An argument based on analogy is an argument that says that something has a certain property, because an equal thing has the same property. For instance:
The analogues in the example above are Bill and Sam. The conclusion analogue (Sam) is attributed a certain characteristic (to love to fish), because the premise analogue (Bill) loves to fish.
Here are a few guidelines for evaluating arguments based on analogy.
When it is proven that an argument based on analogy is wrong, there is "the attack of an analogy". A weak analogy (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things.
You generalize from a sample when you attribute a certain trait to members of a certain population, because this is proven in a small(er) group that belongs to that population.
The most important principles for evaluating such arguments are:
The "sampling frame" is a definition of the population and the attribute. It helps us to determine whether an individual belongs to the population and whether they have the attribute. It is therefore a part of the population (or: a sample) that we were able to determine to study. However, we do not know for certain whether the values resulting from the sample are exactly the same in the population. Which party people vote for, for example, also depends on gender, age, religion and income. A sample represents a population if the variables linked to the attribute are present in the same proportion in the sample as in the population.
A sample is biased when the variable is not present in the sample in the same proportion as in the population.
The spread that is calculated differs from sample to sample, in other words: a random (or random) variation is created. This is also referred to as the error margin. The error margin can be calculated on the basis of (1) the sample size and (2) the confidence level. The confidence level shows the probability that the proportion found in a sample falls within the margin of error. A sample can be increased to reduce an error margin. In colloquial language we use informal terms to indicate the likelihood that a conclusion is true, for example by using terms such as "likely" and "it is almost certain that ...".
A random sample is therefore not completely free of biases, because the variables are still vulnerable to random variation.
If you want to reason from general to specific, it has the following form:
Example:
In the example you find above is an inductive syllogism (also called statistical syllogism). The power of an inductive syllogism depends on the general statement, namely "Most X’s are Y’s". If this is not correct, then the conclusions that result from this statement are not correct either. The more often most X’s and Y’s are (for example, the more often teachers appear to vote for the SP), the stronger the argument is that someone who is a teacher should be an SP voter.
A causal statement describes the cause of a certain event. A causal hypothesis is a statement describing that X causes another variable (Y). It is important that a certain causal pattern is not incorrectly described. Three principles apply:
In a randomized experiment, subjects are randomly assigned to one of the conditions: the experimental condition or the control condition.
Observational studies are not experiments. The researcher does not manipulate the allocation of people to a certain group. The groups are merely observed. A distinction is made here between a prospective (something that has yet to take place) and a retrospective (something that has already taken place is being investigated) design.
Calculating statistical opportunities
If we want to calculate the probability that two independent events occur together (X and Y), then we need to multiply the probability of X and the probability of Y with each other. Many people go wrong and add up the chances. However, if we want to calculate the probability that one of these two events occurs (X or Y), then we add the probabilities of X and Y together.
The estimated value is the result of how much you expect to win combined with the amount that you can win. If the estimated value is greater than 0, it makes sense to take the gamble.
b. Which parts does such an argument consist of?
Suppose: "If P then Q" = 1 and Q = 1 then P can be both 1 and 0. You can see this in the first and second to last line of the truth table. Verification therefore provides no certainty and is also referred to as the fallacy of the consequence (fallacy of the consequent). Verification is used in testing and accepting hypotheses, but according to the proposition logic therefore gives no certainty. The hypothesis is correct with regard to the observation, but can also be caused by something completely different.
With a physical causal explanation, a causal explanation is requested for an event in terms of the physical background. The physical background is about the general conditions in which an event has occurred. Examples of these general conditions are temperature or humidity. Often these conditions are not specifically highlighted because we already know them. When the conditions are not expected, it is often necessary to specifically highlight them. The physical background of an event is also about the direct cause of an event. However, in reality, multiple causes contribute to an event. Our interests and knowledge determine which link in a causal chain we identify as the cause of the event. Examples of questions that deal with physical causal explanations are: "How come my tape is empty?", "How come I have high blood pressure?", "Why are some species extinct?" “How does global warming come to be?'
b. Such an argument consists of two analogues: a premise analogue and a conclusion analogue.
1. What is critical thinking?For us humans, there is an importance in critical thinking because it aids us in making good decisions. Often we do not realise how irrational our decisions can be, and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking basically means thinking about our thinking. We make use of logic and reason to determine whether or not a claim is true, if the reasoning behind it is sound and if we can draw a correlation or connection. It is not necessarily about coming up with claim as much as evaluating the correctness of claims that have been made and try to form a proper conclusion.
To achieve this, we evaluate our thinking on the basis of rationality. When we understand how critical thinking works, we can use this knowledge to be critical in multiple subjects and situations in our daily lives. It is, however, important to understand that criticising other people’s claims and ideas does not mean that we want to attack other people, only that we are trying to find the logic in them. Also, criticising other people in not always a case of critical thinking. People can criticise in the most illogical and unreasonable ways, without considering whether or not their claims are true or their reasoning sound.
When we come to a conclusion at the end of a reasoning, we call that a belief. Beliefs are prepositional and can be either true or false. Beliefs can be compared to a judgement or an opinion. When a belief is stated in a declarative way, that is when we start calling it a claim or statement. Claims are things that we can think critically about.
Within critical thinking, there are three important parts: claims, issues and arguments. These parts can be analysed once they have been determined in conversation or writing.
Claims are things that we write or declare, to bring across information. With claims we often deal with statements, opinions or beliefs. Claims can be true or false and can be about pretty much everything and anything. Of some claims, it is pretty clear whether they are true or not; for instance take someone telling you they have flown to space and walked across Saturn. You can be pretty sure that this is a lie. However, of some claims it is harder to instantly determine their truthfulness and thus we
.....read more 2. What are two ways of reasoning?An argument is used to prove or support a statement. An argument always has two parts: a premise and a conclusion. If a statement does not consist of these two parts, it is not an argument. "God exists" is not an argument, and "God exists, and if you don't believe that then you will go to hell," neither. The latter is just a way to scare you, not an argument.
"Something has had to create the universe, so God exists" is an argument. The premise supports the conclusion that is being drawn. A premise is aimed at providing reasons for accepting that conclusion.
The same statement can be the conclusion of one argument and the premise of another argument. An example:
The statement "The car is no longer usable" is the conclusion that follows premise 1, but it also forms the premise for the conclusion that a new car must be purchased. Claim 1 is therefore, in addition to a conclusion, also a premise for Claim 2.
It often happens that arguments contain unspoken premises or conclusions. An example of an unspoken premise:
1. You cannot borrow books without a library card.
2. Jan cannot borrow books from the library.
The unspoken premise here is that Jan does not have a library card. This explains the reason he cannot borrow books from the library.
In addition, conclusions can also be unspoken. An example: "The political party that is most seen as the voice of the people will win the elections. The labour party will therefore win the elections. " The unspoken conclusion here is that the labour party is seen as the voice of most people.
Good arguments can be both deductive and inductive.
Words
.....read more 3. How do you write a proper text?Written documents are sometimes difficult to understand. This is often because vague language is used in the text. A term is called vague when it is not clear where the line is drawn in relation to the term. An example of such a term is "bald". There are people who do not have any hair at all, but also people who are half-bald because of hair loss, but they do still have some. In these cases, it’s not clear to what extent the term "bald" applies to them. Vague concepts often also appear in the judicial system. An example is that the word "torture" is not clearly defined in the law.
Sometimes politicians deliberately use vague terms just so they won’t have to answer difficult questions. The rule of thumb is that some degree of vagueness is acceptable, provided that it remains clear what the information or claim is about.
Ambiguity exists when a word or sentence has more than one meaning and can therefore be interpreted in different ways. Three types of ambiguity are distinguished: (1) semantic, (2) group related, and (3) syntactic ambiguity.
Semantic ambiguity occurs when a word or sentence is used that is accompanied by ambiguity. An example is: "Jessica is cold". Does this mean that she is feeling cold or that she has a cold personality? You can prevent this ambiguity by replacing the words or phrases in question with a clearer description.
Group-related ambiguity occurs when a word is used to talk about an entire group while it is not entirely true for all members of a group. An example: "Secretaries earn more than lawyers." This is true at group level, because there are more secretaries than lawyers in the world and thus, these secretaries earn more money. At the individual level, however, it is not correct. An average secretary does not earn more than a lawyer. There are two errors of thought based on this form of ambiguity.
4. When is something deemed credible?We can look at the credibility of a statement itself, but also at the credibility of the source from which a statement comes. It is important to know that credibility comes in gradations. Credibility is therefore not an all-or-nothing principle. Sources (often people) are not all equally credible. A person's credibility can also be reduced, for example when you hear that someone has a criminal record - or it can become larger because you hear that someone, for instance, has a master’s degree in neuropsychology.
In general, the following can be said about a claim; a statement can be considered as unbelievable when the content of the statement is in contrast with was we already know (background knowledge), or if the source of the statement has an interest in whether or not you believe the statement.
We therefore pay attention to these factors if we want to determine whether someone is credible. Unfortunately, we often base our judgment on characteristics that do not matter, such as age, gender, origin, accent, clothing and height. In fact, we should not base our judgment on someone's credibility on these factors. It is important to remember some rules of thumb when talking about credibility:
We distrust claims that do not match our observations. For example, if we have just seen Mr. X's red car and Mr. Y says that Mr. X has a blue car, then we don't think Mr. Y is very credible and thus in the future, we will not trust everything Mr. Y says either.
Our observations are influenced by all kinds of factors: fatigue, distraction, worries about another event and emotional problems. Our observations are also influenced by our personal interests and cognitive biases (discussed earlier in Chapter 1). There are also factors in the outside world that can influence our observations: the amount of light and the amount of sound around us as well
.....read more 5. How does persuasion work?Words can have a lot of persuasiveness ("rhetorical force / emotive meaning"). They can evoke images, feelings and emotions in us. Good and persuasive speakers apply a number of techniques that appeal to and convince us through rhetoric.
Rhetoric is about the research into convincing writing. For example, we can write a piece in a variety of ways, and we can either make sure that Hamas members portrayed as freedom fighters or we portray them as terrorists. There is of course nothing wrong with someone trying to convince others of something. However, it is important to think critically and therefore to distinguish between arguments and rhetoric. Rhetoric should not add anything to the credibility of a statement, because rhetoric is not about substantive arguments. In rhetoric, rhetorical devices are often used. These are methods of persuasion that are sometimes used through rhetoric.
Rhetoric methods can be divided into different groups of methods. The first group usually consists of a few words or short sentences that are either positive or negative. These are also called "slanters". Examples are euphemisms, dysphemism and weaselers. The second group of methods is dependent on unlawful assumptions. Examples are stereotypes, innuendo and loaded questions. The third group consists of methods that deal with humour. Group 4 consists of methods that use definitions, explanations and analogies. Examples are rhetorical analogies and rhetorical definitions.
A euphemism is used to express something as positive or neutral instead of negative. An example is that the owner of a store selling second-hand clothing is talking about "clothing with a history" instead of clothing that someone else has been walking around in many times. A dysphemism is the opposite of a euphemism. A dysphemism is therefore used to evoke a negative feeling in someone. "Freedom fighter" is a euphemism, while terms such as "rebel" and "terrorist" are dysphemisms.
A "weaseler" is a linguistic method with which you can cover up a problem or subject. For example, it is used by adding it to a statement and it ensures that the claim cannot be criticized.
An example is a commercial about chewing gum without sugar. The commercial claims that three out of four dentists from a study recommend to customers who use chewing
.....read more 6. How does relevance work?A thinking error is a reasoning error: an argument that does not support its content. With a relevance fallacy, the premise is not relevant to the conclusion or point in the question. The thinking errors discussed in this chapter are all relevance thinking errors. Such thinking errors are also called red herrings. This is because if you drag a herring around over the ground behind or around you, it becomes impossible for a dog to smell anything other than the herring, and therefore it loses track - just as one can lose track of their thoughts because of thinking errors.
The "ad hominem fallacy" (also called "argumentum ad hominem") is the most common relevance fallacy we make. We hereby assess a claim made by someone based on the source of the claim and not so much the claim itself. An example is that something a professor says must be true, since he or she has a lot of knowledge. A distinction is made between four types of "ad hominem" thinking errors.
7. Inductive reasoning IInductive errors of thought are intended to support the probability that their conclusions are true, but are in reality too weak to be able to do so. Chapter 11 will provide further information about inductive reasoning. However, this information is not necessary to be able to understand this chapter. This chapter is devoted to inductive thinking errors.
Two thinking errors often occur with inductive generalizations are: (1) generalizing too quickly ("hasty generalizing") and (2) incorrect generalizing ("biased generalizing"). Below is an overview of the thinking errors that are made in inductive generalizations:
The fallacy of "accident" is the reverse of the generalization of special cases. It happens when a speaker or writer assumes that a general statement automatically also applies to a specific case that is exceptional.
The fallacy of "weak analogy" (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things. Often these similarities are completely taken out of context in order to make the analogy. Example; "If you kill someone with a knife, it's murder, so if a surgeon kills someone on the operating table,
.....read more 8. What are the different types of thinking errors?The three formal errors of thinking that will be discussed are "confirmation of the consistent", "denial of the antecedent" and "the undivided middle."
In this chapter examples are given for two premises and one conclusion. An incorrect example is given below:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore P.
In this example, the first part of the premise after "if" is the antecedent of the claim (sentence 1). The part after "then" is the consequent (sentence 2). The example is the thinking error "confirmation of the consequent". A premise incorrectly confirms the consequent of the other. When P and Q are turned around in (2) and (3), the argument is valid.
Incorrect Example;
1. If a dog is pregnant, then it is a female. (If P, then Q)
2. The dog is a female. (Q)
3. So the dog is pregnant. (P)
A premise denies the antecedent of the other. An example of this is:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Non-P.
3. Therefore non-Q.
Example;
1. If something is a reptile then it is an animal.
2. A sheep is not a reptile.
3. So a sheep is not an animal.
This fallacy occurs when the speaker or writer assumes that two things that are related to a third thing are, in result, also related to each other. An example is:
All cats are mammals.
All dogs are mammals.
That's why all cats are dogs.
An example of such a scheme is:
1. X has characteristics a, b, c, etc.
2. Y has characteristics a, b, c, etc.
3. Therefore: X is Y.
This is an incorrect reasoning.
Ambiguous statements can produce a thinking error. This is the case, for example, with the equivocation thinking error. This is related to semantic ambiguity. With this fallacy, statements such as premises and / or conclusions are used that contain words or sentences that can be interpreted in more than one way, and thus a false interpretation of a premise is made.
The ambipholy error also uses semantic ambiguity. In this fallacy, statements such as premises and /
.....read more 9. What deductive arguments are there?There are two techniques for creating and evaluating deductive arguments. This chapter is mainly about categorical logic. This is logic based on the relationships of inclusion and exclusion between categories in categorical claims. Categorical logic is useful in clarifying and analysing deductive arguments. When we understand how this works, we can be more critical and precise with regard to propositions and arguments and avoid ambiguity.
A categorical claim says something about categories of objects. A standard-form categorical claim is a claim that arises when names or descriptions are added to categories. Here are four types of:
By "some" we mean "at least one."
The words that appear on the dotted lines above are called terms. The word that appears on the first dotted line in a claim is called the "subject term". The word that appears on the second dot line is called the "predicate term."
The words that serve as "subject term" and "predicate term" in a sentence are collectively also called classes. The above claims can also be processed and displayed in Venn diagrams. Such a Venn diagram is a graphical representation of all possible hypothetical logical relationships between a finite set of statements. Visually, this is a circle for each category, overlapping the moment they have a community. Thanks to the overlap between some statements, you can draw conclusions from the statements; proportions are visible.
The claim "some dogs bite" would therefore be represented by two overlapping circles - one circle for "dogs" and one circle for "bite". The overlap is therefore "dogs that bite". Because this claim concerns all dogs, but for some dogs you put a cross in the overlapping piece to indicate that at least one dog is biting.
The A and I claims are called affirmative claims because they include part of another class. The E and O claims are called negative claims because they exclude a part of one class from another.
It is important to be able to convert a claim into a standard-form categorical claim that means the same. We say that two claims are the
.....read more 10. What other deductive arguments are there?This chapter is about "truth-functional" logic (also called "propositional / sentential logic"). This specifically concerns the application of logic principles to assertions and analogies. Truth tables are often used in this context. These tables often contain two letters: P and Q. These are also called claim variables and are a symbolic representation of premises and conclusions.
A claim, P, is true (T) or false (F). This is indicated by noting the letter P, putting a line under it and then noting the letters T and F below each other. By noting it this way, the possible truth values for P are displayed. Sometimes numbers are used, where "true" = 1 and "false" = 0.
1. Negation (~): in this case the opposite (~ P) of the claim is processed in the table. An example of such a claim is "Jamie is not at home." In this case, P is "Jamie is at home" and ~ P that Jamie is not at home.
The truth table of the conjunction NOT (truth table for negation) shows that whatever value P may have, its denial (~ P) is always the opposite:
Truth table of the conjunction NOT:
P | ~P |
1 | 0 |
0 | 1 |
2. Conjunction (&): this is a claim that consists of two claims. These claims are called conjuncts. A conjunction is only true if the two claims that make up the general claim are true (so if P and Q are true). An example of a conjunction is; Jamie is home and Sophie is working. Jamie is P and Sophie is Q.
Truth table of the conjunction AND:
P | Q | P & Q |
1 | 1 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
11. Inductive reasoning IIAn argument based on analogy is an argument that says that something has a certain property, because an equal thing has the same property. For instance:
The analogues in the example above are Bill and Sam. The conclusion analogue (Sam) is attributed a certain characteristic (to love to fish), because the premise analogue (Bill) loves to fish.
Here are a few guidelines for evaluating arguments based on analogy.
When it is proven that an argument based on analogy is wrong, there is "the attack of an analogy". A weak analogy (also called false analogy) is a weak argument based on unimportant similarities between two or more things.
You generalize from a sample when you attribute a certain trait to members of a certain population, because this is proven in a small(er) group that belongs to that population.
The most important principles for evaluating such arguments are:
The "sampling frame" is a definition of the population and the attribute. It helps us to determine whether an individual belongs to the population and whether
.....read more 12. Moral, Lawful and Aesthetic reasoningA value judgment is a term for a statement in which a judgment emerges. A value judgment assesses the value or desirability of something or someone. An example is a teacher who says about a student who has committed fraud: "He deserves a 3 for that essay." The teacher does not describe the student but expresses an opinion about the student.
With moral reasoning an attempt is made to establish moral value judgments. Not every value judgment expresses a moral value judgment. When it is said: "our queen dresses nicely," it is a value judgment, but not moral. A moral value judgment often contains words such as "good", "wrong" and "bad". An example of a moral value judgment is: "It was the teacher's fault to withhold information."
Consequentialism is based on the principle that the consequences of a decision or action determine the moral value. If an action produces more happiness than the alternatives, then it is the right action to perform. This is then utilitarianism. In the case of utilitarianism, a trade-off is made between the different consequences of alternatives and then the choice that produces the most happiness. This perspective causes problems. When we consider whether or not to do something, we take into account various issues, such as the rights of others and our own duties. Another consequentialist theory is ethical selfishness. Here the starting point is that if an
.....read more Bullet point summary -Critical thinking 12th edition (EN)
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
JoHo kan jouw hulp goed gebruiken! Check hier de diverse studentenbanen die aansluiten bij je studie, je competenties verbeteren, je cv versterken en een bijdrage leveren aan een tolerantere wereld
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Field of study
Add new contribution