ignorance in reference to the existence or nonexistence of God.

A major aspect of epistemology relates to the sources of human knowledge.

If one accepts the fact that there is truth and even Truth in the universe, how
can human beings comprehend such truths? How do they become human
knowledge? Central to most people’s answer to that question is empiricism
(knowledge obtained through the senses). Empirical knowledge appears to
be built into the very nature of human experience. Thus, when individuals
walk out of doors on a spring day and see the beauty of the landscape, hear
the song of a bird, feel the warm rays of the sun, and smell the fragrance of
the blossoms, they “know” that it is spring. Sensory knowing for humans is
immediate and universal, and in many ways forms the basis of much of
human knowledge.

A second important source of human knowledge is reason. The view that

reasoning, thought, or logic is the central factor in knowledge is known as
rationalism. The rationalist, in emphasizing humanity’s power of thought and
the mind’s contributions to knowledge, is likely to claim that the senses
alone cannot provide universal, valid judgments that are consistent with one
another. From this perspective, the sensations and experiences humans
obtain through their senses are the raw material of knowledge. These
sensations must be organized by the mind into a meaningful system before
they become knowledge. Rationalism in a less extreme form claims that
people have the power to know with certainty various truths about the
universe that the senses alone cannot give. In its extreme form, rationalism
claims that humans are capable of arriving at irrefutable knowledge
independently of sensory experience. Formal logic is a tool used by
rationalists. Systems of logic have the advantage of possessing internal
consistency, but they risk being disconnected from the external world.
Systems of thought based upon logic are only as valid as the premises upon
which they are built.

A third source of human knowledge is intuition- the direct apprehension of

knowledge that is not derived from conscious reasoning or immediate sense
perception. In the literature dealing with intuition, one often finds such
expressions as “immediate feeling of certainty.” Intuition occurs beneath the
threshold of consciousness and is often experienced as a sudden flash of
insight. Intuition has been claimed under varying circumstances as a source
of both religious and secular knowledge. Certainly many scientific
breakthroughs have been initiated by intuitive hunches that were confirmed
by experimentation. The weakness or danger of intuition is that it does not
appear to be a safe method of obtaining knowledge when used alone. It goes
astray very easily and may lead to absurd claims unless it is controlled by or
checked against other methods of knowing. Intuitive knowledge, however,
has the distinct advantage of being able to bypass the limitations of human
experience.

A fourth influential source of knowledge throughout the span of human

history has been revelation. Revealed knowledge has been of prime
importance in the field of religion. It differs from all other sources of
knowledge because it presupposes a transcendent supernatural reality By:
Teklay G. (AkU), Adane T. (MU), and Zelalem M. (HMU) Page 24 that breaks
into the natural order. Christians believe that such revelation is God’s
communication concerning the divine will. Believers in supernatural
revelation hold that this form of knowledge has the distinct advantage of
being an omniscient source of information that is not available through other
epistemological methods. The truth revealed through this source is believed
by Christians to be absolute and uncontaminated. On the other hand, it is
generally realized that distortion of revealed truth can occur in the process of
human interpretation. Some people assert that a major disadvantage of
revealed knowledge is that it must be accepted by faith and cannot be
proved or disproved empirically.

A fifth source of human knowledge, though not a philosophical position, is

authority. Authoritative knowledge is accepted as true because it comes
from experts or has been sanctified over time as tradition. In the classroom,
the most common source of information is some authority, such as a
textbook, teacher, or reference work. Accepting authority as a source of
knowledge has its advantages as well as its dangers. Civilization would
certainly stagnate if people refused to accept any statement unless they
personally verified it through direct, firsthand experience. On the other hand,
if authoritative knowledge is built upon a foundation of incorrect
assumptions, then such knowledge will surely be distorted.

Axiology

Axiology is the study or theory of value. The term Axiology stems from two
Greek words- “Axios”, meaning “value, worth”, and “logos”, meaning
“reason/ theory/ symbol / science/study of”. Hence, Axiology is the
philosophical study of value, which originally meant the worth of something.

Axiology asks the philosophical questions of values that deal with notions of
what a person or a society regards as good or preferable, such as:

 What is a value?
 Where do values come from?
 How do we justify our values?
 How do we know what is valuable?
 What is the relationship between values and knowledge?
 What kinds of values exist?
 Can it be demonstrated that one value is better than another?  Who
benefits from values?

Axiology deals with the above and related issues of value in three areas,
namely Ethics, Aesthetics, and Social/Political Philosophy.

Ethics

Ethics, which is also known as Moral Philosophy, is a science that deals with
the philosophical study of moral principles, values, codes, and rules, which
may be used as standards for determining what kind of human
conduct/action is said to be good or bad, right or wrong.

Ethics has three main branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied
ethics. Ethics raises various questions including:

 What is good/bad?
 What is right/wrong?
  Is it the Right Principle or the Good End that makes human
action/conduct moral?
 Is an action right because of its good end, or it is good because of its
right principle?
 Are moral principles universal, objective, and unconditional, or relative,
subjective and conditional?
 What is the ultimate foundation of moral principles? The supernatural
God? Human reason? Mutual social contract? Social custom?
 Does God exist? If so, is He Benevolent and Omnipotent?

1. Normative Ethics refers to the ethical studies that attempt to study

and determine precisely the moral rules, principles, standards and
goals by which human beings might evaluate and judge the moral
values of their conducts, actions and decisions. It is the reasoned
search for principles of human conduct, including a critical study of the
major theories about which things are good, which acts are right, and
which acts are blameworthy. Consequentialism or Teleological Ethics,
Deontological Ethics, and Virtue Ethics are the major examples of
normative ethical studies.
2. Meta-ethics is the highly technical philosophical discipline that deals
with investigation of the meaning of ethical terms, including a critical
study of how ethical statements can be verified. It is more concerned
with the meanings of such ethical terms as good or bad and right or
wrong than with what we think is good or bad and right or wrong. Moral
Intuitionism, Moral Emotivism, Moral Prescriptivism, Moral Nihilism, and
Ethical Relativism are the main examples of metaethical studies.
3. Applied Ethics is a normative ethics that attempts to explain, justify,
apply moral rules, principles, standards, and positions to specific moral
problems, such as capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, adultery,
animal right, and so on. This area of normative ethics is termed applied
because the ethicist applies or uses general ethical princes in an
attempt to resolve specific moral problems.

Aesthetics

Aesthetics is the theory of beauty. It studies about the particular value of our
artistic and aesthetic experiences. It deals with beauty, art, enjoyment,
sensory/emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment.

The following are typical Aesthetic questions:

 What is art?
  What is beauty?
 What is the relation between art and beauty?
 What is the connection between art, beauty, and truth?
 Can there be any objective standard by which we may judge the
beauty of artistic works, or beauty is subjective?
 What is artistic creativity and how does it differ from scientific
creativity?
 Why works of art are valuable?
 Can artistic works communicate? If so, what do they communicate?
 Does art have any moral value, and obligations or constraints?
 Are there standards of quality in Art?

LESSON II. BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC: ARGUMENTS, PREMISES AND

CONCLUSIONS

Logic is generally be defined as a philosophical science that evaluates

arguments. An argument is a systematic combination of one or more than
one statements, which are claimed to provide a logical support or evidence
(i.e., premise(s) to another single statement which is claimed to follow
logically from the alleged evidence (i.e., conclusion). An argument can be
either good or bad argument, depending on the logical ability of its
premise(s) to support its conclusion. The primary aim of logic is to develop a
system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating
the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own.
The study of logic increases students’ confidence to criticize the arguments
of others and advance arguments of their own. In this lesson, we will discuss
the meaning and basic concepts of logic: arguments, premises, and
conclusions.

Lesson Objectives:

After the accomplishment of this lesson, you will be able to:

 Understand the meaning.

 Identify the subject matter of logic.
 Understand the meaning of an argument.
 Identify the components of an argument.
 Understand the meaning and nature of a premise.
 Comprehend the meaning and nature of a conclusion.
 Recognize the techniques of identifying the premises and conclusion of
an argument.
What is the Meaning of Logic?

The word logic comes from Greek word logos, which means sentence,
discourse, reason, truth and rule. Logic in its broader meaning is the science,
which evaluates arguments and the study of correct reasoning. It could be
also defined as the study of methods and principles of correct reasoning or
the art of correct reasoning.

Logic can be defined in different ways. Here below are some definitions of
logic:

 Logic is a science that evaluates arguments.

 Logic is the study of methods for evaluating arguments. More
precisely, logic is the study of methods for evaluating whether the
premises of arguments adequately support or provide a good evidence
for the conclusions.
 Logic is a science that helps to develop the method and principles that
we may use as a criterion for evaluating the arguments of others and
as a guide to construct good arguments of our own.
 Logic is the attempt to codify the rules of rational thought. Logicians
explore the structure of arguments that preserve truth or allow the
optimal extraction of knowledge from evidence.
 Logic is one of the primary tools philosophers use in their inquiries. The
precision of logic helps them to cope with the subtlety of philosophical
problems and the often misleading nature of conversational language.

In logic, as an academic discipline, we study reasoning itself: forms of

argument, general principles and particular errors, along with methods of
arguing. We see lots of mistakes in reasoning in daily life and logic can
help us understand what is wrong or why someone is arguing in a
particular way.

What is an Argument?

The word ‘argument’ may not be a new word to all of us. For all of us
encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in
books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them
when communicating with friends and associates. If you look back at the
above different definitions of logic and characterizations, you will certainly
find one thing in common: argument. Moreover, we have said that of the
various benefits of studying logic, identifying, analyzing and evaluating
arguments is the most important one. It follows that argument the
primary subject matter of logic. What is an argument then?
Argument is a technical term and the chief concern of logic. Argument
might have defined and described in different ways. When we define an
arguments from logical point of view, it is a group of statements, one or
more of which (the premise) are claimed to provide support for, or reason
to believe, one of the other, the (conclusion). As is apparent from the
above definition, the term ‘‘argument’’ has a very specific meaning in
logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might
have with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of
this definition in detail.

First, an argument is a group of statements. That is, the first requirement

for a passage to be qualified as an argument is to combine two or more
statements. But, what is a statement?

A statement is a declarative sentence that has a truth-value of either true

or false. That is, statement is a sentence that has truth-value. Hence,
truth and falsity are the two possible truthvalues of a statement. A
statement is typically a declarative sentence. In other words, statement is
a type of sentence that could stand as a declarative sentence.

Look the following examples:

a) Dr. Abiy Ahmed the current Prime Minister of Ethiopia.

b) Mekelle is the capital city of Tigray Region.
c) Ethiopia was colonized by Germany

Statement (a) and (b) are true, because they describe things as they are,
or assert what really is the case. Hence, ‘Truth’ is their truth-value.
Whereas statement (c) is false because it asserts what is not, and ‘Falsity’
its truth-value.

However, there are sentences that are not statements, and hence should
be used to construct an argument.

Examples:

a) Would you close the window? (Question)

b) Let us study together. (Proposal)

c) Right on! (Exclamation)

d) I suggest that you read philosophy texts. (Suggestion)

e) Give me your ID Card, Now! (Command)

 In fact, sentence is a group of words or phrases that enables us to express
ideas or thought meaningfully. However, unlike statements, none of the
above sentences can be either true or false. Hence, none of them can be
classified as statement. As a result, none of them can make up an
argument.

Second, the statements that make up an argument are divided into

premise(s) and conclusion. That means, the mere fact that a passage
contains two or more statements cannot guarantee the existence of an
argument. Hence, an argument is a group statement, which contains at
least one premise and one and only one conclusion. This definition makes
it clear that an argument may contain more than one premise but only
one conclusion.

Argument always attempts to justify a claim. The claim that the statement
attempts to justify is known as a conclusion of an argument; and the
statement or statements that supposedly justify the claim is/are known as
the premises of the argument. Therefore, a premise is a statement that
set forth the reason or evidence, which is given for accepting the
conclusion of an argument. It is claimed evidence; and a conclusion is a
statement, which is claimed to follow from the given evidence (premise).
In other words, the conclusion is the claim that an argument is trying to
establish.

Let us now construct arguments together.

Example-1:

1) All Ethiopians are Africans. (Premise 1)

Tsionawit is Ethiopian. (Premise2)
Therefore, Tsionawit is African. (Conclusion)

Example-2:

2) Some Africans are black. (Premise-1)

Zelalem is an African. (Premise-2)
Therefore, Zelalem is black. (Conclusion)

In both arguments, the first two statements are premises, because they are
claimed to provide evidence for the third statement, whereas the third
statement is a conclusion because it is claimed to follow from the given
evidences. The claim that the premises support the conclusion, (and/or that
the conclusion follow from the premises), is indicated by the word
‘‘therefore.’’
All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the
premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not,
even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good (well-
supported) arguments, the latter bad (poorly-supported) arguments. For
example, compare the above two examples. In the first argument, the
premises really do support the conclusion, they give good reason for
believing that the conclusion is true, and therefore, the argument is a good
one. But the premises of the second argument fail to support the conclusion
adequately. Even if they may be true, they do not provide good reason to
believe that the conclusion is true. Therefore, it is bad argument, but it is still
an argument.

But how can we distinguish premises from conclusion and vice

versa?

Despite the purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates and analyses
arguments, is to develop methods and techniques that allow us to
distinguish good arguments from bad, one of the most important tasks in the
analysis of arguments is to distinguish premises from conclusion and vice
versa. Sometimes identifying a conclusion from premises is very tough.
Premises and conclusions are difficult to identify for a number of reasons.
Even though all arguments are ideally presumed to be composed of premises
and a conclusion, in reality, sometimes arguments may contain other
sentences as elements. Moreover, even though it is assumed, for the sake of
argument, that all arguments are composed of premises and conclusion,
identifying conclusion from argument is very difficult. Since it is impossible to
analyze arguments without identifying a conclusion from premises, we need
techniques that can help us to identify premises from a conclusion and vice
versa.

The first technique that can be used to identify premises from a conclusion
and vice versa is looking at an indicator word. Frequently, arguments contain
certain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises and
conclusion.

Here below are some Conclusion Indicators:

Therefore It must be that It shows that

Wherefore We may conclude Whence

Accordingly Entails that Thus

Provided that Hence Consequently

 We may infer As a result It follows that

It implies that So

In argument that contains any of the conclusion indicator words, the

statement that follows the indicator word can usually be identified as the
conclusion. By the process of elimination, the other statements in the
argument can be identified as premises, but only based on their logical
importance to the identified conclusion.

Example:

Women are mammals.

Zenebech is a woman.
Therefore, Zenebech is a mammal.
Based on the above rule, the conclusion of this argument is “Zenebech is a
mammal” because it follows the conclusion indicator word “therefore”, and
the other two statements are premises. If an argument does not contain a
conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator.
Here below are some typical Premise Indicators:
Since Seeing that In that
As indicated by Given that May be inferred from
Because As Inasmuch as
Owing to For For the reason that
In argument that contains any of the premise indicator words, a statement
that follows the indicator word can usually be identified as a premise. By
same the process of elimination, the other remaining single statement will be
a conclusion.
Example:
You should avoid any form of cheating on exams because cheating on exams
is punishable by the Senate Legislation of the University.
Based on the above rule, the premise of this argument is “cheating on exams
is punishable by the Senate Legislation of the University” because it follows
the premise indicator word “because”, and the other statement is a premise.
One premise indicator not included in the above list is ‘‘for this reason.’’ This
indicator is special in that it comes immediately after the premise it indicates
and before the conclusion. We can say that in the middle place between the
premise and the conclusion, this indicator can be both premise and
conclusion indicator. The statement that comes before ‘‘for this reason’’ is
the premise of an argument and the statement that comes after “for this
reason” is the conclusion. One should be careful not to confuse ‘‘for this
reason’’ with ‘‘for the reason that.’’
Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise.
Consider the following argument:
Tsionawit is a faithful wife, for Ethiopian women are faithful wives and
Tsionawit an Ethiopian.
The premise indicator ‘‘for’’ goes with both ‘‘Ethiopian women are faithful
wives’’ and ‘‘Tsionawit is an Ethiopian”. These are the premises. By process
of elimination, ‘‘Tsionawit is a faithful wife” is the conclusion.
Sometimes you may an argument that contains no indicator all: neither a
conclusion indicator word nor a premise indicator word. When this occurs,
the reader/ listener must ask himself or herself such questions as:
 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 answers to these questions should point to the conclusion.
Example:
Our country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. Ethnic
conflicts are recently intensified; boarder conflicts are escalating;
international terrorist activities are increasing.
The main point of this argument is to show that the country should increase
the size and quality of its military. All the rest are given in support of the
conclusion. As you can see there are no indicator words. The following is the
standard form of this argument:
Ethnic conflicts are recently intensified. (P-1)
Boarder conflicts are escalating. (P-2)
International terrorist activities are increasing. (P-3)
Thus, the country should increase the quality and quantity of its military. (C)
Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are
neither premises nor conclusion. Only statements that are actually intended
to support the conclusion should be included in the list of premises. If a
statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for example, simply
makes a passing comment, it should not be included within the context of
the argument.
Example:
Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a
reduction in the overall quality of medical care available to the average
citizen. In addition, it might very well bankrupt the federal treasury. This is
the whole case against socialized medicine in a nutshell.
The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Socialized medicine is not
recommended,’’ and the two statements following the word ‘‘because’’ are
the premises. The last statement makes only a passing comment about the
argument itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion. Inference
is another concept. In the narrower sense it means the reasoning process
expressed by the argument. And broadly it refers the argument itself. For the
purpose of this course, we use the narrower sense of the term inference or
inferential link between the premises and the conclusion of arguments.
Techniques of Recognizing Arguments
Recognizing Argumentative Passages
Evaluating arguments about different issues in human life like those that
address, religion, politics, ethics, sport, science, love, culture, environment,
society, culture etc. is the central concern of logic. Therefore, as logicians, in
order to evaluate arguments easily, we need to understand the nature of
arguments and further we need to understand what argument is not,
because not all passages contain argument. Since logic deals with
arguments, it is important for students to develop the ability to identify
whether passages contain an argument. In a general way, a passage
contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not do so, it
does not contain an argument.
But what does it mean to purport to prove something?
Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something:
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- that is, a claim that something follows from the alleged
evidence.
The first condition expresses a factual claim, and deciding whether it is
fulfilled often falls outside the domain of logic. Thus, most of our attention
will be concentrated on whether the second condition is fulfilled. The second
condition expresses what is called an inferential claim. The inferential claim
is simply the claim that the passage expresses a certain kind of reasoning
process- that something supports or implies something or that something
follows from something. Also, you should recognize that this claim is not
equitable with the intentions of the arguer. Intentions are subjective and, as
such, are usually not accessible to the evaluator. Rather, the inferential claim
is an objective feature of an argument grounded in its language or structure.
In evaluating arguments, therefore, most of our attention will be
concentrated on whether the second condition is fulfilled because it is not
necessary, at least at this level, that the premises present actual evidence or
true reasons nor that do the premises actually support the conclusion.
An inferential claim can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit inferential
claim is usually asserted by premise or conclusion indicator words (‘‘thus,’’
‘‘since,’’ ‘‘because,’’ ‘‘hence,’’ ‘‘therefore,’’ and so on). It exists if there is an
indicator word that asserts an explicit relationship between the premises and
the conclusions.
Example: Gamachuu is my biological father, because my mother told so.
In this example, the premise indicator word “because” expresses the claim
that evidence supports something, or that evidence is provided to prove
something. Hence, the passage is an argument.
An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential relationship
between the statements in a passage, but the passage contains no indicator
words
Example: The genetic modification of food is risky business. Genetic
engineering can introduce unintended changes into the DNA of the food-
producing organism, and these changes can be toxic to the consumer.
The inferential relationship between the first statement and the other two
constitutes an implicit claim that evidence supports something, so we are
justified in calling the passage an argument though it does not contain
indicator word. The first statement is the conclusion, and the other two are
the premises.

Recognizing Non-argumentative Passages

Simple Non-inferential Passages
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), but what is missing is a claim
that any potential premise supports a conclusion or that any potential
conclusion is supported by premises. 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.
Example:
Whatever you promise to tell, never confide political secrets to your wife.
In this passage, no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true; and
if no evidence is given to prove that the statement is true, then there is no
argument.
A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes a recommendation
about some future decision or course of conduct.
Example:
After class hours, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the
subject matter you have discussed.
As with warnings, there is no evidence that is intended to prove anything in
piece of advices, and hence there is no argument in the above passage.
A statement of belief or opinion is an expression about what someone
happens to believe or think about something.
Example:
We believe that our university must develop and produce outstanding
students who will perform with great skill and fulfill the demands of our
nation.
This passage does not make any claim that the belief or opinion is supported
by evidence, or that it supports some conclusion, and hence does not contain
an argument.
Loosely associated statements may be about the same general subject,
but they lack a claim that one of them is proved by the others.
Example:
Not to honor men of worth will keep the people from contention; not to value
goods that are hard to come by will keep them from theft; not to display
what is desirable will keep them from being unsettled of mind.
(Lao-Tzu, Thoughts from the Tao Te
Ching)
Because there is no claim that any of these statements provides evidence or
reasons for believing another, there is no argument.

A report consists of a group of statements that convey information about

some topic or event.
Example:
The great renaissance dam of Ethiopia has opened an employment
opportunity for thousands of Ethiopians. In its completion, thirteen thousand
Ethiopians are expected to be hired.
These statements could serve as the premises of an argument, but because
the author makes no claim that they support or imply anything, there is no
argument.
Example:
“The Air Force faces a serious shortage of experienced pilots in
the years ahead, because repeated overseas tours and the allure
of high paying jobs with commercial airlines are winning out over
lucrative bonuses to stay in the service,” says a prominent Air
Force official. (Newspaper clipping)
Properly speaking, this passage is not an argument, because the author of
the passage does not claim that anything is supported by evidence. Rather,
the author reports the claim by the Air Force official that something is
supported by evidence. If such passages are interpreted as “containing”
arguments, it must be made clear that the argument is not the author’s but
one made by someone about whom the author is reporting.
Expository Passages
An expository passage is a kind of discourse that begins with a topic
sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the topic
sentence. If the objective is not to prove the topic sentence but only to
expand it or elaborate it, then there is no argument
Example: There is a stylized relation of artist to mass audience in the
sports, especially in baseball. Each player develops a style of his own-the
swagger as he steps to the plate, the unique windup a pitcher has, the clean-
swinging and hard-driving hits, the precision quickness and grace of infield
and outfield, the sense of surplus power behind whatever is done. (Max
Lerner, America as a Civilization)
In this passage the topic sentence is stated first, and the remaining
sentences merely develop and flesh out this topic sentence. This passage is
not argument, because it lacks an inferential claim. However, expository
passages differ from simple non-inferential passages (such as warnings and
pieces of advice) in that many of them can also be taken as arguments. If the
purpose of the subsequent sentences in the passage is not only to flesh out
the topic sentence but also to prove it, then the passage is an argument.
Illustrations
An illustration is an expression involving one or more examples that is
intended to show what something means or how it is done. Illustrations are
often confused with arguments because many illustrations contain indicator
words such as “thus.”
Example:
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”.
This passage is not an argument, because it makes no claim that anything is
being proved. The word “thus” indicates how something is done - namely,
how chemical elements and compounds can be represented by formulas.
Explanations
One of the most important kinds of non-argument is the explanation. An
explanation is an expression that purports to shed light on some event or
phenomenon, which is usually accepted as a matter of fact. It attempts to
clarify, or describe such alike why something is happen that way or why
something is what it is.
Example:
Cows digest grass while humans cannot, because their digestive systems
contain enzyme not found in humans.
Every explanation is composed of two distinct components: the explanandum
and explanans. The explanandum is the statement that describes the event
or phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans is the statement or
group of statements that purports to do the explaining. In the first example,
the explanandum is the statement “Cows digest grass while humans cannot”
and the explanans is “their [cows’] digestive systems contain enzyme not
found in humans.”

Conditional Statements
A conditional statement is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.
Example: If you study hard, then you will score ‘A’ grade.
Every conditional statement is made up of two component statements. The
component statement immediately following the “if” is called the antecedent
(if-clause), and the one following the “then” is called the consequent (then-
clause). However, there is an occasion that the order of antecedent and
consequent is reversed. That is, when occasionally the word ‘‘then’’ is left
out, the order of antecedent and consequent is reversed.
For example: if we left out “then” from the above example the antecedent
and consequent is reversed: You will score ‘A’ grade if you study hard.
In the above example, the antecedent is “You study hard,” and the
consequent is “You will score ‘A’ grade.” In this example, there is a
meaningful relationship between antecedent and consequent. However, such
a relationship need not exist for a statement to count as conditional. The
statement “If Getaneh Kebede is a singer, then Hawassa is in Mekelle” is just
as much a conditional statement as that in the above example.

Conditional statements are not arguments, because they fail to meet the
criteria given earlier. In an argument, at least one statement must claim to
present evidence, and there must be a claim that this evidence implies
something. In a conditional statement, there is no claim that either the
antecedent or the consequent presents evidence. In other words, there is no
assertion that either the antecedent or the consequent is true. Rather, there
is only the assertion that if the antecedent is true, then so is the consequent.
For example, the above example merely asserts that if you study hard, then
you will score ‘A’. It does not assert that you study hard. Nor does it assert
you scored ‘A’.
Of course, a conditional statement as a whole may present evidence because
it asserts a relationship between statements. Yet when conditional
statements are taken in this sense, there is still no argument, because there
is then no separate claim that this evidence implies anything. Therefore, a
single conditional statement is not an argument. The fact that a statement
begin with “if” makes it the idea conditional and not a final reasonable
assertion. That is why also conditional statements are not evaluated as true
or false without separately evaluating the antecedent and the consequent.
They only claim that if the antecedent is true then so is the consequent.
However, some conditional statements are similar to arguments in that they
express the outcome of a reasoning process. As such, they may be said to
have a certain inferential content. Consider the following example:
If destroying a political competitor gives you joy, then you have a low sense
of morality.
The link between the antecedent and consequent resembles the inferential
link between the premises and conclusion of an argument. Yet there is a
difference because the premises of an argument are claimed to be true,
whereas no such claim is made for the antecedent of a conditional
statement. Accordingly, conditional statements are not arguments. Yet,
although taken by themselves are not arguments, their inferential content,
(the inferential content between the antecedent and the consequent), may
be re-expressed to form arguments. For example, the conditional statement
can be re-expressed to form an argument as follows:
Destroying a political competitor gives you joy. Therefore, you have a low
sense of morality.
Here, we clearly have a premise and conclusion structure, and the conclusion
is asserted on the basis of the premise. Therefore, it is argument.
Finally, while no single conditional statement is an argument, a conditional
statement may serve as either the premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument. Observe the following examples:
If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor. He is
selling our national secretes to enemies.
Therefore, he is a traitor.
If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he is a traitor.
If he is a traitor, then he must be punished by death.
Therefore, If he is selling our national secretes to enemies, then he must be
punished by death.
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.
The first two rules are especially pertinent to the recognition of arguments.
According to the first rule, if a passage consists of a single conditional
statement, it is not an argument. But if it consists of a conditional statement
together with some other statement, then, by the second rule, it may be an
argument, depending on such factors as the presence of indicator words and
an inferential relationship between the statements.
Conditional statements are especially important in logic (and many other
fields) because they express the relationship between necessary and
sufficient conditions. 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. For example,
being a dog is a sufficient condition for being an animal. On the other hand,
B is said to be a necessary condition for A whenever A cannot occur without
the occurrence of B. Thus, being an animal is a necessary condition for being
a dog.
On the other hand, suppose you are told that whatever might be in the box,
it is not an animal. Then you know for certain there is no dog in the box. The
reason you can draw this conclusion is that being an animal is necessary for
being a dog. If there is no animal, there is no dog. However, being an animal
is not sufficient for being a dog, because if you are told that the box contains
an animal, you cannot, from this information alone, conclude that it contains
a dog. It might contain a cat, a mouse, a squirrel, and so on. These ideas are
expressed in the following conditional statements:
If X is a dog, then X is an animal.
If X is not an animal, then X is not a dog.
The first statement says that being a dog is a sufficient condition for being
an animal, and the second that being an animal is a necessary condition for
being a dog. However, a little reflection reveals that these two statements
say exactly the same thing. Thus, each expresses in one way a necessary
condition and in another way a sufficient condition.

In general, non-argumentative passages may contain components that

resemble the premises and conclusions of arguments, but they do not have
an inferential claim. However, some passages like expository passages,
illustrations, and explanations can be interpreted as arguments; and the
inferential contents of conditional statements may be re-expressed to form
arguments. Therefore, in deciding whether a passage contains an argument,
you should look for three things:
1) indicator words such as “therefore,” “since,” “because,” and so on;
2) an inferential relationship between the statements; and
3) typical kinds of non-arguments.

But remember that the mere occurrence of an indicator word does not
guarantee the presence of an argument. You must check to see that the
statement identified as the conclusion is claimed to be supported by one or
more of the other statements. Also keep in mind that in many arguments
that lack indicator words, the conclusion is the first statement. Furthermore,
it helps to mentally insert the word “therefore” before the various
statements before deciding that a statement should be interpreted as a
conclusion.

Types of Arguments: Deduction and Induction

Every argument makes a claim that its premises provide grounds for the
truth of its conclusion. The question we now address has to do with the
strength of this claim. Just how strongly is the conclusion claimed to follow
from the premises. The reasoning process (inference) that an argument
involves is expressed either with certainty or with probability. That is what
the logician introduced the name deduction and induction for, respectively. If
the conclusion is claimed to follow with strict certainty or necessity, the
argument is said to be deductive; but if it is claimed to follow only probably,
the argument is said to be inductive.
Therefore, a conclusion may be supported by its premise in two very
different ways. These two different ways are the two great classes of
arguments: Deductive arguments and Inductive arguments. And the
distinction between these two classes of arguments, because every
argument involves an inferential claim, lies in the strength of their inferential
claim. Understanding the distinction of these classes is essential in the study
of logic.
Deductive Arguments
A deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. It
is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the conclusion
in such a way that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow
necessarily (conclusively) from the premises. Thus, deductive arguments are
those that involve necessary reasoning.
Example-1:
All philosophers are critical thinkers.
Socrates is a philosopher.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.
Example-2:

All African footballers are blacks.

Messi is an African footballer.
It follows that, Messi is black.

The above two examples are examples of a deductive argument. In both of

them, the conclusion is claimed to follow from the premises with certainty; or
the premises are claimed to support their corresponding conclusion with a
strict necessity. If we, for example, assume that all philosophers are critical
thinkers and that Socrates is a philosopher, then it is impossible that
Socrates not be a critical thinker. Similarly, if we assume that all African
footballers are blacks and that Messi is an African footballer, then it is
impossible that Messi not be a black. Thus, we should interpret these
arguments as deductive.

Inductive Arguments

An inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is

improbable for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. .
It is an argument in which the premises are claimed to support the
conclusion in such a way that it is improbable for the premises to be true and
the conclusion false. In such arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow
only probably from the premises. The premises may provide some
considerable evidence for the conclusion but they do not imply (necessarily
support) the conclusion. In this case, we might have sufficient condition
(evidence) but we cannot be certain about the truth of the conclusion.

However, this does not mean that the conclusion is wrong or unacceptable,
where as it could be correct or acceptable but only based on probability.
Thus, inductive arguments are those that involve probabilistic reasoning.

Example-1:

Most African leaders are blacks.

Mandela was an African leader.
Therefore, probably Mandela was black.

Example-2:

Almost all women are mammals.

Hanan is a woman.
Hence, Hanan is a mammal.

Both of the above arguments are inductive. In both of them, the conclusion
does not follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it does follow
with some degree of probability. That is, the conclusion is claimed to follow
from the premises only probably; or the premises are claimed to support
their corresponding conclusion with a probability. In other words, if we
assume that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is
probable that the conclusion is true. If we, for example, assume that most
African leaders were blacks and that Mandela was an African leader, then it is
improbable that Mandela not been a black, or it is probable that Mandela was
black. But it is not impossible that Mandela not been a black. Similarly, if we
assume that almost all women are mammals and that Hanan is a woman,
then it is improbable that Hanan not be a mammal, or it is probable that
Hanan is a mammal. But it is not impossible that Hanan not be a mammal.
Thus, the above arguments are best interpreted as inductive.

Differentiating Deductive and Inductive Arguments

There are three factors that influence the decision about the deductiveness
or inductiveness of an argument’s inferential claim. These are:

1) The occurrence of special indicator words,

2) The actual strength of the inferential link between premises and
conclusion, and 3) The character or form of argumentation the arguers
use.

The first factor that influences our decision about a certain inferential claim
is the occurrence of special indicator words. There are different sort of
indicator words that indicate or mark the type of a certain argument.
Arguments may contain some words that indicate the arguer’s certainty and
confidence, or the arguer’s uncertainty or doubt, about the truth of his/her
conclusion. Words like “certainly,’’ “necessarily,” ‘‘absolutely,’’ and
‘‘definitely’’ indicate that the argument should be taken as deductive,
whereas words like, “probable” ‘‘improbable,’’ ‘‘plausible,’’ ‘‘implausible,’’
‘‘likely,’’ ‘‘unlikely,’’ and ‘‘reasonable to conclude” suggest that an argument
is inductive. The point is that if an argument draws its conclusion, using
either of the deductive indicator words, it is usually best to interpret it as
deductive, but if it draws its conclusion, using either of the inductive
indicator words, it is usually best to interpret it as inductive. (Note that the
phrase ‘‘it must be the case that’’ is ambiguous; ‘‘must’’ can indicate either
probability or necessity).

The second factor that bears upon our interpretation of an argument as

inductive or deductive is the actual strength of the inferential link between
premises and conclusion. If the conclusion actually does follow with strict
necessity from the premises, the argument is clearly deductive. In such an
argument, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
false. If, on the other hand, the conclusion of an argument does not follow
with strict necessity but does follow probably, it is usually best to interpret it
as inductive argument. Consider the following examples.

Example-1:

All Ethiopian people love their country.

Debebe is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Debebe loves his country.

Example-2:

The majority of Ethiopian people are poor.

Alamudin is an Ethiopian.
Therefore, Alamudin is poor

In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises. If we assume that all Ethiopian people love their country and that
Debebe is an Ethiopian, then it is impossible that Debebe not love his
country. Thus, we should interpret this argument as deductive. In the second
example, the conclusion does not follow from the premises with strict
necessity, but it does follow with some degree of probability. If we assume
that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it is probable that
the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument as
inductive.

Occasionally, an argument contains no special indicator words, and the

conclusion does not follow either necessarily or probably from the premises;
in other words, it does not follow at all. This situation points up the need for
the third factor to be taken into account, which is the character or form of
argumentation the arguer uses. Let us see some examples of deductive
argumentative forms and inductive argumentative forms.
Instances of Deductive Argumentative Forms

Many arguments have a distinctive character or form that indicates that the
premises are supposed to provide absolute support for the conclusion. Five
examples of such forms or kinds of argumentation are arguments based on
mathematics, arguments from definition, and syllogisms: categorical,
hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogisms.

Argument based on mathematics: it is an argument in which the

conclusions depend on some purely arithmetic or geometric computation or
measurement.

For example, you can put two orange and three bananas in a bag and
conclude that the bag contains five fruits. Or again you can measure a
square pieces of land and after determining it is ten meter on each side
conclude that its area is a hundred square meter. Since all arguments in pure
mathematics are deductive, we can usually consider arguments that depend
on mathematics to be deductive as well. A noteworthy exception, however, is
arguments that depend on statistics are usually best interpreted as
inductive.

Arguments based on definition: it is an argument in which the conclusion

is claimed to depend merely up on the definition of some words or phrase
used in the premise or conclusion.

For example, one may argue that Angel is honest; it is follows that Angel tells
the truth. Or again, Kebede is a physician; therefore, he is a doctor. These
arguments are deductive because their conclusions follow with necessity
from the definitions “honest” and “physician”.

Syllogisms are arguments consisting of exactly two premises and one

conclusion. Syllogisms can be categorized into three groups; categorical,
hypothetical, and disjunctive syllogism.

Categorical syllogism: a syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly

two premises and one conclusion. Categorical syllogism is a syllogism in
which the statement begins with one of the words “all”, “no” and “some”.

Example:

All Egyptians are Muslims.

No Muslim is a Christian. Hence,
no Egyptian is a Christian.

Arguments such as these are nearly interpreted as deductive.

Hypothetical syllogism: It is a syllogism having a conditional statement for

one or both of its premises.
Example:
If you study hard, then you will graduate with Distinction.
If you graduate with Distinction, then you will get a rewarding job.
Therefore, if you study hard, then you will get a rewarding job.

Such arguments are best interpreted as deductive.

Disjunctive syllogism: it is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement. (I.e.

an “either … or” statement.)

Example:
Rewina is either Ethiopian or Eritrean.
Rewina is not Eritrean.
 Therefore, Rewina is Ethiopian.

As with hypothetical syllogism, such arguments are usually best taken as

deductive.

Instances of Inductive Argumentative 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. The
premises of such an argument typically deal with some subject that is
relatively familiar, and the conclusion then moves beyond this to a subject
that is less familiar or that little is known about. Such an argument may take
any of several forms: predictions about the future, arguments from analogy,
inductive generalizations, arguments from authority, arguments based on
signs, and causal inferences, to name just a few.

Prediction: in a prediction the premises deals with some known event in the
present or the past and the conclusions moves beyond this event to some
event to relative future. For example, one may argue that because certain
clouds develop in the center of the highland, a rain will fall within twenty-four
hours. Nearly everyone realizes that the future cannot be known with
certainty. Thus, whenever an argument makes a prediction about the future
one is usually justified considering the argument inductive.

An argument from analogy: It is an argument that depends on the

existence of an analogy or similarity between two things or state of affairs.
Because of the existence of this analogy a certain conditions that affects the
better- known thing or situations is concluded to affect the less familiar ,
lesser known-thing or situation. For instance, one may conclude, after
observing the similarity of some features of Computer A and car B: that both
are manufactured in 2012; that both are easy to access; that Computer A is
fast in processing; it follows that Computer B is also fast in processing. This
argument depends on the existence of a similarity or analogy between the
two cars. The certitude attending such an inference is obviously probabilistic
at best.
An inductive generalization: it is an argument that proceeds from the
knowledge of a selected sample to some claim about the whole group.
Because the members of the sample have a certain characteristics, it is
argued that all members of the group have the same characteristics. For
example, one may argue that because three out of four people in a single
prison are black, one may conclude that three-fourth of prison populations
are blacks. This example illustrate the use of statistics in inductive
argumentation.

An argument from authority: it is an argument in which the conclusions

rest upon a statement made by some presumed authority or witness. A
lawyer, for instance, may argue that the person is guilty because an
eyewitness testifies to that effect under oath. Or again one may argue that
all matters are made up of a small particles called “quarks” because the
University Professor said so. Because the professor and the eyewitness could
be either mistaken or lying, such arguments are essentially probabilistic.

Arguments based on sign: it is an argument that proceeds from the

knowledge of a certain sign to the knowledge of a thing or situation that the
sign symbolizes. For instance, one may infer that after observing ‘No Parking’
sign posted on the side of a road, the area is not allowed for parking. But
because the sign might be displaced or in error about the area or forgotten,
conclusion follows only probably.

A causal inference: it is an argument which proceed from the knowledge of

a cause to the knowledge of an effect, or conversely, from the knowledge of
an effect to knowledge of a cause. For example, from the knowledge that a
bottle of water had been accidentally left in the freezer overnight, someone
might conclude that it had frozen (cause to effect). Conversely, after tasting
a piece of chicken and finding it dry and tough, one might conclude that it
had been overcooked (effect to cause). Because specific instances of cause
and effect can never be known with absolute certainty, one may usually
interpret such an argument as inductive.

Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency

A Valid Argument is a deductive argument in which, if the premises are

assumed true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. In such
arguments, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises.

For example;
All birds are mammals.
A crocodile is a bird.
Therefore, the crocodile is a mammal.

An Invalid Argument is a deductive argument such that if the premises are

assumed true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false. In these arguments
the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity from the premises, even
though it claimed to.

The first is that, there is no middle ground between valid and invalid
argument. That means there are no arguments that are “almost” valid and
“almost” invalid. If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises, the argument is valid, if not, it is invalid.

The second consequence is that there is only an indirect relation between

validity and truth. For an argument to be valid, it is not necessary that either
the premises or the conclusion be true, but merely that if the premises are
assumed true, it is impossible that the conclusion be false.

Here is an example of valid argument having a false premise and false

conclusion:

All auto makers are computer manufacturers;

NOKIA is an auto maker.
Therefore, NOKIA is a computer manufacturer.

To see this argument is valid one must ignore the fact that the premises are
false and attempt to determine that would be true, if the premises were true.
Clearly, if the premises were true, it would follow necessarily that NOKIA is a
computer manufacturer. Thus, the argument is valid.

Just the occurrence of false premises and a false conclusion does not prevent
an argument from being valid, so the occurrence of true premises and a true
conclusion does not guarantee validity.

Here is an example of an invalid argument having true premises and a false

conclusion:

All banks are financial organizations.

Nyala Insurance Company is a financial organization.
Therefore, Nyala Insurance Company is a bank.

Note that the truth and falsity of premises and conclusion is irrelevant to the
question of validity except in the case of true premises and a false
conclusion. Any deductive argument having true premises and a false
conclusion is necessarily invalid. This is perhaps the most important fact in
all of deductive logic. The entire system of deductive logic would be quite
useless if it accepted as valid any inferential process by which a person could
start with truth in the premises and arrive at falsity in the conclusion.

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.

For example:
All trees are plants.
Acacia is a tree.
Therefore, acacia is a plant.

Unsound Argument is a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or

more false premises, or both. Because a valid argument is one such that, if
the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false and
because a sound argument does in fact have true premises, it follows that
every sound argument, by definition, will have true conclusion as well. A
sound argument therefore, is what is meant by a “good” deductive argument
in the fullest sense of the term.

A Strong Argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises are

assumed true, then based on the assumption it is probable that the
conclusion is true.

A weak Argument is an inductive argument such that if the premises are

assumed true, then based on that assumption it is not probable that the
conclusion is true.

→ Unlike validity and invalidity, strength and weakness generally admit of

degrees. The central question in determining strength or weakness is
whether the conclusion would probably be true if the premises are assumed
true. The following examples demonstrate that the first argument is not
absolutely weak nor the second absolutely strong. Both arguments would be
strengthened or weakened by the random selection of a larger or smaller
sample. The incorporation of additional premises into an inductive argument
will also generally tend to strengthen or weaken it.

Examples:
1) This mini-library contains over 10,000 books. 50 books selected at
random were found to be written on philosophy. Thus, it is likely that all
of the books in the minilibrary are books written on philosophy. (Weak
Inductive Argument)
2) This mini-library contains over 10,000 books. 1000 books selected at
random were found to be written on philosophy. Thus, it is likely that all
of the books in the minilibrary are books written on philosophy.
(Strong Inductive Argument)

LESSON 03: CRITICAL THINKING

At the end of this chapter, students will be able to:

 Define critical thinking.
 Understand the standards of critical thinking.
 Appreciate the principles of good argument and critical thinking.
 Understand the characteristics of critical thinking.
 Identify the barriers of critical thinking.
 Recognize the benefits of critical thinking.

BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

This chapter is about the power of disciplined thinking. It is about learning to
think for yourself and being your own person. In many high schools, the
emphasis of education tends to be on “lower-order thinking.” Students are
simply expected to passively absorb information and then repeat it back on
tests. In college and universities, by contrast, the emphasis is on fostering
“higher-order thinking”: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and
information. As Martin Luther King Jr rightly puts it as “The function of
education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically”. The
main goal of teaching Critical Thinking is therefore, to teach students how to
think; that is, how to become independent, self-directed thinkers and
learners. It is about the personal empowerment and enrichment that result
from learning to use your mind to its fullest potential. In short, it is about
critical thinking. In this chapter, we deal with the Meaning, Standards,
Principles, Characteristics, Barriers, and Benefits of critical thinking.

Meaning of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking can be defined as a wide range of cognitive skills and

intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate
arguments and truth claims. In this lesson, we will learn the meaning and
general picture of critical thinking.

Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation. In this

sense, critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. Moreover, it
helps to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to
formulate and present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to
make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.

Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most

useful, helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating claims for
scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly,
thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a
process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and
facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the aim of
critical thinking is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable
conclusions.

The American philosopher, John Dewey, has defined critical thinking as an

active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the grounds, which support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends. In this definition, there are three main points
that we should focus on: active, persistent and grounds.

While Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being
disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that
come within the range of one’s experience; (2) knowledge of the methods of
logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those methods.

The other most famous contributors to the development of the critical

thinking tradition is Robert Ennis. He defined critical thinking as reasonable,
reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

Richard Paul also defines as: Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about
any subject, content or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality
of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in
thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.

Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled and active

interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications,
information and argumentation. He argued that critical thinking is an
academic competency akin to reading and writing and is of similarly
fundamental importance.

It is worth unpacking Scriven’s definition a little. He defines critical thinking

as a ‘skilled’ activity for reasons similar to those mentioned above. He points
out that thinking does not count as critical merely because it is intended to
be, any more than thinking counts as scientific simply because it aims to be.
To be critical, thinking has to meet certain standards, (clarity, relevance,
reasonableness and so on), and one may be more or less skilled at this. He
defined critical thinking as an ‘active’ process, partly because it involves
questioning and partly because of the role played by meta-cognition.

Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘critic creative’ thinking. This

word is the combination of two words: critical and creative. There are two
related reasons for this. The first is that the term ‘critical thinking’ is
sometimes thought to sound rather negative, as though one’s only interest is
in adversely criticizing other people’s arguments and ideas. This would be a
serious mistake since (and this is the second reason) to be good at
evaluating arguments and ideas, one often has to be very imaginative and
creative about other possibilities, alternative considerations, different options
and so on. To be a good judge of issues, it is not enough to see faults in what
other people say. You need to base your judgment on the best arguments
you can devise in the time available; and this often requires you to think of
relevant considerations other than those presented, look at issues from
different points of view, imagine alternative scenarios and perhaps find other
relevant information – in short, you will need to be quite creative.

Standards of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual

standards. But, not every thinking is critical. To identify a critical thinking
from the uncritical, we refer to some standards. There is a consensus among
philosophers that for thinking to be critical, it has to meet certain standards.
Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking
should meet to be considered as normal and acceptable. Among the most
important of these intellectual standards are clarity, precision, accuracy,
relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and fairness. In
this lesson, we will discuss these standards.

1) Clarity

Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing

them in a language that is free of obscurity and vagueness. When we
construct argument, we should take into consideration or pay close
attention to clarity. Before we can effectively evaluate a person’s
argument or claim, we need to understand clearly what the person is
saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult because people often fail to
express themselves clearly. Sometimes lack of clarity is due to
laziness, carelessness, or a lack of skill. At other times, it results from a
misguided effort to appear clever, learned, or profound.Critical
thinkers, however, not only strive for clarity of language but also seek
maximum clarity of thought.

2) Precision

Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas

are vague and obscures though we think we have precise
understanding of them. When we try to meticulous these ideas, we will
find that they are imprecise. To get precise understanding, we should
pay close attention to details. Everyone recognizes the importance of
precision in specialized fields such as medicine, mathematics,
architecture, and engineering. Critical thinkers also understand the
importance of precise thinking in different contexts. They understand
that to cut through the confusions and uncertainties that surround
many everyday problems and issues.

3) Accuracy

Accuracy is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot

about genuine information. If the ideas and thoughts one processes are
not real, then once decision based on wrong and false information will
likely to result in distorting realities. John Rawls, in his book entitled as
‘A Theory of Justice’ argued that truth is the first virtue of systems of
thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or
revised if it is untrue.Whether an idea is attractive or sophisticated
should be abandoned if it is based on false information.
4) Relevance

The question of relevance is a question of connections. When there is a

discussion or debate, it should focus on relevant ideas and information.
That is, only those points that bear on the issue should be raised. A
favorite debaters’ trick is to try to distract an audience’s attention by
raising an irrelevant issue. Critical thinkers do not collect any
information; they focus and carefully choose only the information that
has logical relation with the ideas at hands. Issues raised should have
logical connection with the question at hand. Two ideas are relevant
when they have logical connection. A critical thinker should be relevant
in his ideas and thoughts.

5) Consistency

Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or

of having the same opinions or standards. It is easy to see why
consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic tells us that if a
person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be
false. Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout
for inconsistencies, both in their own thinking and in the arguments
and assertions of others. There are two kinds of inconsistency that
should be avoided. One is logical inconsistency, which involves saying
or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be
true) about a particular matter. The other is practical inconsistency,
which involves saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes people
are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in short
people sometime are hypocrites. From a critical thinking point of view,
such personality is not especially interesting. As a rule, they involve
failures of character to a greater degree than they do failures of critical
reasoning.

6) Logical Correctness

To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded

conclusions from the beliefs held. To think critically, we need accurate
and well supported beliefs. But, just as important, we need to be able
to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow from
them. Unfortunately, illogical thinking is all too common in human
affairs. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into
some order. When the combinations of thoughts are mutually
supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is logical.
When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in
some sense, or does not make sense the combination, is not logical.

7) Completeness
 In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to
shallow and superficial thinking. Of course, there are times when it is
impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth; no one would
expect, for example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the
ethics of the right to selfdetermination in a short newspaper editorial.
However, thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow,
thorough rather than superficial.

8) Fairness

Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open
minded, impartial, and free of distorting biases and preconceptions.
That can be very difficult to achieve. Even the most superficial
acquaintance with history and the social sciences tells us that people
are often strongly disposed to resist unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge
issues, to stereotype outsiders, and to identify truth with their own self-
interest or the interests of their nation or group. It is probably
unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could ever be completely free
of biases and preconceptions; to some extent, we all perceive reality in
ways that are powerfully shaped by our individual life experiences and
cultural backgrounds. But as difficult as it may be to achieve, basic
fairmindedness is clearly an essential attribute of a critical thinker.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers

A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical

thinking. There are some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits
and values that every critical person should manifest. In this section, we will
see some of the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers.

Critical thinkers:
 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know,
recognizing their limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with
complexity, and are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences,
deferring judgment whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise
judgments when new evidence reveals error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and
listen attentively, even when they tend to disagree with the other
person.
  Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are
seldom correct, so they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek
a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled
by them, and thinking before acting.

Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers

Uncritical thinkers:
 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and
assume their views are error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to
their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused
than make the effort to understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are
unconcerned about the amount or quality of evidence and cling to their
views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are
unwilling to pay attention to others' views. At the first sign of
disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support
their established views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

Barriers to Critical Thinking

There are many factors that impede critical thinking. Let us examine in detail
five of these impediments that play an especially powerful role in hindering
critical thinking: egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted assumptions,
relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking.

1) Egocentrism

One of the most powerful barriers to critical thinking is egocentrism.

Even highly educated and intelligent people are prey to egocentrism.
Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself.
Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests,
ideas, and values as superior to everyone else’s. All of us are affected
to some degree by egocentric biases. Egocentrism can manifest itself
in a variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-interested
thinking and the superiority bias.

2) Sociocentrism
 The second powerful barrier that paralyze the critical thinking ability of
most people including intellectuals is sociocentrism. It is group-
centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational thinking by
focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational
thinking by focusing excessively on the group. Sociocentrism can
distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most important are
group bias and conformism.

Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect,
peer group, and the like) as being inherently better than others. Social
scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely common throughout
human history and across cultures.

Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to

conform (often unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of
conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to be part of the in-group, can
be among the most powerful of human motivations. This desire can
seriously cripple our powers of critical reasoning and decision-making.

Authority moves us. We are impressed, influenced, and intimidated by

authority, so much so that, under the right conditions, we abandon our
own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own immediate
experience. As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of the seductive
power of peer pressure and reliance on authority and develop habits of
independent thinking to combat them.

3) Unwarranted

Assumptions and Stereotypes The third factor that impedes critical

thinking is unwarranted assumptions and stereotype. An assumption is
something we take for granted - something we believe to be true
without any proof or conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think
and do is based on assumptions. If the weather report calls for rain, we
take an umbrella because we assume that the meteorologist is not
lying, that the report is based on a scientific analysis of weather
patterns, that the instruments are accurate, and so forth. There may
be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser to
take the umbrella than to insist that the weather bureau provide
exhaustive evidence to justify its prediction.

4) Relativistic Thinking

One of the strongest challenges to critical thinking is relativistic

thinking. Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion. There
are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and cultural
relativism. Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual
 opinion. According to subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is
true, is true for that person, and there is no such thing as “objective” or
“absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what anyone
believes.

5) Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because

you had good evidence for it but simply because you wished it were
true. Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking? If so, you are not
alone. Throughout human history, reason has done battle with wishful
thinking and has usually come out the loser. People fear the unknown
and invent comforting myths to render the universe less hostile and
more predictable. They fear death and listen credulously to stories of
healing crystals, quack cures, and communication with the dead. They
fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal powers and accept
uncritically accounts of psychic prediction and levitation.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Being a critical person in general and critical thinking in particular has many
benefits. In this lesson, we will discuss some benefits of critical thinking.

Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions

Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions
and problems in the community. It will teach you to reformulate these
problems clearly and precisely. It will teach you how to gather and assess
relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing
them against relevant criterion and standards. It teaches you how to be open
minded to alternative system of thought, recognize and assess your own
assumptions, implications and practical consequences, how to communicate
effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical
thinking is what university is all about.

University is not only about teaching students with facts. It’s about teaching
students to think- think critically.

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

When they first enter university, students are sometimes surprised to

discover that university education seem less interested in how beliefs are
acquired than they are in whether those beliefs can withstand critical
scrutiny. The question is not much about what you know, but how you
acquire what you know and whether your ideas stands critical examination.
For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role in universities. In a critical
thinking chapter, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve
their classroom performance. These skills include:
 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others
 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and
beliefs

Critical Thinking in Life

Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom. Let us

look briefly at three ways in which this is the case. First, critical thinking can
help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. All of us have at one time or
another made decisions about what profession to choose, what relationships
to enter into, what personal behavior to develop, and the like that we later
realized were seriously misguided or irrational. Critical thinking can help us
avoid such mistakes by teaching us to think about important life decisions
more carefully, clearly, and logically.

Second, critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes.

In democracy, it is the people who have the ultimate say over who governs
and for what purposes. Citizens should vote, should evaluate different public
policies, and collectively determine their fate and et cetera. It is vital,
therefore, that citizens’ decisions be as informed and as rational as possible.
Many of today’s most serious societal problems - environmental destruction,
poverty, ethnic conflicts, decaying the morality of societies, high level of
corruption, violating basic human rights, displacement, to mention just a few
- have largely been caused by poor critical thinking.
Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the
personal enrichment it can bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of
the human condition is that most people, most of the time, believe what they
are told. Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without
question that the earth was the centre of the universe, that demons cause
disease that slavery was just, and that women are inferior to men. Critical
thinking, honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the
unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society.