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

Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice

M) and "is mortal" (here D): the sentence is given by the judgement A(M,D). In predicate logic, the sentence involves the same two nonlogical concepts, here analyzed as and , and the sentence is given by , involving the logical connectives **for** universal quantification and implication. • But equally, the modern view is more powerful. Medieval logicians recognized the problem of multiple generality, where Aristotelian logic is unable to satisfactorily render such sentences as "Some guys have all the luck", because both quantities "all" and "some" may be relevant in an inference, but the fixed scheme that Aristotle used allows only one to govern the inference. Just as linguists recognize recursive structure in natural languages, it appears that logic needs recursive structure. Deductive and inductive reasoning, and abductive inference Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (if a, then b). However, inductive reasoning—the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations—has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Similarly, it is important to distinguish deductive validity and inductive validity (called "cogency"). An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true but the conclusion false. An inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid; its premises give only some degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion. The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated **for** systems of **for**mal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less **for**mal than others; some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability. For the most part this discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic. Abduction is a **for**m of logical inference that goes from observation to a hypothesis that accounts **for** the reliable data (observation) and seeks to explain relevant evidence. The American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the term as "guessing". Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation from an observed surprising circumstance is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of course. Thus, to abduce from involves determining that is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary, **for** . Consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness Among the important properties that logical systems can have: • Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another. • Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof never allow a false inference from true premises. A logical system has the property of Page 25 of 45

soundness when the logical system has the property of validity and uses only premises that prove true (or, in the case of axioms, are true by definition). • Completeness, of a logical system, which means that if a **for**mula is true, it can be proven (if it is true, it is a theorem of the system). • Soundness, the term soundness has multiple separate meanings, which creates a bit of confusion throughout the literature. Most commonly, soundness refers to logical systems, which means that if some **for**mula can be proven in a system, then it is true in the relevant model/structure (if A is a theorem, it is true). This is the converse of completeness. A distinct, peripheral use of soundness refers to arguments, which means that the premises of a valid argument are true in the actual world. Some logical systems do not have all four properties. As an example, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that sufficiently complex **for**mal systems of arithmetic cannot be consistent and complete; however, first-order predicate logics not extended by specific axioms to be arithmetic **for**mal systems with equality can be complete and consistent. Rival conceptions of logic Main article: Definitions of logic Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation. Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general **for**ms of inference. For example, Thomas Hofweber writes in the Stan**for**d Encyclopedia of Philosophy that logic "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the **for**mal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations". By contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgement, an idea taken up in Gottlob Frege's logical and philosophical work. But Frege's work is ambiguous in the sense that it is both concerned with the "laws of thought" as well as with the "laws of truth", i.e. it both treats logic in the context of a theory of the mind, and treats logic as the study of abstract **for**mal structures. Page 26 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 24 and 25: Logic Logic (from the Ancient Greek
- 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