CRITICAL THINKING (LoCT 1011)

By – Friezer B.
 Introduction: What Philosophy Is
 Aristotle– “Man is a rational animal”.
 Humans do things for a reason. We want
certain things, and we believe that acting in
certain ways will get us those things.
 Humans also reflect on and criticize the
reasons we do things. Do we have good
reasons for our reasons? Why do we want
what we want? Why do we believe what we
believe?
 The capacity to reflect on one’s reason –
what makes us human.
 What is philosophy?
 What things are philosophical?
The conceptions of life and the world
which we call ‘philosophical’ are a
product of two factors:
i) inherited religious and ethical
conceptions
ii) the sort of investigation which may
be called ‘scientific’.
Philosophy, as Burtrand Russel
understood the word, is something
intermediate between theology and
science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on
matters as to which definite knowledge
has, so far, been unascertainable.
Like science, it appeals to human reason
rather than to authority.
All definite knowledge - belongs to science.
All dogma - as to what surpasses definite
knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is
a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from
both sides; this No Man’s Land is
philosophy.
Philosophy is concerned with - almost
all the questions of most interest to
speculative minds are such as science
cannot answer.
Is the world divided into mind and
matter?
if so, what is mind and what is matter?
Is mind subject to matter, or is it
possessed of independent powers?
Has the universe any unity or purpose?
Where did I come from?
 Why am I here? Why is anything here?
Why is there something and not just nothing? What
is time? space? Is there life after death? Does the
universe have a beginning or is it eternal?
Is there a God?
To such questions no answer can be
found in the laboratory.
Theologies have professed to give
answers, all too definite; but their very
definiteness causes modern minds to
view them with suspicion.
 The studying of these questions, if not the
answering of them, is the business of philosophy.
 Jaspers - the essence of philosophy is not the
possession of truth but the search for truth.
 Its questions are more essential than its
answers, and every answer becomes a new
question
 Science tells us what we can know, but what we
can know is little, and
 if we forget how much we cannot know we
become insensitive to many things of very great
importance.
 Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic
belief that we have knowledge where in fact we
have ignorance
 The term philosophy literally means – ‘love of
wisdom’.
 A wisdom- which results from the pursuit of
knowledge of the most important parts of reality.
 Philosophy is an activity people undertake when they
seek to understand fundamental truths about
themselves, the world in which they live, and their
relationships to the world and to each other.
 Philosophy- means thinking as hard and as clearly as
one can about some of the most interesting and
enduring problems that human minds have ever
encountered ( those questions that we discussed
earlier).
 What is ultimately real?
 What is the nature and limit of knowledge?
 What makes actions right or wrong?
 Philosophical reasoning is closely allied to scientific
reasoning – both look for an evidence and build
hypothesis – with the hope of coming closer to the Truth.
 Scientific experiments take place in laboratories, while
the laboratory of the philosopher is the domain of ideas
– the mind.
 The major areas of philosophy are :
 Metaphysics

(regarding the nature of the ultimate reality ),

 Epistemology

( regarding the nature of knowledge and justification ),

 Axiology

(regarding the nature of values–

good/bad/right/wrong/beauty)
 Logic

( regarding correct reasoning).

Metaphysics
 Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy
that studies the ultimate nature of
reality or existence.
 It deals 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.
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?
i) 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?
ii) 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?
iii) 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?
iv) 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?
Ancient Materialism (Pre-Socratics)
Thales (624–546 BCE, Miletus)—Reality is
ultimately water.
Anaximander (610–546 BCE, Miletus)—Reality
is indefinite/Unlimited “stuff” (apeiron).
Anaximenes (585–528 BCE; Miletus)—Reality
is essentially air.
Heraclitus (536–480 BCE; Ephesus)—Reality is
like fire.
Democritus (460–371 BCE; Abdera)—Reality
consists of tiny atoms
Plato – Reality “Forms”
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.
 It 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?
Epistemology covers two areas: the content
of thought and thought itself.
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?
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 term closely related to skepticism is
agnosticism.
Agnosticism is a profession of ignorance in
reference to the existence or nonexistence of
God.
Most people claim that reality can be known.
However, once they have taken that position,
they must decide through what sources
reality may be known, and must have
some concept of how to judge the validity of
their knowledge.
Second issue foundational to epistemology is
whether all truth is relative, or whether
some truths are absolute. Is all truth
subject to change?
Absolute Truth, such Truth is eternally and
universally true irrespective of time or place.
A major aspect of epistemology relates to the
sources of human knowledge.
Empiricism - knowledge obtained through
the senses.
Empirical knowledge appears to be built into
the very nature of human experience.
Sensory knowing for humans is immediate
and universal, and in many ways forms the
basis of much of human knowledge.
The existence of sensory data cannot be
denied. Most people accept it uncritically as
representing ―reality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 Itdiffers from all other sources of knowledge
because it presupposes a transcendent
supernatural reality that breaks into the
natural order.
 Christians believe that such revelation is God‘s
communication concerning the divine will.
 The truth revealed through this source is
believed by Christians to be absolute and
uncontaminated.
 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.
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.
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 :
 What is good/bad?
 What is right/wrong?
 Is it the Right Principle or the Good End that makes human
action/conduct moral?
 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?
 If God is Benevolent, why He creates evil things? If God does not
create evil things, then, there must be another creator.
 Ethics, or ethical studies, can be grouped into three broad
categories: Normative ethics, Meta-ethics, and Applied Ethics.
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.
Consequentialism or Teleological Ethics,
Deontological Ethics , and Virtue Ethics
are the major examples of normative
ethical studies
 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.
 The meanings of such ethical terms as good or bad
and right or wrong.
 Moral Intuitionism, Moral Emotivism, Moral
Prescriptivism, Moral Nihilism, and Ethical Relativism
are the main examples.
 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.
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.
What is art?
What is beauty?
What is the relation between art and beauty?
What is the connection between art, beauty,
and truth?
Social/Political Philosophy
Social/PoliticalPhilosophy studies about of
the value judgments operating in a civil
society, be it social or political.
The following questions are some of the
major Social/Political Philosophy primarily
deal with:
 What form of government is best?
 What economic system is best?
 What is justice/injustice?
 What makes an action/judgment just/unjust?
 What is society?
 Does society exist? If it does, how does it
 Logic

Philosophy is very much about asking

questions.
Does God exist? What can we know? Is
mind distinct from the body? How do
we know what is right and what is
wrong?
Because not everyone agrees on the
correct answer to these questions.
Hence, it is extremely important to give
reasons why we think one answer is
better than another.

It is the study of propositions and their
use in argumentation.
It is concerned with reasoning, and
especially the distinction between good
reasoning and bad reasoning.
It is the theory of reasoning.
It is the science dealing with the
principles of valid reasoning and
argument.
Logic is fundamentally about
arguments
As we have said earlier, philosophy is a rational
activity.
 “Why do we always have to follow the best reason?
Why don’t philosophers respect leaps of faith?”
The initial response-
‘ Do you want a rational answer or not?’
Even the appropriateness of reason has to be
addressed by reason.
Thus, the need for the study of logic bases itself on
the ground of the basic necessity of human nature.
 Chapter One
Basic Concepts: Argument, Premise and Conclusion

 Logic - may be defined as the organized body

of knowledge, or science, that evaluates
arguments.
 The aim of logic is to develop a system of
methods and principles:
- as criteria for evaluating the arguments of
others.
- as guides in constructing arguments of
our own.
 The study of logic - increases our confidence
that we are making sense when we criticize the
arguments
 An argument, in its most basic form, is a
group of statements, one or more of which
(the premises) are claimed to provide
support for, or reasons to believe, one of
the others (the conclusion).
 All arguments may be placed in one of two
basic groups:
 Those in which the premises really do support the
conclusion (Good arguments) and
 Those in which they do not, even though they are
claimed to (Bad arguments).
The purpose of logic - is thus to develop
methods and techniques that allow us to
distinguish good arguments from bad.
 First of all, an argument is a group of
statements.
 A statement is a sentence that is either true or
false—in other words, typically a declarative
sentence.
E.g. Political candidates always tell the complete truth.
Ethiopia is located in East Africa.
Abubaker is a runner and Kenenisa is a football
player.
 Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth
values of a statement.
 Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or
false. Questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and
exclamations.
The statements that make up an argument
are divided into two:
 One or more premises and one and only
one conclusion.
The premises are the statements that set
forth the reasons or evidence, and
The conclusion is the statement that the
evidence is claimed to support or imply (the
statement that is claimed to follow from the premises).
E.g. All philosophers are critical thinkers.

Socrates is a philosopher.
Therefore, Socrates is a critical thinker.
The first two statements are the
premises; the third is the conclusion.
The premises really do support the conclusion,
and so the argument is a good one.
E.g. Some philosophers are atheists.
Russell is a philosopher.
Therefore, Russell is an atheist.
In this argument the premises do not support the
conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and
so the argument is not a good one.
One of the most important tasks in the
analysis of arguments is being able to
distinguish premises from
conclusions.
i) Through Indicator words:
Conclusion Indicators Premise Indicators
 Whenever a statement follows one of these
indicators, it can usually be identified as the
conclusion/ Premise.
E.g. Tortured prisoners will say anything just to
relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not a
reliable method of interrogation.
E.g. Given that every art and every inquiry, and
similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to
aim at some good; the good has rightly been
declared to be that at which all things aim
E.g. Expectant mothers should never use recreational
drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.
 This method only works only when the arguer
makes an explicit claim
 Contd.
 Sometimes an argument contains no indicators: When this
occurs (when the arguer implicitly claims);
 If so ask the following questions
- What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from
the others?
-What is the arguer trying to prove?
-What is the main point in the passage?
The answer will lead us---- to the conclusion.
 The space program deserves increased expenditures in the
years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend upon
it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of
technological spinoffs. Furthermore, at current funding levels
the program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential.
 1.2 . Recognizing Arguments
Not all passages contain arguments.
Logic deals with arguments. Thus, we need to
identify argumentative passages.
In general, a passage contains an argument if it
purports to prove something; if it does not do so,
it does not contain an argument.
 Two conditions must be fulfilled:
1. At least one of the statements must claim to
present evidence or reasons.
2. There must be a claim that the alleged evidence
or reasons supports or implies something
 Contd.
The first condition expresses a factual claim-
the claim that evidences are provided.
This second condition expresses what is called
an inferential claim- the claim that the
evidences support something (a certain kind of
reasoning process):
Such a claim can be either explicit or implicit.
An explicit inferential claim is usually asserted
by premise or conclusion indicator words – the
terms indicate that something is being inferred.
 Contd.
 An implicit inferential claim exists if there is an inferential
relationship - but the passage contains no indicator words.
 In deciding whether there is a claim that evidence supports or
implies something, keep an eye out for
(1) indicator words
 The mere occurrence of an indicator word by no means
guarantees the presence of an argument.
E.g. Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been
many technological developments.
E.g. Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit
for a major technological development.
In the first passage the word “since” is used in a
temporal sense, while in the second passage “since” is
used in a logical sense.
 Contd.
(2) the presence of an inferential relationship
- However, it is difficult.
(3) Typical forms of non-arguments.
 Let us now investigate some typical kinds of
non-arguments:
a) Simple Non-inferential Passages
- are unproblematic passages that lack a claim that
anything is being proved.
- Such passages contain statements that could be
premises or conclusions (or both),
 Contd.
Passages of this sort include warnings, pieces of
advice, statements of belief or opinion, loosely
associated statements, and reports.
 A warning is a form of expression that is
intended to put someone on guard against
a dangerous or detrimental situation.
- Watch out that you don’t slip on the ice.
 A piece of advice is a form of expression that makes
a recommendation about some future decision or
course of conduct.
- You should keep a few things in mind before
buying a used car.
 Contd.
 A statement of belief or opinion is an
expression about what someone happens to
believe or think about something.
- I believe our company will announce an
adjustment of salary in the coming few weeks.
 Loosely associated statements may be about the
same general subject, but they lack a claim that
one of them is proved by the others.
 A report consists of a group of statements that
convey information about some topic or event.
 Contd.

b) Expository Passages: is a kind of discourse that begins with a

topic sentence followed by one or more sentences that develop the
topic sentence.
- The objective only to expand it or elaborate it, then there is no
argument.
* There are three familiar states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. .
Solid objects ordinarily maintain their shape and volume regardless of
their location. A liquid occupies a definite volume, but assumes the
shape of the occupied portion of its container. A gas maintains neither
shape nor volume. It expands to fill completely whatever container it is
in.
c) Illustrations: a statement about a certain subject combined with a
reference to one or more specific instances.
* Chemical elements, as well as compounds, can be represented
by molecular formulas. Thus, oxygen is represented by
“O2,”water by “H2O,” and sodium chloride by “NaCl.”
 Contd.

 Illustrations are often confused with arguments -

Such arguments are often called arguments from
example.
d) Explanations: is a group of statements that
purports to shed light on some event or phenomenon.
The event or phenomenon in question is usually
accepted as a matter of fact.
* The sky appears blue from the earth’s surface because
light rays from the sun are scattered by particles in the
atmosphere.
 Every explanation is composed of two distinct
components: the explanandum and explanans.
 Contd.
The explanandum is the statement that describes the event
or phenomenon to be explained.
The explanans is the statement or group of statements that
purports to do the explaining.
 Explanations are sometimes mistaken for arguments
because they often contain the indicator word “because.”
e) Conditional Statements: is an “if . . . then . . .” statement.
- Every conditional statement is made up of two
component statements.
Antecedent: a statement which comes after “if”
Consequent:: a statement which comes after “then”
A single cond. Stat. is not an argument, but can serve as a PS
or Con.
 Cond.
The relation between conditional statements and
arguments may now be summarized as follows:
1. A single conditional statement is not an
argument.
2.A conditional statement may serve as either the
premise or the conclusion (or both) of an
argument.
3. The inferential content of a conditional statement
may be re-expressed to form an argument.
 Conditional statements are especially important in
logic because they express the relationship
between necessary and sufficient conditions.
 Contd.
A is said to be a sufficient condition for B
whenever the occurrence of A is all that is
needed for the occurrence of B.
B is said to be a necessary condition for A
whenever A cannot occur without the occurrence
of B.
E.g. A – Being a Dog.
B - Being an Animal.
 Being an animal is a necessary condition for
being a Dog, while being a Dog is a sufficient
condition for being an animal.
 1.3. Deduction and Induction
• Arguments can be divided into two groups: deductive
and inductive.
Deductive argument is an argument in which the arguer
claims that it is impossible for the conclusion
to be false given that the premises are true.
- the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily
from the premises (necessary reasoning).
Inductive argument is an argument in which the arguer
claims that it is improbable that the
conclusion be false given that the premises are
true.
- the conclusion is claimed to follow only
probably from the premises(probabilistic
reasoning).
 Contd.
E.g. Humans are closely related to chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees are instinctual.
Therefore, probably humans are instinctual.
E.g. All humans are rational beings.
Kant is a human.
Therefore, necessarily Kant is a rational being.
 The first arguments is inductive, while the
second is deductive.
The major distinction between inductive and
deductive arguments rests on the strength of an
argument’s inferential claim ( Reasoning Process).
 Contd.
 The distinction lies in how strongly the
conclusion is claimed to follow from the
premises.
 Three criteria in identifying whether a certain
argument is deductive or inductive:
(1)The occurrence of special indicator words.
(2)the actual strength of the inferential link
between premises and conclusion.
(3)The form or style of argumentation the arguer
uses.
TIP: the content of the conclusion
 Contd.

1. The occurrence of special indicator words

• Inductive indicators are “probable”
“improbable,” “plausible,” “implausible,” “likely,”
“unlikely,” and “reasonable to conclude.”
• Deductive indicators are “necessarily,” “certainly,”
“absolutely,” and “definitely.”
2. The actual strength of the inferential link
between premises and conclusion.
• If the conclusion necessarily from the premises,
the argument is clearly deductive.
• If the conclusion follows probably from the
premises, then it inductive.
 Contd.

• E.g. All entertainers are extroverts.

David Letterman is an entertainer.
Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.
Deductive - the conclusion follows with Necessarily
from the premises.
• E.g. The vast majority of entertainers are extroverts.
David Letterman is an entertainer.
Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.
Inductive – the conclusion follows Probably from
the premises.
 Cont.
3. The character or form of argumentation the arguer
uses.
Deductive Argument Forms
Many arguments have a distinctive character or form. Here
are some of deductive forms:
i) Argument based on Mathematics: the conclusion
depends on some purely arithmetic or geometric
computation or measurement.
E.g. Rahel earns twice as much as Tsion’s salary. Tsion’s
salary is 2000. Therefore, Rahel’s earns 4000 birr.
ii) An argument from Definition: the conclusion is claimed
to depend merely upon the definition of some word or phrase
used in the premise or conclusion.
E.g. Claudia is mendacious. It follows that she tells lies.
 Contd.

iii) A syllogism, in general, is an argument consisting of exactly

two premises and one conclusion.
a) A Categorical Syllogism is a syllogism in which each
statement begins with one of the words “all,” “no,” or
“some.”
E.g. All Ethiopians are Africans.
All Africans are black people.
Therefore, all Ethiopian are black people.
b) A Hypothetical syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional
statement for one or both of its premises.
E.g. If you study hard, then you will pass the exam.
You have studied hard.
Thus, you will pass the exam.
c) A Disjunctive syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive
statement (i.e., an “either. . . or . . .” statement) for one of its
premises.
 Contd.
Inductive Argument Forms
• In general, inductive arguments are such that the
content of the conclusion is in some way intended
to “go beyond” the content of the premises. Here
are few forms of inductive argument.
A prediction is an argument that proceeds from
our knowledge of the past to a claim
about the future.
An argument from analogy is an argument that
depends on the existence of an
analogy, or similarity, between two
things or states of affairs.
 Contd.

Inductive Generalization is an argument that proceeds from

the knowledge of a selected sample to some claim
about the whole group.
An argument from authority is an argument that concludes
something is true because a presumed expert or
witness has said that it is.
An argument based on signs is an argument that proceeds
from the knowledge of a sign to a claim about the
thing or situation that the sign symbolizes.
A causal inference is an argument that proceeds from
knowledge of a cause to a claim about an effect, or,
conversely, from knowledge of an effect to a claim
about a cause.
It should be noted that the various subspecies of inductive
arguments listed here are not intended to be mutually exclusive.
 Contd.
• Overlaps can and do occur.
• Arguments that occur in science can be either inductive
or deductive, depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional way-
Inductive: from particular to general. But this is wrong!!
Deductive: from general to particular.
A particular statement is one that makes a claim about
one or more particular members of a class.
• A general statement makes a claim about all the
members of a class.
1.4. Evaluating Arguments:
Validity, Strength, Soundness and Cogency
Every argument makes two basic claims:
1. A claim that evidence or reasons exist = Factual Claim
2. A claim that the alleged evidence or reasons support
something = Inferential Claim
The evaluation of every argument centers on the
evaluation of these two claims.
The more important of the two is the inferential claim,
because if the premises fail to support the conclusion (that
is, if the reasoning is bad), an argument is worthless.
Thus we will always test the inferential claim first, then
the factual claim.
 1.4.1. Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Validity and
Soundness
a) Evaluation of Inferential claim: based on the evaluation of
the inferential claim, a deductive argument can either be Valid
or Invalid.
 Valid Deductive Argument is an argument in which it is
impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the
premises are true.
 the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises.
 E.g. All television networks are media companies.
NBC is a television network.
Therefore, NBC is a media company.
Invalid Deductive Argument is a deductive argument in
which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given
that the premises are true.
 the conclusion does not follow with strict necessity
from the premises,
E.g. All Ethiopians are black people.
All Africans are black people.
Therefore, all Ethiopians are Africans.
There is no middle ground between valid and invalid.
If the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the
premises, the argument is valid; if not, it is invalid.
Validity is something that is determined by the
relationship between premises and conclusion.
 Contd.

Truth and falsity of the premises and

the conclusion doesn’t determine
validity, rather how necessarily the
conclusion follows the premises .
Please refer page 43 of your text

Premise
True Concln. Valid/Invalid
True Validity
True False Invalid
False True Valid/Invalid
False False
Valid/Invalid

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

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

Valid

Sound

Unsound

Invalid
1.4.1. Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Strength and Cogency

a) Evaluation of Inferential claim: based on the

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

False True Strong/Weak

False False Strong/Weak

b) Evaluating Factual Claim: based on the

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

Strong

Cogent

Uncogent

Weak

End of Chapter
------

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

• Words that are not terms include verbs, non-

substantive adjectives, adverbs, prepositions,
conjunctions, and all non-syntactic arrangements
of words.
The previous section of this chapter explored the
cognitive meaning of language in general.
The cognitive meaning of terms comprises two
kinds: intensional and extensional.
The intensional meaning consists of the qualities
or attributes that the term connotes.
the extensional meaning consists of the members
of the class that the term denotes.
The intensional meaning of a term is otherwise
known as the intension, or connotation,
and the extensional meaning is known as the
extension, or denotation.
“Intension” and “extension” are
roughly equivalent to the more modern
terms “sense” and “reference,”
 Concerning connotation, philosophers/ logicians take two
positions: objective and subjective.
 Dog lover and Dog hater…To avoid this problem, we restrict the
meaning of connotation to what is usually called the conventional
connotation.
 The conventional connotation … the attributes that the term
commonly calls forth in the minds of competent speakers of the
language.
 The connotation of a term remains more or less the same from
person to person and from time to time.
 The denotation of a term also typically remains the same from
person to person, but it may change with the passage of time.
E.g. Currently living Dinosaurs”---Non existent, thus Empty
Extension.
 They are said to denote the empty (or “null”) class, the class that
 The fact that some terms have empty extension leads us to an
important connection between extension and intension—namely,
that intension determines extension.
 Terms may be put in the order of increasing intension, increasing
extension, decreasing intension, and decreasing extension.
 A series of terms is in the order of:
 Increasing Intension-when each term in the series (except the
first) connotes more attributes than the one preceding it.
E.g. Animal, Wild Animal, Carnivore, Lion
 Decreasing intension is the reverse of that of increasing
intension.
E.g. Lion, Carnivore, Wild Animal, Animal
Increasing extension when each term in the
series (except the first) denotes a class having
more members than the class denoted by the term
preceding it.
E.g. Lion, Carnivore, Wild Animal, Animal
Decreasing Extension – is the reverse of
increasing extension.
E.g. Animal, Wild Animal, Carnivore, Lion
 Definitions and Their Purposes

There are various conflicting views about the purpose

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

Subclass Yes Yes No Unusual Unusual

Synonymous No Yes No No No

Etymological Yes Yes No No No

Operational Limited Yes Yes Unusual Unusual

Genus & Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

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

-----End of Chapter
two ------
Chapter Three: Informal
Fallacies
Chapter Three:
Informal Fallacies