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

Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice

Logic Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike) is the use and study of valid reasoning. The study of logic features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India, China, Persia and Greece. In the West, logic was established as a **for**mal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric. Logic was further extended by Al-Farabi who categorized it into two separate groups (idea and proof). Later, Avicenna revived the study of logic and developed relationship between temporalis and the implication. In the East, logic was developed by Buddhists and Jains. Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning. The concept of logical **for**m is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical **for**m, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of **for**mal logics. • In**for**mal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of in**for**mal logic. The dialogues of Plato are good examples of in**for**mal logic. • Formal logic is the study of inference with purely **for**mal content. An inference possesses a purely **for**mal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known **for**mal study of logic. Modern **for**mal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely **for**mal content are the same. This does not render the notion of in**for**mal logic vacuous, because no **for**mal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language. • Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the **for**mal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches: propositional logic and predicate logic. • Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory. Logical **for**m Main article: Logical **for**m Page 23 of 45

Logic is generally considered **for**mal when it analyzes and represents the **for**m of any valid argument type. The **for**m of an argument is displayed by representing its sentences in the **for**mal grammar and symbolism of a logical language to make its content usable in **for**mal inference. If one considers the notion of **for**m too philosophically loaded, one could say that **for**malizing simply means translating English sentences into the language of logic. This is called showing the logical **for**m of the argument. It is necessary because indicative sentences of ordinary language show a considerable variety of **for**m and complexity that makes their use in inference impractical. It requires, first, ignoring those grammatical features irrelevant to logic (such as gender and declension, if the argument is in Latin), replacing conjunctions irrelevant to logic (such as "but") with logical conjunctions like "and" and replacing ambiguous, or alternative logical expressions ("any", "every", etc.) with expressions of a standard type (such as "all", or the universal quantifier ∀). Second, certain parts of the sentence must be replaced with schematic letters. Thus, **for** example, the expression "all As are Bs" shows the logical **for**m common to the sentences "all men are mortals", "all cats are carnivores", "all Greeks are philosophers", and so on. That the concept of **for**m is fundamental to logic was already recognized in ancient times. Aristotle uses variable letters to represent valid inferences in Prior Analytics, leading Jan Łukasiewicz to say that the introduction of variables was "one of Aristotle's greatest inventions". According to the followers of Aristotle (such as Ammonius), only the logical principles stated in schematic terms belong to logic, not those given in concrete terms. The concrete terms "man", "mortal", etc., are analogous to the substitution values of the schematic placeholders A, B, C, which were called the "matter" (Greek hyle) of the inference. The fundamental difference between modern **for**mal logic and traditional, or Aristotelian logic, lies in their differing analysis of the logical **for**m of the sentences they treat. • In the traditional view, the **for**m of the sentence consists of (1) a subject (e.g., "man") plus a sign of quantity ("all" or "some" or "no"); (2) the copula, which is of the **for**m "is" or "is not"; (3) a predicate (e.g., "mortal"). Thus: all men are mortal. The logical constants such as "all", "no" and so on, plus sentential connectives such as "and" and "or" were called "syncategorematic" terms (from the Greek kategorei – to predicate, and syn – together with). This is a fixed scheme, where each judgment has an identified quantity and copula, determining the logical **for**m of the sentence. • According to the modern view, the fundamental **for**m of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure. • The modern view is more complex, since a single judgement of Aristotle's system involves two or more logical connectives. For example, the sentence "All men are mortal" involves, in term logic, two non-logical terms "is a man" (here Page 24 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 16 and 17: Deductive reasoning, also deductive
- 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 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