Critical Thinking

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Fundamentally, Critical Thinking or Informal Logic deals with the use of reason in the pursuit of truth. While there is serious doubt about the power of reason to discover any “new” truth, the “rules” of logic concern the ways truth can be preserved as we make inferences – one or more statements to support or justify another statement. Taken this way, there is no great “mystery” to the concepts of Logic. At the very core of logic is the idea that certain “patterns of inference” - i.e. models for combining statements that support with those which are supposedly supported _ will, if the supporting statements are true, guarantee the truth of the statement supported by them. In studying logic, we identify, study, and apply these patterns or principles of logical reasoning and express them in some general way - a way which is independent of the subject being reasoned about.

So, if we are interested in knowing the truth, then the answer is obvious: logical reasoning extends our grasp of the truth, from the information we have to what can be inferred from that information.

But why should we be interested in the truth? On the one hand, much of who we are, of the people we have become (and are yet to become) is due to our ideas and beliefs. And what we do and how we react to any situation is also determined by the background of beliefs and ideas we bring to it. Without getting too philosophical here, what sort of life would you consider more worthwhile-- one based on truth, or one based on lies and groundless illusions?

If we believed only what popped into our heads, perhaps we could count on its being true. [Could we? And what should we do when then the opposite idea pops into our head-- give up the earlier one, or keep 'em both?]. But often the source of our beliefs is other people - parents, pals, preachers, pundits, politicians, and others. Who we are, and how we spend our life’s energies, is based to a large extent on the what we picked up from others. But (in case you never noticed) they don’t all give us the same message-- so who are we to believe? Could a liar ever blunder onto the truth? Could a decent person ever make a mistake? Which statement is it more rational to accept-- one unsupported by any reasons, one supported by bad reasons, or one supported by good reasons?

If we are to be in control of our own beliefs, and to somehow gain an understanding of the truth, then we must know what good reasoning is, and be aware of the ways in which our reasoning (and that of others) can go astray.

pls your views on this bunch of text :slight_smile:

2

this is some heavy stuff Pra....will be back later with a decent reply after I've given it some thought

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
this is some heavy stuff Pra....will be back later with a decent reply after I've given it some thought
[/QUOTE]

Same here.
Logic is the most difficult branch of philosophy.

4

i think using logic we can only find out the truth as long as it is related to human thinking and actions. Because only then will we be assured that the things we are studying have been based on the logic through which we want to solve them. I wonder and doubt whether things in nature are based on the same logic we use. Partly they are, but i don't think everything will be. Moreover, I think there are branches of logic that haven't been explored yet. Aristotle started of with outlining the basic concepts of logic and for a long time that was thought to be it, but Godel and Russell added very new dimensions to it and opened up a whole new bunch of applications. And as far as I can recall not many major additions have been made yet. And this brings me back that till now we are only able to work within this framework: so everything we study about human actions will be within it. I doubt however if Nature is also bound to this framework, I'm inclined to think there is more to it than we know at the moment.

5

Re: Critical Thinking

what sort of life would you consider more worthwhile-- one based on truth, or one based on lies and groundless illusions? <<

If we say "necessity is the mother of Invention", doesn't it mean that reasoning is usually applied when there is need for it and not when we are happy and content with our illusions?

Call it a semi-logical world...we are willing to tackle stuff that we think we can improve on but are perfectly able to let others slide.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Muslim_Queen: *

Same here.
Logic is the most difficult branch of philosophy.
[/QUOTE]

It is interesting you point this out, because most often it is mathematicians who are experts in logic. This goes to show the fine, perhaps virtual, distinction between science and philosophy.