- Text
- Reasoning,
- Logic,
- Facione,
- Intellectual,
- Deductive,
- Inductive,
- Thinkers,
- Experts,
- Inference,
- Premises

Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, in**for**mally, "topdown" logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive Reasoning then states that "Socrates" must be "mortal" because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a "man". Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottomup logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial in**for**mation. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a **for**m of deductive reasoning. An example of a deductive argument: 1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man. 3. There**for**e, Socrates is mortal. The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal". The second premise states that "Socrates" is classified as a "man" – a member of the set "men". The conclusion The law of detachment (also known as affirming the antecedent and Modus ponens) is the first **for**m of deductive reasoning. A single conditional statement is made, and a hypothesis (P) is stated. The conclusion (Q) is then deduced from the statement and the hypothesis. The most basic **for**m is listed below: 1. P → Q (conditional statement) 2. P (hypothesis stated) 3. Q (conclusion deduced) In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q from P by using the law of detachment. However, if the conclusion (Q) is given instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is no definitive conclusion. The following is an example of an argument using the law of detachment in the **for**m of an if-then statement: 1. If an angle satisfies 90° < A < 180°, then A is an obtuse angle. 2. A = 120°. 3. A is an obtuse angle. Since the measurement of angle A is greater than 90° and less than 180°, we can deduce that A is an obtuse angle. The law of Syllogism takes two conditional statements and **for**ms a conclusion by combining the hypothesis of Page 15 of 45

one statement with the conclusion of another. Here is the general **for**m: 1. P → Q 2. Q → R 3. There**for**e, P → R. The following is an example: 1. If Larry is sick, then he will be absent. 2. If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork. 3. There**for**e, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork. We deduced the final statement by combining the hypothesis of the first statement with the conclusion of the second statement. We also allow that this could be a false statement. This is an example of the Transitive Property in mathematics. The Transitive Property is sometimes phrased in this **for**m: 1. A = B. 2. B = C. 3. There**for**e A = C. The law of Contrapositive states that, in a conditional, if the conclusion is false, then the hypothesis must be false also. The general **for**m is the following: 1. P → Q. 2. ~Q. 3. There**for**e we can conclude ~P. The following are examples: 1. If it is raining, then there are clouds in the sky. 2. There are no clouds in the sky. 3. Thus, it is not raining. Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms of their Validity and Soundness. An argument is valid if it is impossible **for** its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. In other words, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. An argument can be valid even though the premises are false. An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. It is possible to have a deductive argument that is logically valid but is not sound. Fallacious arguments often take that **for**m. The following is an example of an argument that is valid, but not sound: 1. Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback. 2. John eats carrots. 3. There**for**e, John is a quarterback. The example's first premise is false – there are people who eat carrots and are not quarterbacks – but the conclusion must be true, so long as the premises are true (i.e. it is impossible **for** the premises to be true and the conclusion false). There**for**e the argument is valid, but not sound. Generalizations are often used to make invalid arguments, such as "everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback." Not everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback, thus proving the flaw of such arguments. In this example, the first statement uses categorical reasoning, saying that all carroteaters are definitely quarterbacks. This theory of deductive reasoning – also known as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic. Page 16 of 45

- Page 1: The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine C
- Page 4 and 5: Page 3 of 45
- Page 6 and 7: 10 [For] impure and immoral persons
- Page 8 and 9: Table of Contents ______ Biblical A
- Page 10 and 11: noun Critical Thinking 1. disciplin
- Page 12 and 13: world in whatever ways they can and
- Page 14 and 15: Fundamentals of Critical Thinking N
- Page 18 and 19: Deductive reasoning can be contrast
- Page 20 and 21: Inductive Reasoning Inductive reaso
- Page 22 and 23: The confirmation bias is based on t
- Page 24 and 25: Logic Logic (from the Ancient Greek
- Page 26 and 27: M) and "is mortal" (here D): the se
- Page 28 and 29: Page 27 of 45
- Page 30 and 31: Page 29 of 45
- Page 32 and 33: sciences. Although various theoreti
- Page 34 and 35: Page 33 of 45
- Page 36 and 37: Nondualism Main articles: Nondualis
- Page 38 and 39: socialized ownership of the means o
- Page 40 and 41: Page 39 of 45
- Page 42 and 43: Attachment A Critical Thinking: Wha
- Page 44 and 45: their own futures and become contri
- Page 46 and 47: Now, consider the example of the te
- Page 48 and 49: purpose of the passage? What about
- Page 50 and 51: The Delphi Research Method The pane
- Page 52 and 53: The Disposition Toward Critical Thi
- Page 54 and 55: A person disposed to be averse or h
- Page 56 and 57: The large majority, however, hold t
- Page 58 and 59: possibilities, formulate some thoug
- Page 60 and 61: happened to that person is therefor
- Page 62 and 63: “Insanity is doing the same thing
- Page 64 and 65: level technical and professional pr
- Page 66 and 67:
Imagine that because of war, or AID

- Page 68 and 69:
EXPERT CONSENSUS STATEMENT REGARDIN

- Page 70 and 71:
has contributed articles to The Chr

- Page 72 and 73:
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY The Miniature

- Page 74 and 75:
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY The Miniature

- Page 76 and 77:
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY The Miniature

- Page 78 and 79:
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY The Miniature

- Page 80 and 81:
Notes _____________________________

- Page 82:
Page 45 of 45