OBJECTIVES

This course has to do with thinking about thinking. It is an examination of thinking in order to

understand and appreciate the extent to which how we think and what we value impact on who

we become, what we believe, and what we do. Evaluation and generation of ideas will feature

significantly as we reflect on our identity, how we should live, and how we relate to others. The

course will attempt to enable learners to:

Know themselves and take charge of their thinking;

Evaluate whatever comes their way and generate new ideas;

Support knowledge claims with reasons and evidence;

Understand and use tools of evaluation which include: clarity, accuracy, precision,

relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and logicalness;

Understand and use tolls of analysis which include: purpose, point of view, problem,

information, concepts, assumptions, implications, and inferences;

Understand and cultivate tools of transformation which include: fair-mindedness,

humility, empathy, integrity, courage, autonomy, perseverance, and confidence in reason;

Understand and use argumentation;

Think through content in varied disciplines and contexts and make good judgments.
PART ONE: THEORY

LECTURE 1: PHILOSOPHY

In this lesson I am going to introduce you to philosophy by inviting you to think - to wonder, to

reason, to question, to figure out, to speculate, and even to doubt - while seeking to understand

our universe and yourself as part of it. There is no universally accepted definition of philosophy.

This is partly because philosophy does not have any content that students can merely read,

memorize, accept and believe. Instead, as Christian (1973) observes, philosophy is a "do-it-

yourself enterprise". It is a way of doing things - a way of thinking that is systematic, disciplined

skillful, responsible and flexible. The best way to understand what philosophy is, therefore, is to

participate in it. However, for the sake of giving you at least some idea of the subject, let us try to

define and characterize it.

2.2 Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

Define philosophy

Debate the extent to which philosophy is beneficial to society

Formulate and discuss philosophical questions.

2.3.1.0 Defining Philosophy

The term "philosophy" has various senses and uses. Wambari (1992) distinguishes the following:

ideological, stoical and technical or professional usage.

2.3.1.1 Ideological usage

This is the sense in which we talk about "philosophy of life." Philosophy, in this sense, is an

attitude or approach to life, a guide to action or a set of beliefs concerning morality, politics or

life in general. Ideological philosophies are helpful in religion, business and politics in terms of

mobilizing people psychologically towards some desired goal. This is a narrow conceptualization

of philosophy. Properly understood, philosophy involves criticizing and evaluating such

ideologies in order to determine their meaning, underlying assumptions, implications,

justification and value.

2.3.1.2 Stoical usage

Stoicism was a philosophical school of thought which had its origin in Athens in the third

century B.C. stoicism taught the following:

- The universe is orderly due to the operation of a universal force they called God.

- God was understood as a material but invisible substance permeating all things and all beings.

- God determines the laws of nature and the orderliness of the universe is natural and rational.

- Everything that occurs is inevitable and is governed by reason.

- Human nature and human life is governed by inviolable universal force or law. Everything

humans do or experience is inevitable.

- God assigns to all beings their particular place and role in the universe. Life is therefore, a

package.

- A wise person recognizes his/her role and accepts it.

Stoicism taught people to adjust their thought to reality as it is and accept it in order to save

themselves the agony of trying to change what cannot be changed.

The stoical sense of philosophy reflects the teaching of stoicism. When one is claimed to be

philosophical, it is meant that one is realistic and sensibly calm under trying circumstances.

2.3.1.3 The technical or professional usage

This is a special sense that transcends the popular usages described above. It implies a way of

thinking that involves examining, questioning and doubting much of what we normally take for

granted. It is in this sense that the term "philosophy" itself was coined by the Greek thinker

Pythagoras. The word itself means "love of wisdom". Wisdom is neither inheritable nor instantly

available. It is earned through diligent and disciplined mental activity. One has to set the mind in

motion toward examining concepts, relating ideas, developing new concepts and seeing through

and beyond mere words and facts. This is the sense in which we shall understand philosophy as

"a reflective and reasoned attempt to infer the character and the content of the universe, taken in

its entirety and as a single whole, from an observation and study of the data presented by all its

aspects". (Fuller, 1955, 1).

Distinctive Characteristics of Philosophy

Philosophy, in the technical and professional sense, is an intellectual activity characterized by

among others, the following:

1 Inquiry based on philosophical questions.

Philosophers ask and attempt to answer difficult but important questions about the universe and

their experience within it. Such questions include: what makes actions right or wrong? How can

we know that we know? What is real? Is reality one or many? What is beauty? Are truth and

beauty related? Lavine (1984) Calls these questions stubborn, indestructible questions the kind of

which "time will not banish them or get rid of them for you. To be a human being is to ask these

questions. " (Ibid, 5) Philosophical inquiry is based on such questions. It also generates them.

2 Analysis

This is the process by which complex concepts are broken down into their component parts for

the sake of clarification and simplification analyzed concepts are easier to examine, relate and

understand.

3 Criticism

This is careful examination of issues, arguments, points of view and claims in order to determine

their foundations, assumptions, meaning and implications. It is an assessment of the strengths as

well as weaknesses of an argument or a position taken in a given issue. This assessment is based

on reasons and evidence and is, therefore, impartial and rational. Criticism, in philosophy, is not
merely looking for faults. It is impartial scrutiny geared toward the pursuit of truth and

understanding.

4 Discussion

Open minded discussion is central in philosophy. Dialogue enables people to freely express their

opinions and beliefs as well as attempt to justify them. Through discussion, ideas are subjected to

criticism and review. New ideas are generated and subjected to further discussion. In such

discussions, persons address issues instead of attacking persons.

5 Evaluation

This is the process of ascertaining the worth or worthlessness of ideas or arguments on the basis

of clear and reasonable criteria. It involves the making of judgements regarding ideas.

6 Synthesis

This is reconstruction of ideas concepts and arguments in order to develop better and well

justified ones. Such synthesis is based on reasoned thought.

NOTE:

There is no universal definition of philosophy; neither is there a complete list of its

characteristics. What we have arrived at so far is a working definition of philosophy and a

working list of distinctive characteristics of philosophy.

Questions:
1. Why is it difficult to define philosophy?

2. How are philosophical questions different from other questions?

Activities:

Discuss with your friends how the characteristics of philosophy (taken together) make

philosophy distinct from other disciplines.

Identify expressions used in your surrounding that can be categorized as:

philosophy in the ideological sense

philosophy in the stoical sense

Find out more about stoicism. What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Areas in Professional Philosophy

There are four main areas of study in professional or technical philosophy namely: metaphysics,

epistemology, axiology and logic. In addition, there is applied philosophy or called "philosophy

of - "category as explained below.

1 Metaphysics: This is also called the study or theory of reality. It is reasoned thought about

reality. The main question of metaphysics is: what is reality? Other related questions include: Is

reality one or many? How is reality accessible if at all?

2 Epistemology: This is also called the theory of knowledge. It is reasoned thought about

knowledge. The main question of epistemology is: what is knowledge? Other related questions

include: How is knowledge attained if at all? How do we know that we know?

3 Axiology: This is also called the theory of value. Th main question raised is: What is value as

such. This question is indifferent to any specific sort of values. They may be economic, cultural,
political or moral values. However, greater focus has historically been given to moral and

aesthetic values leading to focus on ethics and aesthetics.

Ethics

This is reasoned thought about moral values. It is concerned with value as it applies to personal

actions, decisions and relations. It raises questions such as: What is morally good? What makes

actions right or wrong? Are there any universal moral principles?

Aesthetics

This is reasoned thought about artistic values and our experience of beauty. It raises such

questions as: What is art? What is beauty? What is the connection (if any) between beauty and

truth?

4 Logic

This is also called the study of reasoning and argumentation., It is reasoned thought about

argument action. The questions raised in logic include: How can correct reasoning be

distinguished from incorrect reasoning? How are errors in reasoning committed?

5 The "Philosophy of - " category

In addition to the above fields of philosophy, philosophy relates Itself to other disciplines as well

leading to the "philosophy of - " category. When reasoned thought is applied to religious

concerns, this leads to philosophy of religion, for instance reasoned thought about education
leads to philosophy of education. Other examples include: philosophy of history, philosophy of

law, philosophy of biology etc.

In this category, a particular discipline is treated philosophically questions are raised regarding

the discipline's subject matter, the adequacy of its methodology, the meaning and clarity of

its concepts and its relation to and implications for other disciplines.

(Miller, 1984, 4-7).

NOTE:

All philosophizing is characterized by reasoned thought about some aspect of the universe or our

experience of it. The object of thought serves to distinguish the different areas in professional

philosophy.

Questions

1. How is metaphysics related to Epistemology.

2. Why is philosophy concerned about other disciplines?

Activity

Think of the important questions that concern you in your life. Where do they belong among the

fields of philosophy and why?

Functions of Philosophy

1 Integration of experience

The universe as we experience it is both diverse and unified. Reasoned thought helps us to
2 Nurturing of our awareness and sensitivity.

Reasoned thought assists us to not only understand the universe but also ourselves as part of it.

Self-examination enhances the consciousness of our own limitations and capabilities. This

awareness and sensitivity is crucial in assisting us to adapt to the challenging and complex

3 Clarification and justification of belief

Beliefs are the basis of our actions. Reasoned thought about our beliefs enables us to ensure that

they are well-founded and thus rationally justifiable. If our actions are to be effective in

enhancing our well-being, they should be founded on a clear and rationally justifiable beliefs.

4 Bridging the gap between theory and practice

Philosophy raises questions regarding the meaning, foundations, purpose, justification,

verification and application of theories. This is useful in ensuring that theories inform practice

appropriately. Philosophy also evaluates practice and raises questions regarding the extent to

5 Providing a condition for the freedom of the mind

Philosophy seeks to literate us from the slavery of ignorance and irrationality. It helps us to

examine our own beliefs, assumptions and prejudices. It assists us to, act rationally and justly.

This broadens our realm of freedom and enhances our capacity to act and respond responsibly,

intelligently and creatively.

6 CONLUSION
Considering the above functions of philosophy "can you imagine a world in which nobody any

longer asked the philosophic questions, nobody was philosophical?

It would be a world in which nobody penetrated below the facts of everyday life to think about

what is real, true, valuable, just and meaningful in life. It would be a world of mechanical men,

women and children moving among physical objects; a world in which we would have become

hollow men going through meaningless motions and speech would be empty chatter." (Lawine,

1984, 5)

NOTE

Philosophy aims at enabling us to make sense of the world and operate within it in such a way

that enhances our well being.

Question

1. What other functions does philosophy serve?

2. Why is philosophy not primarily aimed at making money?

Activity

1. Suggest ways in which reasoned thought can enhance human well-being in Kenya today.

2.4 Summary

In this lesson we have realized that philosophy involves thinking rationally and critically about

important questions regarding our universe and ourselves as part of it.

We have also seen that philosophy is characterized by iniquity, analysis, criticism, discussion,

evaluation and synthesis. We have also found that philosophy is significant because it helps us to

make sense of existence and order our lives and actions appropriately as free, rational and

creative beings.

Definition of key words and concepts:

1 Aesthetics

Reasoned thought about artistic values and our experience of beauty.

2 Axiology

Reasoned thought about values in general.

3 Ethics

Reasoned thought about moral values.

4 Epistemology

Reasoned thought about knowledge

5 Logic

Reasoned thought about the principles of right reasoning and argumentation.

6 Metaphysics
Reasoned thought about reality.

7 Philosophy

A critical and reflective attempt to understand our universe in its entirety and as a single whole

and ourselves as part of it.

2.6 Further Reading

a) Required Reading

Wambari, K. 19092. Reading in Introduction to Critical Thinking. Kijabe: AIC Kijabe Printing

Press.

b) Recommended Reading

Christine, J. 1973. Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering. Corte Madera, CA:

Rinehart Press.

Fuller, B. 1955. A History of philosophy. 3rd Ed. Revised by sterling M. Mc.Murrin. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winton.

Lavine, T. 1984. From Socrates to Sartre: The philosophical Quest. N.Y: Bantam Books.

Miller, E. 1984. Questions that matter: An Invitation to philosophy, N.Y. McGraw Book

Company.

Olela, H. 1988. Philosophy of Education. Nairobi. Kenyatta University, Faculty of Education.

Popkin, R. and Stroll, A. 1981. Philosophy Made Simple. London: Heinemann.

LECTURE TWO: THINKING: CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

Genuine education aims at transforming learners from a state of dependency to that of autonomy

to think for themselves, make good judgements and get things done as decision makers and

problem solvers.

Learning to reason effectively so as to cope with constant change in our increasingly complex

world ought to be the gone of any educative effort to empower learners with necessary flexibility

and adaptability to manage varied demands of contemporary life.

Critical and creative thinking (CCT) occupies a central placed in the subject of philosophy.

Philosophy itself attempts, in a reasoned and reflective way, to understand and make sense of the

world and of us as part of that world. As thinking beings, we distinguish ourselves individually

by the quality of our thinking and the level of assuming personal responsibility for what we

consider true or good; what we believe and what we do critical and creative thinking is the heart

of philosophy because it is thinking about thinking to upgrade it and empower us to become

better in; making judgements based on reason and evidence.

In this introductory lesson of critical and creative thinking, I shall attempt to initiate your to a

way of thinking that is self-reflective to require that your take charge of your mind and think

effectively for yourself so as to assume responsibility for your beliefs and actions. It is my hope

that as you for through the course you will take the first steps in a lifelong process of
thoughtfully interrogating whatever comes your way, generate new ideas to meet the demands of

everyday life for human well being.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

By the end of this lesson your should be able to: -

Explain what critical and creative thinking (CCT) is and be able to justify thinking for oneself

in terms of added quality to learning and living.

Show that to be effectively educated, in addition to literacy and numeracy one needs also to

acquire operacy- the ability to get things done.

Discuss what constitutes individual transformation from dependency to autonomy and clearly

distinguish various stages in that development.

Argue for higher order thinking that is more clear, more accurate, more precise, more relevant,

deeper and broader.

Demonstrate an upgraded thinking ability as a critical and creative speaker, listener, reader and

writer.

Show evidence of heightened sense of self-assessment, self-questioning and exercise of good

judgement in decision-making and problem solving.

Explain how we acquire self-knowledge as thinking beings.

1.4 CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING (CCT)

The term ''quality education'' is quite current. To commend or praise education at present it is

fashionable to qualify it with the adjective ''quality''. The implication is that quality adds wanted

value to education. It is for this reason that Totally Integrated Quality Education and Training

(TIQET) Report, otherwise called the Koech Commission Report, has ''Quality Education'' as

part of the name and significantly appearing in that name.

The current system of education in Kenya encourages rote-memorization of massive information

and facts by way of drilling at the expense of understanding it by thinking through it carefully

and interrogating it to evaluate its worth. The purpose of education appears to be merely passing

examinations after ''vomiting'' that in formation through simple recall. Clearly rote memorized

information merely to pass an examination has little value as it lacks lasting survival value.

Good quality thinking and understanding uniquely possesses that value.

Critical thinking is thinking that interrogates information to evaluate in and judge whether it is

true or false; whether it should be believed or not; and how one should act on it. This type of

thinking is of a higher quality as it involves thinking about thinking in search of deeper

understanding of things. Critical thinking e powers the learner to think for herself or himself and

to have mental discipline to habitually evaluate knowledge and everyday claims in search of

truth and rightness. Critical thinking involves the learner actively in search of understanding of

the underlying ideas and principles. It is in this sense that critical thinking in its own way adds

quality to education.

To appreciate what understanding means, consider what it means to know how to count up to a

million. We know how to count up to a million without actually having to count up to a million.

It is enough to count up to ten, twenty, thirty etc. to capture the insight of tens in the decimal
system. Even if we have to memorize counting in the first few sets of tens, sooner than later, the

principle involved discovered and we carry on with confidence because we now understand what

it means to count up to a million. Clearly there is a marked difference between rote-memorizing

counting up to a million and understanding what it is to count up to a million hence the

distinction between rote memorizing and understanding.

Creative thinking is on the other hand thinking that produces the material that critical thinking

evaluates. It is generative thinking. The human mind has two phases of thinking operations.

One phase creative thinking produces ideas while the other phase- critical thinking judges them.

Creative people are dynamic, daring,resourceful, independent and hard working. These

characteristics enable them to solve problems in unacceptable situation that challenge thinking

without having any apparent ready way out.

The two phases of critical and creative thinking (CCT) are intertwined. The thinking moves

back and forth especially in the process of solving a problem each phase reinforcing the other.

When critical thinking judges that something wants in what is generated by creative thinking,

further generation is called forth to improve the situation. This goes on and on many times. This

continuous alternating activity between critical and creative thinking is especially important in

intellectual matters where excellence is the goal.

CCT aims at realizing intellectual standards such as clarity, accuracy, relevance, precision, depth,

breadth and logically. It also strives to cultivate such intellectual traits as integrity, open-

mindedness, fair mindedness, humility, empathy, perseverance and faith in reason.

CCT also attempts to develop reasoning skills such as clarification by use of analogies,

elaboration, producing examples and illustration; relating ideas such as cause and consequences,

parts and wholes to make connections that enable us to make responsible decisions and

judgements. It is, for instance, important to be conscious of the fact that our decisions can

initiate causal chains with far reaching consequences affecting not only ourselves but also the

whole of the society of which we are only part. CCT is also a good tool to enable us to make

distinctions where differences exist. We need, for instance, to distinguish between rote-

memorization from long term memory which constitutes the story of who we are to give us our

unique identity as individual human persons.

NOTE:

Criticality and creativity are but two sides of the same thinking coin. Neither can exist without

the other.

QUESTION:

How does critical and creative thinking (CCT) add quality to learning?

ACTIVITY:

Explain critical and creative thinking (CCT) and relate it to understanding.

SUMMARY:

We have in this lesson clarified critical and creative thinking (CCT), acknowledged it as the

essence of philosophy and contextualized it (CCT) in education as the central source of good

quality. We have traced development of rationality and conscience in an individual human

person to recognize their contribution in transforming him/her from dependency to autonomy as

an individual thinking being at a higher level. We have observed that CCT does facilitate

learner's empowerment to become judicious and a better problem solver.

1.5 DEFINiTION OF KEY WORDS AND CONCEPTS

CREATIVE THINKING:

Thinking that generates new ideas to solve problems and innovatively produce things that are

useful.

CRITICAL THINKING:

Thinking that facilitates good judgement (evaluation) because it:

a. Relies on criteria,

b. Is self-correcting, and

c. Is sensitive to context

(By Matthew Lipman)

CONSCIENCE:

Sense of right and wring and the motivation to pursue the right and avoid the wrong.

AN INTELLECTUAL:

A person who has a keen interest in ideas and is equipped to manage them.

AN INTELLIGENT PERSON:

A person who generates novel ideas that help solve everyday problems and innovatively produce

useful things.
INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY:

Having independent reasoning control of one's beliefs, values and actions as a result of thinking

for oneself.

INTELLECTUAL DISPOSITIONS:

Virtues of the mind and character needed for right thinking and action e.g. fair mindedness,

open-mindedness, humility, integrity, empathy, and autonomy.

INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY:

Imaginatively putting oneself in the place of others to genuinely understand them, thus resisting

the egocentric tendency to identify truth and reality exclusively with one's perceptions and

understanding.

INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY:

Consciousness of the need to be true to one's own thinking and honesty in acknowledging

benefit from other sources.

INTELLECTUALL STANDARDS:

Standards by which good reasoning and understanding can be evaluated, e.g. clarity, accuracy,

relevance, precision, depth, breadth significance, and consistency.

RATIONALITY:

Reasoning that enables one to choose the alternative or option that yields the greatest value.

REASONING SKILLS:

Mental skills that enable persons to achieve intellectual standards and dispositions, e.g. using
anologies like biological vomit to explain intellectual vomit- a result of rote memorization;

relating ideas like causes and consequences. Parts and wholes; distinguishing ideas such as rote

memorization and understanding; getting degrees and being educated.

THINKING:

Any mental activity; or process that involves ideas.

1.6 REQUIRED READING

Wambari, K. (Ed). 1992. Reading in Introduction to Critical Thinking. Kijabe: A.I.C. Printing

Press.

1.7 RECOMMENDED READING

Borruso, Silvano; 1998. The Art of Thinking: Charts on Logic. Nairobi: Paulines Publications

Africa.

Brown M. Neil and Kelley Stuart. 2001. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical

Thinking; upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Laugrehr, John. 2001. Become a Better Thinker, Revised Edition. Bangalore, India: Master

Mind Books.

LECTURE THREE
PERSONAL IDENTITY: SELF-KNOWLEDGE

Concern for who one is, that is, the problem of personal identity arises because of the need to

identify and re-identify things or persons that are constantly undergoing change. It is the

problem of oneness and sameness of a person in spite of constant change. How, for instance and

I the same person I was a baby many years ago?

They question''[who are you?'' is not satisfactorily answered simply by providing your name '' I

am Otieno'' or '' I am James''. This is because a name is merely a label of identity not one's

identity itself. The asked question is much deeper than that. It is searching for what makes you.

Is it your name?

Your body?

Your mind?

Your values?

Your beliefs?

Your character? Or what

As a thought experiment , consider an object like a car. Replace its parts one by one. Replace

one wheel, two wheels, all wheels. Do you still have the same car? Continue with the parts

exchange to replace even the engine, the body color after replacing the minor parts such as spark

plugs, distributor, generator etc, at what point should the Registrar of Motor vehicles demand

new number plates and a new log book because the present car is not the same car as before it

has a new identity.

Medical technology has successfully transplanted human body organs from one individual to

another routinely. One person has another's heart or kidney or lung or stomach etc. is the

beneficiary of another person's heart, for instance, the same person or a different person? Think

of a woman's heart in a man's body. Is the individual still a man? Supposing person A's brain is

transplanted in person B's? How far can organ transplantation go without interfering with ones

personal identity?

An acceptable answer to the question, ''who am I?'' is to be found in such consideration as being

a thinking being: being moral, rational, social, creative; long term memory and life history do

reflect my personal identity to a large extent. So do yours!

There are significant influences that affect our personal identity. These are

1) Heredity/Genetic make up

2) Social environment and

3) Personal individual initiative

Each one of us is largely who we are because our parents are who they are. This is a given fact

indicating predetermination of our identity. We are additionally products of society. Our

language and culture, values and attitudes are also a heritage of our social contexts. Until we

begin to think for ourselves, we are fully at the mercy of our social environment.

For personal individual development of rationality and conscience from pre-conventional

through conventional to post-conventional stage - the highest level of thinking for oneself see

Wambari (1992, pp. V--vii)

The difference between one individual and the next has to do with one's own initiative in thought

and action. Critical and creative thinking is a tool of liberation from cultural and traditional

enslavement and can be quite effective in facilitating personal initiative as agents of change with

unique identity.

For self-examination and self-knowledge see Wambari (1992, pp. vii-x)

NOTE:

Preconventional and conventional stages in individual personal development manifest

heteronomy while post-conventional stage is a manifestation of autonomy in rational and moral

life.

QUESTION:

Why is personal identity a problem?

ACTIVITY:

Explain how you have become you by being influenced by:

1) Heredity

2) Social environment and

3) Your own initiative

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
Howard Gardiner (1999, pp. 42-43) has developed a theory of multiple intelligence's to describe

human mental faculties. He has identified seven different intelligence's as follows: -

1. Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the capacity to analyze problems logically,

carryout operations- mathematical or of other types and investigate issues systematically.

2. Verbal-Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability

to learn languages and the capacity to use language effectively to do what we want done.

Teachers, lawyers, preachers and writers normally exhibit superior linguistic intelligence.

3. Intrapersonal intelligence involves the capacity to understand oneself, one's own desires, fears

abilities etc. and to use such self-knowledge effectively to guide one's own life.

4. Interpersonal intelligence refers to a person's capacity to understand other people - their

intentions, motivations and desires and as a result to work effectively with them. Sales people,

teachers, doctors and leaders in general need sensitive interpersonal intelligence.

5. Music/rhythm intelligence involves appreciation of musical patterns, composition and

performance. It is a source of artistic enrichment of life.

6. Visual/spatial intelligence involves capacity in visualization and imaging in three dimensions.

People in art and design are especially good at spatial intelligence.

7. Body/movement intelligence involves the capacity to use one's whole body or parts of it (e.g.

hands or mouth) to solve problems or make products.

Each one of us needs to identify in which of the seven intelligence's we have strong capacity and

cultivate them for ones own development.

NOTE:

Critical and creative thinking runs through all seven intelligence's. They help us make better

judgements using relevant criteria, and improve ourselves by breaking away from familiar

patterns and making way for new approaches of doing things as intelligent people.

QUESTIONS:

1) What are the seven intelligence's we have?

2) Are they fixed for life?

ACTIVITY:

Compare and contrast Intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence's and show value in everyday

life.
LECTURE FOUR

DECISION MAKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING

Students and even the rest of humanity face many important decisions: what college or university

should I attend? What should I study? Should I get married? Should I have a baby? Should I

resign from my job? etc. A theory of practical reasoning should have something to say about how

students and the rest of us can improve our decision-making strategies.

In the book Elements & Pedagogy of Critical Thinking, (2007) I define critical thinking as a tool,

skill and process. I argued that as a tool, critical thinking is a catalyst to problem solving. It is

evident that the relevance critical thinking bears to the endeavour of the human mind to evaluate

knowledge is that knowledge must be brought to answer to his daily encounter with existential

challenges which are evident in the world he inhabits. Hardly does a day pass in once life

without the question "why?" arising. In fact, the question has become so prevalent that it has

become a buzzword. Why am I unwell? Why did I come to Kenya? Why is my supervisor slow

with my work? Why do I have problems with my friends? Why do I have a retake? why, why and

why is this or that. In fact, life has become full of "whys" that the very purpose of harmony, trust

and inter-personal confidence has become a thing of the past and therefore compromised by the

WHY-FOBIA.

How, then, is critical thinking instrumental to problem solving? I believe that the rules of logic

prove important in the domain of critical thinking at this point. Problem solving entails, as an end

result, the formation of a decision that answers to the purported problem. In fact, this proves to
be the game of dialectics, the result of which is to resolve the negations inherent in the

contradiction.

The general procedure for applying critical thinking to any problem can be described as a cycle

with five phases. This cycle should however not be treated as a rigid procedure in which each

phase must be complete before the next is begun. In practice, you may have to go back to the

earlier phase or work on several phases simultaneously. But if you have to have any real

assurance that your ultimate decision is sound, then all phases must be complete.

PHASES OF DECISION MAKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING.(karar verme asamasi ve

problem cozme)

The first phase of problem solving involves recognition and definition of the issue at stake.

Generally speaking, a typical process of decision-making begins with the recognition of a

problem. And for the purposes of this book, the word problem will be used in the broad sense:

one has a problem when one has a need or question but no obvious answer to it. In this case, all

mental insatisfaction and the quest to grasp the essence of the unknown; be it physical or

psychological all counts and falls within what is rightly defined as a problem. In other words,

the quest for knowledge in its totality signifies mental comprehension of the physical and mental

phenomenon definitive of human existence. It is commonly true, that many problems are never

solved because they are not recognized soon enough or not recognized at all. For example, some

freshmen fail in college because they do not recognize soon enough that their study habits are

inadequate or that they are in an unsuitable curriculum.

Once a problem has been recognized, it should be carefully defined. Failure to attain a clear

definition of a problem will always result in obtaining unsuccessful solutions. In fact, you may

end up solving some problem but not the one that you were trying to solve. Suppose, for

example, that you are the sort of person who is constantly running out of money and unable to

meet expenses. You may react in characteristically human fashion by resenting your employer

or those responsible for your financial support for being stingy. And you may, without realizing

it, define your problem as how to get even with these people. You may succeed in solving this

problem only to realize too late that the real problem was how to reduce your expenditure.

In many situations, defining the problem will be the most difficult phase in decision-making. But

once you have correctly defined the problem, the rest will be relatively easy. In most cases, we

start with the wrong definition. The thinking you do in the last four phases can help you realise

that your original definition was wrong. In this event, be advised that it is ideal that you start all

over again at the beginning of the circle. At times, you may find it helpful to use the entire five-

phase circle to define the problem.

There are three rules that must be followed in defining the problem. The first is that the

definition should not be too general. This is true because if the definition is too broad, the

guidelines for a solution will be too broad, and the investigation may flounder. Large problems

can be very real, but their solution usually requires breaking them down into smaller, clearly

defined ones to be solved one at a time.

The second rule addresses exactly the opposite of the above: the definition should not be too

specific. A definition of a problem is said to be too specific when it unnecessarily restricts

alternative solutions. When the definition of

the problem is too specific, it will always lead to temporary solutions because it will have

ignored other significant aspects contributive to the same.

Finally, the definition should not in itself constitute a solution to the problem. Suppose that in

each year, there is a problem of mass drop-out of doctoral students in the School of Arts and

Social Sciences at Kenyatta University in Kenya, and the Dean of Faculty defines the problem as

one due to lack of scholarships and/or financial limitations on the part of the studying students.

His definition would in itself have contained the solution that more scholarships and financial

assistance be extended to doctoral students, the result of which rule out other solutions for

consideration. In fact, for this kind of definition to be acceptable, one would first have to solve

another problem: that of whether to extend financial assistance viz scholarships. Very often

definitions of problems that are themselves solutions also have the fault of being too specific,

alternative answers tend to increasingly to be ruled out, until at last only one remains. Let it be

noted, however, that not all definitions that are too specific get as far as dictating only one

conclusion, and we will do better at defining problems if we keep these two rules in mind.

The second phase in problem solving is the gathering of information. Once a problem is

explicitly defined, one should begin to gather information about it. The information may be of

many kinds. The detective may call his or her information clues; the doctor speak of

symptoms; the scientist, of data; the layperson or government leader, of facts. Adequate

and accurate information is essential to sound decisions. In general, the more information you

have on which to base your decision, the more likely it is that the decision will be sound.

Let us call the third phase of decision-making formation of tentative conclusions which represent

solutions to the problem. This can be done as soon as we have enough information to suggest
some possible answers. We have to be cautious of the fact that solutions at this stage can only be

tentative and we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by them. The objective in this

phase is not to settle on one conclusion but rather to formulate as many plausible ones as

possible. The more we produce, the more likely we are to conclude a sound one. Furthermore,

forming several tentative conclusions is the best safeguard against the dangers of accepting or

acting upon a proposed conclusion without adequate evidence. In this phase, it is desirable to

give attention to every idea that comes to the mind. This is important because many a times,

ideas you might impatiently reject as wild or irrelevant turn out to be solutions of problems or

important clues to solutions.

Testing tentative conclusions. This is the fourth phase of problem solving. The objective of this

phase is to criticize all tentative conclusions by assessing their reliability. All tentative

conclusions are reached through some kind of inference, a process of reasoning by which they

are derived from evidence or available facts. Suppose, for example, that a young man of

seventeen reads this statement in Nation newspaper: All males must register for the draft when

they reach the age of seventeen. If he concludes that he is about to be drafted and put in the

army, his conclusion is the result of an inference. He combines two pieces of evidence, the

statement in the newspaper and the fact that he is seventeen, and infers that he is soon to be

inducted. If he immediately charges down to a recruiting office in Nairobi to volunteer so that he

can choose his branch of the service, he has violated two cardinal rules of effective thinking: he

has formed only one tentative conclusion, and he has acted on it without testing it for reliability.

Although his conclusion could prove to be true, it is not reliable. A conclusion is completely

reliable only when it is known to be true. In order to know that a conclusion is true you must
know that (1) the evidence used is in itself completely reliable, that is, known to be true; and that

(2) all inferences involved are logically flawless. (See Young 1988.p.34). The young mans

conclusion fails to meet either test. He does not know yet whether the statement in the newspaper

is true; newspaper statements are often false. Furthermore, his inference is faulty: even though

registration for the draft might be required, it does not follow that anyone is presently being

drafted. The young mans inference is therefore not reliable at all; he has jumped to a conclusion.

Although a completely reliable conclusion that he was about to be drafted would be difficult, if

not impossible, to reach- even an order to report for induction could possibly be in error- he

should have investigated the situation more fully before acting so; he could consider all the

relevant evidence.

Throughout human history we have been notoriously careless in testing our conclusions.

Consequently, we have made countless blunders and accumulated a vast amount of

misinformation that has led to more blunders. Ideally, all conclusions should be tested for

reliability. And if you test some but not others, you may be protecting your cherished beliefs by

testing only the tentative conclusions that displease you. In so doing, you defeat the purpose of

critical thinking.

Phase five, Evaluation and Decision. The objective of this phase is to determine whether you

have found any workable solutions to your problem and, if so, to select the best of them. Thus

this phase involves assessing the reliability of solutions based on the testing done in phase four.

When you begin testing tentative conclusions by appropriating methods, you will soon discover

that completely reliable conclusions are rare. Usually there will be weakness either in the

evidence or in the inferences or in both. In practical matters, the best we can hope for is high
degree reliability. If we delayed making a decision until we reached absolute reliability, we

would dwell forever in the limbo of decision by indecision.

The minimum degree of reliability you should have before accepting or acting on a conclusion

varies with the circumstances. A juror in a murder case who believes that convicting an innocent

defendant of murder would be a tragic error should demand the high degree of reliability known

as true beyond reasonable doubt. A person trying to decide which is the best of two boxes of

cereal can afford to settle for a much lower degree of reliability since relatively little is at stake.

When evaluation of your tentative conclusions shows that none of them is sufficiently reliable,

you should repeat the whole circle. Each time we repeat the circle we are likely to discover new

and more promising tentative conclusions. I recommend that the process should be repeated until

you have a conclusion with a degree of reliability sufficient for your purpose. One may ask here,

how do we know when the degree of reliability is sufficient for our purpose? The answer is that

the decision so arrived at must be all lasting decision and should square the problem for now and

for the time to come.

By way of summary, we have proposed the following five phases as instrumental to problem

solving and decision making, and thereby proving that critical thinking is not only instrumental

to problem solving but also that its tentacles extend beyond the domain of decision analysis.

1. Recognition and definition of the problem.

2. Gathering information.

3. Forming Tentative Conclusions.

4. Testing Tentative Conclusions.

5. Evaluation and Decision.

With the above observations, let me now turn my attention to the examination of the types of

decisions and factors that influence their nature.

Some people prefer making decisions simply by intuition. They trust their gut feelings more

than they trust the analytical methods that require a systematic and mathematical comparative

assessment of competing actions that satisfy multiple criteria. Russo and Schoemaker 1989,

Schick and Vaughn 1999 encourage people to avoid the use of intuition and instead to base their

judgements and decisions on reasoning strategies that are less likely to lead to common errors in

reasoning. From this perspective, decision-making should be a matter of calculation, not

intuition.

Intuition-based decision-making can lead to many problems, but also calculation-based decision

making of the sort recommended by psychologists and economists has some serious pitfalls. A

synthesis of these two models has been developed recently to a theory of emotional coherence.

Understanding decision making in terms of emotional coherence enables us to appreciate the

merits of both intuition and calculation as contributors to effective practical reasoning.

DECISION AS INTUITION

Suppose you are a student trying to decide whether to study liberal arts, in which you have a

strong interest or a subject such as economics or computer science that may lead to a more

lucrative career. To make this decision intuitively is just to go with the option supported by your

emotional reactions to the two alternatives. In the end, the intuitive decision makers choose an

option based on what their emotional reactions tell them is preferable.

 The advantage of intuitive decision-making is speed. An emotional reaction can be immediate

and lead directly to a decision. If your choice is between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, it

would be pointless to spend a lot of time deliberating about the advantages and disadvantages of

the two flavours. Instead, an emotional reaction such as chocolate-yum! can make for a quick

appropriate decision. Another advantage is that basing your decisions on emotions helps to

ensure that the decisions take into account what you really care about. If you are pleased and

excited about a possible action, that is a good sign that the action promises to accomplish the

goals that are genuinely important to you. Finally, decisions based on emotional intuitions lead

directly to action: the positive feeling toward an option will motivate you to carry it out.

But emotion-based intuitive decision- making can also have serious disadvantages. An option

may seem emotionally appealing because of failure to consider to other available options.

Intuition may suggest buying chocolate ice cream only because you have failed to consider a

low-fat alternative that would be a healthier choice. Intuition is also subject to the intense craving

that drug addicts call jonesing. If you are jonesing for cocaine, githeri, or Mercedes-Benz

convertible, your intuition will tell you to choose what you crave, but only because the craving

has emotionally swamped other desires that you will be more aware of when the craving is less

intense.

Another problem with intuition is that it may be based on inaccurate or irrelevant information.

Suppose you need to decide whom to hire for a job. If you are prejudiced against people of a

particular race, sex or ethnicity, then your intuition will tell you not to hire them, even if they

have better qualifications. It is difficult to determine introspectively whether your intuition derive
from reliable and relevant information. Finally, intuitive reasoning is problematic in-group

situations where decisions need to be made collectively. If other people disagree with your

choices, you cannot simply contend that your intuitions are stronger or better than the intuitions

of others. Defending your emotional reactions and attempting to reach a consensus with other

people requires a more analytical approach than simply expressing your gut feelings.

DECISION AS CALCULATION

Experts on decision making recommend a more systematic and calculating approach. For

example, Bazerman (1994, p.4) says that rational decision making should include the following

six steps:

1. Define the problem, characterizing the general purpose of your decision.

2. Identify the criteria, specifying the goals or objectives that you want to accomplish.

3. Weight the criteria, deciding the relative importance of the goals.

4. Generate alternatives, identifying possible courses of action that might accomplish your

various goals.

5. Rate each alternative on each criterion, assessing the extent to which each action would

accomplish each goal.

6. Compute the optimal decision, evaluating each alternative by multiplying the expected

effectiveness of each alternative with respect to a criterion times the weight of the criterion, then

adding up the expected value of the alternative with respect to all criteria.

We can then pick the alternative with the highest expected value and make a decision based on

calculation, not on emotional reactions.

 Some people dismiss this process and find it offensive that important decisions in their lives

might be made mathematically. Some notable advantages of calculation over intuition method

are: first it is set up to avoid neglecting relevant alternatives and goals. Second it makes explicit

the consideration of how the various alternatives contribute to the various goals. Third, it puts the

decision making process out in the open, enabling it to be carefully reviewed by a particular

decision maker and also by others involved in a group decision process.

However, the calculation method can more difficult and less effective especially where the

choices are equally relevant. For example, if one is trying to decide what to study between

philosophy and computer science, you list all the criteria and estimate the extent to which each

option satisfies them and then proceed to a calculation of the expected value of the competing

choices. Having done this, you find that the expected value of one option, say philosophy,

exceeds that of the other. But what if you have the reaction I dont want to do that! it may be

the numerical weights that you put on your criteria do not reflect what you really care about.

There is empirical evidence that calculation may sometimes be inferior to intuition in making

good judgements. People with mental problems do not know what they care about hence cannot

have emotional evaluations.

It seems, therefore, that we need a model of decision-making that is more psychologically

natural and more normatively effective than the calculation model. We shall now consider

decision making in terms of emotional coherence.

DECISION AS COHERENCE
Decision-making is a kind of inference, but what is inference? Many philosophers have taken

deductive logic as the model for inference. For example:

-Whenever you want ice cream, you should order chocolate.

-You want ice cream.

-Therefore you should order chocolate.

Unfortunately, we rarely have general rules that tell us exactly what to do, so deduction is not a

good model for practical inference. A second familiar model of inference is calculation. But there

is a third general model of inference that advocates the following rule: accept a representation if

and only if it coheres maximally with the rest of your presentations. Many philosophers have

advocated coherence theories of inference but have left rather vague how to maximize coherence

(see, e.g., Harman 1986, Brink 1989, and Hurley 1989). A precise and general model of

coherence based inference can b constructed in terms of constraint satisfaction (Thagard and

Verbeurgt 1998, Thagard 2000).

When we make sense of a text, picture, person or event, we need to construct an interpretation

that fits with the available information better than alternative interpretations. The best

interpretation is one that provides the most coherent account of what we want to understand.

Coherence can be understood in terms of maximal satisfaction of multiple constraints, in a

manner informally summarized as follows:

1. Elements are representations such as concepts, propositions, parts of images, goals, actions

and so on.

2. Elements can cohere (fit together) or incohere (resist fitting together). Coherence relations
include explanation, deduction, facilitation, association and so on. Incoherence relations include

inconsistence, incompatibility, and negative association.

3. If two elements cohere, there is a positive constraint between them. If two elements incohere,

there is a negative constraint between them.

4. Elements are to be divided into ones that are accepted and ones that are rejected.

5. a positive constraint between two elements can be satisfied either by accepting both of the

elements or by rejecting both of the elements.

6. a negative constraint between two elements can be satisfied only by accepting one element and

rejecting the other.

7. the coherence problem consists of dividing a set of elements into accepted and rejected sets in

a way that satisfies the most constraints.

Computing coherence is a matter of maximizing constraint satisfaction and can be approximately

accomplished by several different algorithms. The most psychologically appealing models of

coherence optimisation are provided in connectionist algorithms. These are neuron-like units to

represent elements and excitatory and inhibitory links to represent positive and negative

constraints. Coherence can be measured in terms of the degree of constraint satisfaction

accomplished by the various algorithms .the computational problem of exactly maximizing

coherence is very difficult, but there are effective algorithms for approximately maximising

coherence in terms of constraint satisfaction (Thargad and Verbeurgt 1998)

More exactly, deliberative coherence can be specified by the following principles:

Principle 1: Symmetry- coherence and incoherence are symmetrical relations: if factor (action

or goal) f1 coheres with factor f2, then f2 coheres with f1.

Principle 2: Facilitation- consider actions A1An that together facilitate the accomplishment of

goal G. then (a) each A1 coheres with G, (b) each A1 coheres with each other Aj, and (c) the

greater the number of actions required, the less the coherence among the actions and goals.

Principle 3: Incompatibility- (a) if two factors cannot both be performed or achieved, then they

are strongly incoherent. (b) if two factors are difficult to perform or achieve together, then they

are weakly incoherent.

Principle 4: goal priority- some goals are desirable for intrinsic or other non-coherence reasons.

Principle 5: Judgement- facilitation and competition relations can depend on coherence with

judgements about the acceptability of factual beliefs.

Principle 6: decision- decisions are made on the basis of an assessment of the overall coherence

of a set of actions and goals.

Psychologically, decision as coherence is very different from decision as calculation.

Calculations are conscious and explicit, displayable to everyone on pencil and paper. In contrast,

if coherence maximization in human brains is similar to what happens in the artificial neural

networks, then assessment of coherence is a process not accessible to consciousness. What

comes to the consciousness is only the realization that a particular action is the one I want to

perform. Hence deliberative coherence is closer to the intuition model of decision making than to

calculation model. Coherence is maximized not by an explicit, consciously accessible calculation

but by an unconscious process whose output is the intuition that one action is preferable to

others. There is however, a major difference between the deliberative coherence account of

decision- making and the intuition account. Intuitions about what to do are usually emotional,

involving feelings that one action is a good thing to do and that alternatives are bad things to do.
EMOTIONAL COHERENCE/ duygusal uyumluluk

In the theory of coherence, elements have the epistemic status of being accepted or rejected. In

addition to acceptability, elements in coherence systems have an emotional valence, which can

be positive or negative. Depending on the nature of what the elements represents, the valence of

an element can indicate likability, desirability, or other positive or negative attitude. Far example,

the valence of mother Theresa for most people is highly positive, while the valence of Adolf

Hitler is highly negative.

Just as elements are related to each other by the positive and negative deliberative constrains,

so they also can be related by positive and negative valence constraints. Some elements have

intrinsic positive and negative valences, for example, pleasure and pain. Other elements can

acquire valences by virtue of their connections with elements that have intrinsic valences. For

example if one has a positive association between the concepts of dentist and pain, where pain

has an intrinsic negative valence, then dentist can acquire a negative valence. However, just as

the acceptability of an element depends on the acceptability of the elements that constrain it, so

the valence of an element depends on the valences of all the elements that constrain it.

The basic theory of emotional coherence can be summarised in three principles analogous to

the qualitative principles of coherence:

1. Elements have positive or negative valences.

2. Elements can have positive or negative emotional connections to other elements.

3. The valence of an element is determined by the valences and acceptability of all the elements
to which it is connected.

USING INTUITION AND EMOTION TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS

The theory of emotional coherence shows how peoples gut feelings about what to do may

sometimes emerge from integrative unconscious judgements about the actions that might best

accomplish their goals. But it also applies to cases where peoples intuitions are too quick and

uninformed. How can students and other people be helped to ensure that their decisions are based

on informed intuition?

For important decisions, rather than leaping to an immediate intuitive choice, people should

follow a procedure something like the following:

INFORMED INTUITION

1. Set up the decision problem carefully. This requires identifying the goals to be accomplished

by your decision and specifying the broad range of possible actions that might accomplish those

goals.

2. Reflect on the importance of the different goals. Such reflection will be more emotional and

intuitive than just putting a numerical weight on them, but it should help you to be more aware of

what you care about in the current decision situation. Identify goals whose importance may be

exaggerated because of jonesing or other emotional distortions.

1. Examine beliefs about the extent to which various actions would facilitate the different goals.

Are these beliefs based on good evidence? If not revise them.

2. Make your intuitive judgement about the best action to perform, monitoring your emotional

reaction to different options. Run your decision past other people to see if it seems reasonable to

them.

This procedure combines the strengths and avoids the weaknesses of intuition and calculation

models of decision-making. Like the intuition model, it recognizes that decision-making is an

unconscious process that involves emotions. Like the calculation model, it aims to avoid decision

errors caused by unsystematic and unexamined intuitions. One drawback of the informed

intuition procedure is that it is not so inter-subjective as the calculation model, in which the

numerical weights and calculations can be laid out on the table for all to see. It is important in

many cases for people to go through the steps of producing a calculation in order to provide

some information about how different people are seeing the situation. However, the individual

decision makers will have to make decisions based on their own intuitive judgements about what

is the right thing to do. Achieving consensus among a group of decision makers may require

extensive discussion that reveals the goals and beliefs of decision makers to themselves as well

as to others. It is easier to identify emotional distortions in others than in yourself. The

discussion, including the exercise of working through a calculation together, may help the

members of a group converge on evaluation of goal importance and belief plausibility that

produce a shared reaction of emotional coherence. A crucial part of this process is becoming

aware of the emotional states of others, which may benefit as much from face-to-face
interactions involving perception of peoples physical communication as from their purely verbal

communication.

Informed intuition is a much more complicated process of decision making than the practical

syllogism commonly discussed by philosophers. Millgram (1997, 41) gives the following

example:

1. Delicious things should be eaten. (major premise)

2. This cake is delicious. (minor premise)

3. Eat the cake. (conclusion)

The practical syllogism gives an inadequate picture of decision making, both descriptively and

normatively. Descriptively, it fails to notice that the decision to eat the cake is crucially

influenced by the emotional value of the action of eating the case. Normatively, it fails to see that

deciding is a matter of deliberative coherence that has to balance competing goals (e.g., eat

something delicious, b slim, be healthy) and to evaluate competing actions (e.g., eat the cake, eat

an apple, drink Perrier). On the coherence model of inference, reasoning and inference are very

different. Reasoning is verbal and linear, like the practical syllogism and proofs in formal logic.

But inference is an unconscious mental process in which many factors are balanced against each

other until a judgement is reached that accepts some beliefs and rejects in a way that

approximately maximizes coherence.

This does not mean that practical and theoretical reasoning should be sneered at. Reasoning is

a verbal, conscious process that is easily communicated to other people. People are rarely
convinced by an argument directly, but the fact that reasoning does not immediately translate into

inference does not make it pointless. Making reasoning explicit in decision helps to communicate

to all the people involved what the relevant goals, actions, and facilitation relations might be. If

communication is effective, then the desired result will be that each decision maker will make a

better informed intuitive decision about what to do.

Improving inferences is both a matter of recognizing good inference procedures, such as

informed intuition, and watching out for errors that people commonly make. Such errors are

usually called fallacies by philosophers and biases by psychologists. Psychologists, philosophers,

and economists have identified a variety of error tendencies in decision making, such as

overrating sunk costs, using bad analogies, and being overconfident in judgements. Noticing the

role of emotional coherence in decision-making enables us to expand this list to include

emotional determinants of bad decision making, such as failing to perceive the emotional

attitudes of other people.

The coherence model of decision-making allows goals to be adjusted in importance while

evaluating a decision, but it does not address the question of how we adopt new goals. Millgrms

(1997) account of practical induction is useful for describing how people in novel situations can

develop new interests that provide them with new goals. A full theory of decision-making would

have to include an account of where human goals come from and how they can be evaluated.

People who bas their decisions only on the goals of sex, drugs, and rock and roll may achieve

local coherence, but they have much to learn about the full range of pursuits that enrich human

lives.
LECTURE FIVE

ARGUMENTS: DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE LOGIC /ilkel ve tumden gelim mantik

INTRODUCTION

This lesson concerns logic. Logic is described as the descriptive of discourse. Discourse in its

turn is connected thought (usually at this point, why study logic at all?' The purpose to this

concern lies simply in the realization that, wherever people debate discuss or argue, logic is

usually a sort of court of appeal in the background; whenever, we debate matters in our own

minds, a silent logic usually arbitrates. No one in his or her senses will willingly and persistently

defy a clear verdict by logic.

Therefore logic trains the mind to draw the right conclusion, and to avoid the wrong by

formulating rules of inference to govern and guide debate (or reason) and to promote discovery.

Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

a) Distinguish and relate inductive and deductive reasoning.

b) Identify good from bad arguments

c) Acquire clarity, precision and firmness of thought.

Logic is definable at this stage as the study of reasoning. This is distinguishable from the way a

psychologist, biologist, psychiatrist, sociologist etc could study reasoning.

Reasoning in logic concerns the process in which we are able to move from given fact(s) or

statement(s) to draw another fact or statement. For example, given that:

All human beings are mortal and that all Kenyans

are human beings, we can draw the conclusion

that All Kenyans are mortal.

Logic therefore is a study that investigates the connections (or lack of them) between statements.

But logicians do not study statements merely put together haphazardly or arbitrarily. Instead they

concern themselves with statements joined together in a structured form. Such structured forms

in which statements are put together are referred to as ARGUMENTS.

It is worth noting that the work "argument" has a broader usage in ordinary English than in logic.

For example, we normally say of two people screaming abuses at each other in a local bar that

they are having an argument.

Again we say that one "is advancing on 'argument' in favor of position". In this usage, we

normally tend to understand "argument" as referring to the reasons one is giving for holding the

given position.

But in logic, an argument includes the reasons and the conclusion. So we can define an argument

in logic as:

A group of statements, such that one of them is

considered to be the conclusion. The conclusion

is statement intended to follow from the other

statements which are given as reasons (or permission)

for it.

This definition, however, requires us to distinguish statements from other types of sentences.

Ordinary language is made up of grammatically well-formed sentences. These can be:

Questions e.g. "what is you name?"

Wishes e.g. "May God bless you abundantly"

Exclamations e.g. "Wow, what a surprise!

Commands e.g. "Shut up"

Statements e.g. It is hot today"

What distinguishes statements from the rest of the sentences is that they are capable of being

True or False. We can not say of the question,

"what is your name?' that it is True or False. But we can say of the statement, "It is hot today"

that it is True, or False, depending on when and where it is uttered. We therefore can say that

only statements have Truth-value and all the other sentences do not have Truth-value. The Truth-

value of a true statement is True and that of a false one is False.

NOTE:

All statements are sentences, but not all sentences are statements.

ACTIVITY:

Which of the following sentences is a statement?

1. May you die of hunger

2. Have you read Shakespear's Merchant of Venice?

3. My name is Faust; in all things they equal.

STANDARD FORM OF ARGUMENTS

In logic, arguments are presented in a certain standard form. This form requires that we state the

premises (or reasons) first and then the first argument you encountered at the beginning of the

lesson would be presented thus:

All human beings are mortal All Kenyans

Are human beings. Therefore, all Kenyans

Are mortal.

ARGUMENTS IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE

In ordinary speech or writing we normally do not follow the prescribed standard form of stating

arguments above. Instead, we realize that our conclusions might appear at the beginning or in the

middle of the argument. However, there are particular wards which are employed in ordinary

language that are referred to as ARGUMENT INDICATORS. Some of these are precisely

premise-indicators and conclusion-indicators, which tell us what the premises and the conclusion

are respectively.

For example:

"Peter is not a boy scout, since Peter does

not know how to tie a square knot and all bot scouts

know how to tie square knots'.

This can be put in standard logical form thus:

Peter does not know how to tie a square knot

All boy scouts know hot to die square knots

Therefore, Peter is not a boy scout.

The following is a list of some common premiss-indicators:

Since follows from

As because

In as much as may be inferred from

For this reason is based on

 For one Two

First Second

The following are some common conclusion-indicators:

Therefore so

Hence which shows that

Thus We can derive that

It follow that Consequently

ACTIVITY:

Put the following argument into standard logical form:

Candidate X is certain to win the general

election because his backers have more

money than do candidate Y's and furthermore

candidate X is more popular in the urban areas

NOTE:

In identifying the premisses and conclusion of an argument, we first look for our ordinary

language argument indicators.

Why do we construct arguments?

We normally construct arguments for these reasons;

To explain
To predict

To convince and persuade

This means therefore, that besides the premises-indicators, an examination of the context in

which the argument is constructed and the motives behind its presentation can usually be helpful

in interpreting arguments.

LECTURE SIX

FALLACIES: ERRORS IN REASONING

8.0 FALLACIES/yanlis dusunce

8.1 INTRODUCTION

In this lesson, we are essentially going to discuss reasoning as a process. This discussion will

proceeding by an examination of what constitutes good and bad reasoning proper and improper

reasoning or better still, correct and incorrect reasoning. In this regard, the lesson is going to

provide an exposition and explication of the logical notion referred to as "Fallacy" or "Fallacies"

in plural. This will be done with the objective of showing sources of error in reasoning and the

imperatives for good reasoning. The lesson is thus going to provide the fundamentals for

reasoning that entails inference(s) that is/are logically warranted. In other words, the lesson will

ultimately present the gist for ensuring that conclusions arrived at in reasoning are properly or

accurately drawn. Here, the ideal of good or accurate reasoning is going to be postulated.
8.2 Objectives

By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Define what a fallacy is in the context of logic.

2. Explain the various was in which errors can occur in reasoning and how they can be avoided.

3. Identify the various established instances of fallacious reasoning or bad reasoning.

4. Appreciate the ideal of reasoning and distinguish in between good and bad reasoning.

SUMMARY (At the end of the document but before definition of terms)

In this lesson we have discussed how reasoning proceeds, the goal of reasoning, and how this

goal may be achieved on one hand or fail to be achieved on the other. In this light, we have

shown particular kinds and instances of error in reasoning, the sources of such errors, and how

they can be avoided. These errors are what have been referred to as 'Fallacies'. However, the

notion 'Fallacy' has been discussed in this lesson with a very specific context, logic. We have

shown that we can analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and establish whether it is likely

to be correct or not. It is also important to note hitherto that although one does not need to know

expressly the rules and principles of correct reasoning (as conceived in logic), for one to argue

and even argue well, knowledge of these rules enhances the ability of one to identify and avoid

mistakes in reasoning.

8.3 Definition and Nature of fallacies

Richar Popkin and Arrum Stroll (1975; 248) define a fallacy as any sort of mistake in reasoning

or inference; it is a term used to denote anything that causes an argument to go wrong. However,

logicans use the word, not to designate any mistaken idea or false belief, but rather typical errors,

mistakes that emanate commonly in ordinary discourse, and that render unsound the arguments

in which they appear. It is important to note that for an argument to be fallacious, it must be such

that it can easily be thought of as good (valid or cognent). In other words, the argument has to be

psychologically persuasive notwithstanding the concealed structural or technical error or error

with regard to the actual content of the argument for the argument to pass as fallacious. This is

the sort of argument which, from the face of it, appears valid or cogent (good, proper, accurate,

correct).

Any argument regardless of its subject or sphere is generally constructed for the purpose of

providing that its conclusion is true. This is in line with the essence of reasoning which is that on

the basis of certain proposition(s), certain other propositions or a certain proposition follows

either of logical necessity or probability. That the truth of the anteceding proposition(s) either

guarantees that of the consequent propositions(s) or that such truth logically justifies, warrant or

reasonably grounds that of the latter. The first category of proposition(s) is what is called the

premise(s) of the argument the second or subsequent category of proposition(s) is what is

referred to as the conclusion. The first category thus provides or at least is believes to provide

evidence, grounds justification or warrant for the second category (conclusion). This step-by-step

process from premise(s) to conclusion(s) is called inference. In inference, one starts with one or

more propositions which have been accepted (or at least assumed accepted); then those

propositions are used to arrive at a new proposition. If the inference is accurate (valid or

logically probable) that proposition should also be accepted. That proposition can be used for
inference later on. This, initially one can only infer things from the premises of the argument but

as the argument proceeds, the number of statements or propositions available for inference

increases.

In the attempt to prove that its conclusion is true, any argument can fail to fulfill this endeavor

either by assuming a false proposition as one of its premises or by its premises not implying its

conclusion i.e., there not being a logical relation between the premises and the conclusion.

Regarding the first possibility, it is imperative to appreciate that every argument involves the

claim that the truth of its conclusion follows from, or is implied, by the truth of its premises.

However, the strength of a logician does not lie in the ability to establish the truth of propositions

because the competent and reliable authority to establish such truth is the respective or relevant

scholar who may be a sociologist, chemist etc. The competence, authority and strength of a

logician rests in the ability to evaluate the logical relations that exist or at least claimed to exist

between or among propositions. It is in this latter or second context that logicians lack of

fallacies.

There are, broadly speaking two kinds of fallacies; formal and informal fallacies. The bottom-

line of the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. The bottom-line of the distinction

between formal and informal fallacies lies in the method of detecting the fallacy. If it is

identifiable through mere inspection of the form of the argument, then it is formal. If, however, it

is only identifiable throught analysis of the content of the argument, then it is informal. However,

the fact that an argument is fallacious does not at all mean that its conclusion is false.

8.3.1 FORMAL FALLACIES

Formal fallacies arise from error or defect in the structure or form of an argument. They are

fallacies identified on the basis of the evaluation of the form or structure of an argument i.e. arise

from formal error in argument. A formal fallacy is therefore to a great extent an error in

deductive reasoning. In this case, the conclusion asserted does not follow of logical necessity

such that despite the premises being true, the truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed from the

logical view-point. This is a case of an invalid instance of reasoning, an invalid argument. In

other words, when an argument which has the form of a syllogism seems valid, but is not, it is

said to be fallacious. A syllogism is a two premised argument. There are five rules for determing

the validity/invalidity of a syllogistic argument and a violation of any of the fine rules results into

committing a fallacy. These rules are as follows:

Rule (1) In any valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed at least one.

No pries is corrupt

Some priests are policemen

-Some policemen are not corrupt.

In the above example, the term 'priest' acts as a middle term in that by virtue of it a relationship

or logical connection is established between the major and minor terms, in this case 'corrupt'

people and 'policemen'. On the basis of an established link between the minor and major terms

by the asserted relationship or link between the major terms the middle term and the minor term

and the middle term, the implied relationship between the major and minor terms can be asserted

in the conclusion. On other words, when reference is not made to all the members of the middle

term either in the inclusive or exclusive sense, it becomes logically impossible to ascertain how

the major and minor terms related to each other which means that inference becomes logically
impossible. A violation of this rule results to the fallacy of the undistributed middle term or the

fallacy of the undistributed middle.

e.g. All human beings are clever beings .All dogs are clever beings

All dogs are human beings.

In the above example, the middle term 'clever beings' is not distributed. Though in the first

premise it is clear that all human beings are clever beings, it does not follow that all clever

beings are human beings, reference is made to only a part of the class of clever beings who are

human beings and that is all the same way, although it is clear that all dobs are clever beings,, it

does not follow that all clever beings are dogs, in this circumstances the relationship between

dogs and human beings is not certainly implied which make any conclusion with regard to how

the two terms relate to each other logically impossible; thus rendering any conclusion uncertain.

This makes the argument deductively invalid.

Rule 2. In any valid categorical syllogism, no term may increase its distribution i.e. no term

should move from being undistributed in the premises to being distributed in the conclusion.

The rationale of this rule is that one cannot validly argue moving from some members of a class

to all members of the class. Rather valid movement may be from all to some i.e. that since all

are, some are. When this rule is violated the corresponding fallacy is the illicit process of the

major term or minor term depending on the affected or relevant term which has a double status

with regard to its distribution in the same argument.

e.g. All trees and plants

No vegetables are trees

No vegetables are plants

_______________________

Illicit process

Of the major

Term. INVALID

In the above example, 'plants' is the major term. It is undistributed in the first premise but it is

distributed in the conclusion. This is invalid.

Rule 3. No valid categorically syllogism can have two negative premises. This is because

negative premises are by nature exclusionary such that they deny class inclusion (separate minor

from major term) either wholly or partially and that is all. This means that there is no link that is

stated of the major and minor premises since all that is asserted is the exclusion of one class from

another either in part or in whole. Concluding from the premises becomes logically impossible.

e.g.

No cats are dogs

No cows are dogs

Some cows are cats

_________________

INVALID. Fallacy of Exclusive premises.

The corresponding fallacy is the fallacy of exclusion premises.

Rule 4. In any6 valid categorical syllogism, if a premise is negative, the conclusion must be

negative. This is because a negative premise asserts and implies class exclusion such whatever

conclusion is drawn must assert class exclusion also in part or in whole, as the case may be.

e.g.

All head-hunters are primitives

Some louderners are head-hunters

Some loudeners are head-hunters.

The above example is INVALID and commits the fallacy of drawing an affirmative. Conclusion

from negative premises.

Rule 5

Any valid categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion cannot have two universal premises.

This rule however has limitations. There are two ways of interpreting categorical propositions,

hypothetical and existential. The rule only holds when the interpretation of the relevant

propositions is hypothetical not existential since in the latter case the argument is valid.

e.g. All P are M

No S are M

Some S are not P

___________________

INVALID in the hypothetical interpretation, though VALID in the existential interpretation

The corresponding fallacy that results from a violation of this rule is the Existential fallacy.
Other examples of fallacies that are identifiable by the evaluation of the form or structure of an

argument include:

1. The Fallacy of Affirming the consequent.

2. The Fallacy of denying the antecedent

E.g. (a) If P then Q } INVALID. Fallacy of affirming

Q } the consequent

Therefore, P }

If one contracts AIDS, then he dies John has died

Therefore, John had contracted AIDS

The above form of argument is fallacious because death can result from causes or anticidents

other than just contracting AIDS. AIDS is only a sufficient condition for death but not a

necessary condition for death. The above argument confuses sufficient condition for necessary

condition. The argument can very easily deceive one to be valid because it appears or seems to

take the form of a valid argument.

1, P > Q

2, P

________

:Q

Modules Ponens (MP) is a valid argument form which proceeds by an affirmation of an

auticedent warranting thereby an affirmation of the corresponding consequent. In other words,

affirming the antecedent warrants affirming the consequent does not warrant affirming the

antecedent. The consequent can only be denied on the basis of which the antecedent would be

validly denied. This latter argument form of denying the consequent and on such basis denying

the antecedent is called modus Tollens (MT) and it is a valid argument form as shown bellow:

1.If P, then q

3. not-q / not-p

If P then q

Not P

Therefore, not Q

_______________

INVALID. Fallacy of denying the antecedent

If one contracts AIDS, then he will die.

John does not have AIDS

Therefore John will not die.

The rationale for the fallacy is that death can result from many causes or antecedents such that by

one not having AIDS, one is still subject to death anyway. AID is just one of the causes for death

i.e. the antecedent in the conditional is just one of the possible 'causes' of the consequent or one

of the factors which precede the consequent, it is just sufficient condition for the consequent, it

does not need to hold for the consequent to be observed. On this basis, by the move fact that one

does not have AIDS as in the above example, there is no guarantee for immortality. The

argument easily deceives because it appears as a valid argument form Modus Tollens (MT)
1. P > q

2. Q

3. P

MT holds because P>q is logically equivalent to (pvq) by the rule of implication (Impl) (pvq) are

the conditions under which a conditional is true i.e. when either the antecedent is false or the

consequent true. In these circumstances. Denying of the dysjuncts (q) justifies one to affirm the

other distinct (p). such inference is valid by the rule of disjunctive syllogism (Ds).

8.3.2 INFORMAL FALLACIES

Informal fallacies cannot be identified by mere inspection of the argument form, but by

analyzing the content of the argument. Informal fallacies can be divided into two namely,

fallacies of

i. Relevance/irrelevance

ii. Ambiguity

iii. Fallacies of Relevance/irrelevance

These are errors in reasoning which have as their source the irrelevance of the conclusion to the

premis(es). The error or mistake thus rests on the relevance of the conclusion to the premis(es)

hence their description as fallacies of relevance or irrelevance depending on the explanation

given with regard to the error. Examples of these fallacies are:

(a) Appeal to the people or masses (argumentum ad populum)

If numbers are quoted as evidence or justification for a certain position or conclusion, the

fallacies is said to have been committed. For example, if someone is to argue that abortion,

corruption, theft or murder is wrong because most people think that it is wrong, this would be an

instance of this fallacy. The point to note is that the truth of falsity of something does not depend

on people's opinions or feelings, rather other objective facts. The majority could believe that

something is right or wrong yet all be mistaken. Question of truth and falsity, rightness or wrongs

are not settled by conducting opinion polls, rather they are settled by appeal or consideration of

relevant facts.

(b) Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

This fallacy is said to have been committed when one accepts a statement view or position

merely because an authority, expert, or a famous person accepts it or says he/she accepts it. The

truth of falsity of a given statement cannot be proved merely by the fact that someone, even an

authority says so. A statement is not made true or false by virtue of the prestige of an authority,

rather, it is the citing of relevant and accurate evidence to confirm or refute the statement. The

fact than an authority has made a statement cannot be itself regarded as evidence; it is the facts

which the authority produces that constitute evidence. Such facts of course are quite different

from a mere verbal pronouncement e.g.

Killing is bad or stealing is bad not merely because God or the law says so, rather because of the

objective and cogent facts and evidence that points reasonably or necessarily to the badness or

goodness, rightness or wrong's of the actions. Killing is bad for instance, presumably because of

some good reasons which form the basis of God or the law holding that it is bad not merely

because Gor or the law says so. Appeal to authority rests on trust and confidence rested in
authority (which is reasonable), but authority is fallible and its only on the basis of the evidence

presented that we should accept the position of the authority not the mere fact of authority.

(c) Appeal to force (Argumentum and Baculem) or threat of force.

This fallacy is said to have been committed when assent is sought on the basis of the use of force

or threat of force. It is not might that makes something right or true. Might or the threat of force

is irrelevant when it comes to matters of truth or rightness of an action. For example, it would be

fallacious if one reasoned that the United States of America war right in 1990 with regard to the

Iraq Kuwait despite merely because Iraq was forced into submission. A preacher who argues that

salvation is imperative because otherwise one would go to hell commits this fallacy because the

threat of hell may compel one to declare salvation without having any objective reasons to justify

the choice of salvation. The fear of the eternal suffering in hell would in that case be the reason

for adopting salvation not the more reasonable grounds of love, peace, harmony and the general

well being of the individual and specify that come as a result of salvation such that avoidance of

hell is just an accident.

(d) Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum and Ignorantiam)

This fallacy is said to occur when it is argued that a certain view, opinion belief or assertion is

true just because it has not been proved false, or conversely that it is false because it has not been

proved true. This happens when the premises of an argument state that a certain position or view

has into been proved (or disproved) while the conclusion makes a definite assertion abort the

position. This sought of reasoning is treacherous because it apparently seems to follow and

actually pretends to follow the justified reasoning that a certain view is true because we have
considerable evidence, all of which shows that the view is true, and none of which shows that it

is false. Showing that a view is true simply because there is no contrary evidence is not enough.

It is imperative also to show positive evidence in favor of it. Otherwise outrageous claims for

instance of the existence of mermaids may be 'proved' by this treacherous kind of reasoning

which is logically unacceptable.

(e) Argument against the person (Argumentum and Hominem)

The above fallacy is said to have been committed when a rebut to the argument or position held

is not directed to the basis, evidence or premis(es) upon which the position rests but rather to the

person against whom the rebut is intended. The fallacy may appear in three ways:

I Abusive

Circumstantial

You too (Tu Quoque)

Abusive

For example arguing that Fredrick Nietzsche was mistaken in his philosophical ideas on

existentialism because he was a miserable immoral man who eventually died of syphilis involves

committing this fallacy. The correctness or incorrectness' has got nothing to do with his morality.

The ideas are correct or incorrect on their own merit.

Circumstantial

An example is this when for example a person who works for a certain brewing company says

that one of their products is a very good bear of course presumably on the basis of some
objective sound reasons. However, the fallacy is committed when one rebuts to the position by

saying that the earlier person, could not be right because what he is saying is just by virtue of

him being an employee of that brewing company. Important to note have is that focus is made on

the circumstances of the person who says that a certain bear is good the person who happens by

accident to belong to the brewing company. The beer is good or bad regardless of whether the

person does or does not work for the relevant brewing company. To decide on whether or not the

beer is actually good rests on a consideration of other factors such as taste, side effects and so on.

However in this example, it is the circumstances of the person that are being considered to

decide on whether his assertion is true or false. This is fallacious.

You too (TU Quoque)

In this fallacy, one tries to make his/her opponent appear to be arguing in bad faith. This

proceeds by a citing of instances in the life or behavior of his opponent that seemingly contradict

his (opponent's) conclusion. For example, a patient who argues that the doctor's advice that he

(the patient) should stop drinking alcohol because alcohol is dangerous to his (the patient's)

health is consisting and therefore apparently acting in bad faith (the doctor) because the doctor

himself drinks commits this fallacy. This is because the fact that the doctor drinks does not

change the accuracy and appropriateness of the advice of the doctor to the patient to quit

drinking. So long as the doctor gives such advice on the basis of objective medical

considerations, even if, the doctor himself is even an alcoholic, that does not render the doctors

advice wrong unless it is shown that the doctors consideration are irrelevant, inconsistent or

actually false.

(f) Appeal to pity (Argumentum and miserecordiam)

This fallacy is said to be committed when emotions of pity or mercy are invoked for purposes of

achieving or ensuring assent. For example, when one reasons that a person should be exonerated

from punishment for his/her wrongdoing because he is an orphan widow or widower or has gone

through a certain traumatizing experience, not as mitigating facts but as sufficient grounds, then

such reasoning is fallacious. The fact that one is an orphan for example does not make one not

subject to punishment or blame for committing evils, just the same way being an orphan would

not be excuse for committing evils.

(g) Fallacy of accident

The fallacy is said to have been committed when one reasons by applying a general rule to a

particular instance which is uniquely circumstances rendering the general inapplicable. For

example when one reasons that because the constitution grants freedom of movement and

association that therefore it is not right to prevent public rallies held by some individuals or

group in the country, the fallacy would have been committed. This is because although the

constitution may quarantee the freedom of movement and association there are certain conditions

and assumptions under which such guarantee holds, conditions and assumptions which may into

hold in a particular instance thus rendering the application of the general provision of the

constitution inappropriate. For example association and movement with the objective of

committing crime and disturbing the peace renders such constitutional guarantees inapplicable.

Fallacy of converse Accident

The explanation of this fallacy is just the converse of that of the presiding. It proceeds by an

inappropriate ascription of what holds for particular unique case to the general cases which do
not experience the same and unique circumstances that the particular experiences that renders or

justifies whatever it is that holds for the unique particular. For example reasoning that since

cigarette smoking increases the chances of suffering from cancer by predisposed or vulnerable

individuals that then cigarette smoking should be stopped or baned altogether.

Hitherto, the various examples discussed are sufficient to illustrate fallacies of

relevance/irrelevance. However, it is imperative to appreciate that the examples provided are not

exhaustive since there are many more examples of such fallacies which may be seen in the

references provided at the end of this lesson.

ii. Fallacies of Ambiguity

(a) Fallacy of Equivocation:

This fallacy arises from making a conclusion in an argument, which has an ambiguous word, or a

word whose exact understanding is not clear.

E.g.

1. Men are the only rational creatures

2. No woman are men

3. Therefore, no women are rational.

There is no certain or clear connection between the two propositions (1,2) i.e., actually there is

'almost' no middle term. This cannot be detected by an evaluation of the form or structure of the

argument since this seems to present 'men' as the middle term although in evaluating the actual

content of the argument, 'men' has or at least seems to have been used in two senses, in the first
sense meaning all humanity (men and women) and in the second sense meaning male human

beings only. When reasoning proceeds in this way where a word is used with varying meanings

in the same argument and a conclusion is drawn as if the word were used unequivocally, then the

fallacy of equivocation is said to have been committee

(b) Fallacy of Amphibly

This fallacy is committed when a reasoning is instance contains a statement that could be

understood or integrated in more than one senses and a conclusion is drawn as if the statement or

phrase had a definite understanding or meaning. The worlds contained in the statement or phrase

may not be ambiguous, yet the whole sentence is because of its grammatical structure. A

common source of confusion in ordinary English stems for example from the use of the word

'not'. A sentence that begins as 'All are not " may be understood to mean (I) none are or (ii)

some are not;

e.g. 'All politicians are not corrupt' may mean

1. No politician is corrupt or

2. Some politicians are not corrupt

The two possible interpretations become a source of confusion due to ambiguity and this renders

it inappropriate from the logical point of view to draw any conclusion because of lack of

certainty in the interpretation of the phrase which means that no conclusion should be drawn.

However, it is important to note that the fallacy of amphiboli is committed when the amphibolors

premise is given the interpretation, which makes it true, and a conclusion is drawn from it which

makes it false.
e.g. All politicians are not corrupt so James who is a politician cannot be said to be corrupt!!

What is meant by the amphibolous proposition is that some politicians are not corrupt, but the

conclusion is drawn as if the phrase means that no politician is corrupt.

The grammatical error can also result from dangling participles i.e. when a comma is not put in

its proper place.

It should be noted at this point that the divisions and categorisation of fallacies is usually never

rigid because the gist of understanding fallacies rests in the identification of the error in

reasoning and how the error can be addressed. In this case, more than the fallacy may be

committed and identified in one instance of reasoning. As the great logician De Morgan

reiterated, we cannot pretend to be able to exhaustively classify the various ways in which

mistakes can be made in reasoning.

REQUIRED READING

1. COPT, I. Introduction to Logic. New York: Mcmillan Publishing Company, 1990.

2. Popkin, R and Stroll, A. Philosophy Made Simple. London: Allen, 1969.

3. Wambari, K. Reading In Introduction To Critical Thinking, Kijabe: A.I.C. Kijabe Printing

Press.

RECOMMENDED READING
1. Bittle, C. The Science of Correct thinking milwawkee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950.

2. Rafalko, R. Logic for an overcast Tuesday Belmont: Belmont Publishing Company, 1990.

3. Waller, B. Critical Thinking; Consider the Verdict New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.

DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS

1. Categorical syllogism. This is a two premised argument which asserts class inclusion or

exclusion either in part or whole.

2. Form/structure. These words refer to the logical arrangement of terms. This constitutes the

logical positioning or arrangement of the terms involved in reasoning or an argument.

3. Premise. The word refers to the proposition(s) or statement(s) that constitute or are/IS at least

claimed to constitute the basis, evidence or ground for a certain assertion or conclusion in a

reasoning process.

4. Proposition. An assertion which has a truth value i.e. an assertion, statement or sentence which

can be said to be true or false.

5. Syllogism. Refers to an argument which has two premises.

6. Term. This constitutes a word or group of words which has/have logical meaning or import.

LESSON SEVEN

7.0 DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

Brian Skyrms

By S O OWINO

INTRODUCTION

When we arrange various arguments into the standard logical form, we realize that there are

typically two types of logical reasoning that we normally engage in. Hence logic is

conventionally divided into deductive logic and inductive logic.

An argument is considered to be deductive when the premisses present absolutely conclusive

evidence for the conclusion. Thus, a deductive argument can either be valid or invalid.

NOTE:

An argument is deductively valid if and only if its underlying structure or form guarantees that: if

its premises are all true, then its conclusion is also true.

This means that in deductively valid argument, when its premises are true then, it is

IMPOSSIBLE that its conclusion is false. Otherwise, we involve ourselves in a contradiction.

But an argument is deductively invalid if and only if its underlying structure does not guarantee

that; if its premises are all true, then so is its conclusion.

Notice that the above definitions of deductive validity or invalidity are not about the truth of the

premises but rather the structure of the arguments. It is precisely the structure of the argument

that guarantees that provided its premises are all true, then its conclusion will not be false.
Let us take an example to illustrate our point:

All Senegalese are Africans.

President Moi is a Senegalese

Therefore, President Moi is an African.

We observe that the second premise in the argument above, is false because President Moi is not

a Senegalese. Nevertheless, we are claiming that if these premises were all true, then the

conclusion would also be true. Therefore, the above argument is a deductively valid argument.

In pure logic, the truth is not the major concern. Validity instead is the major concern. However,

as critical and creative thinkers we are constantly concerned about whether an argument has true

premisses.

Whenever an argument has all true premisses and deductive validity, we say that it is a sound

argument. Otherwise it is unsound.

NOTE:

An argument is SOUND if and only if it is both deductively valid and has all true premisses.

The reason why it is impossible for the conclusion of a deductively valid argument to be false if

the premisses are true is that the conclusion makes no factual claim that is not implicitly made by
the premisses. What the conclusion does is merely to lay bare (or explicit) what was initially

hidden (or implicit) in the premisses. So, the conclusion actually does not venture to say

anything more than what the premisses contain.

It is noticeable therefore that deductive logic regards argument correctness as all or nothing, i.e.

either it valid or it is invalid. Inductive logic on the other hand, is concerned with connections

from premisses to concussions that allow for graduations. We can hence have a more or less

strong inductive argument.

NOTE:

An argument is inductively strong (or weak) in direct proportion to the likelihood of its

conclusion being true on the assumption that its premisses are true.

This means that if the premisses of an inductive argument are true then it is IMPROBABLE that

its conclusion is false. The degree of inductive strength depends entirely on how improbable it is

that the conclusion is false given that the premisses are true. Therefore, inductive arguments can

be of varying degrees of strength ranging from very strong inductive arguments to weak

inductive arguments.

The conclusion of an inductive argument asserts more than the premisses. It therefore makes

factual claims which lie beyond what the premisses claim. A denial of the conclusion of an

inductive argument does not lead us to a contradiction since we can descriptive situations in
which the premisses remain true and yet the conclusion is false.

A typical example of inductive arguments are the weather forecasts of the meteorological

department. On the basis of the data and information gathered during the day or throughout the

week, they forecast what the whether is likely to be the following day. The forecast certainly

ventures beyond what the premisses contain because it refers to a day which has not yet arrived.

So in evaluating inductive arguments we should try to determine the probability or likelihood of

the conclusion being true if the premisses are all true. If the conclusion is likely to be true if the

premisses are true the we consider the argument to be inductively strong. But if the conclusion is

only slightly supported by the premisses, then we consider the argument to be inductively weak.

NOTE:

a) Arguments that are deductively invalid can possibly be inductively strong or inductively weak,

depending on the strength of connection between the premisses and the conclusion.

b) Arguments that are studied by inductive logic usually proceed from what has been

experienced to what has not been experienced.

CONCLUSION

For analytical purposes, we have divided arguments into two categories namely, deductive and

inductive. But this poses the danger of understanding the two types as separate and mutually

exclusive.
Instead we should understand the two types of arguments as constituting a single, continuous

scale of varying degrees of strength of the link between the premises and the conclusion.

We can diagrammatically represent this, relationship thus:

Arguments

Deductively valid

Degrees or inductive strength

Worthless

From the diagram we notice that deductively valid arguments have the strongest possible link (of

necessity) between the premises and the conclusion. This is followed by the varying degrees of

strength in inductive arguments with the most worthless having the weakest link (if any) between

the premises and the conclusion.

At this juncture, we can therefore formulate a more technical definition of logic

Logic is the study of the strength of the Evidential link between the premises

And conclusions of arguments.

Definition of Key words:

Logic: The study of the strength of the evidential link between the

Premises and conclusions of arguments.

Statement: Any declarative sentences which can either be True or False.

Validity: The underlying structure of an argument that guarantees that if

its premises are all true, then its conclusion is also true.

Argument: A group of statements such that one of them is considered to be the conclusion and

the others are considered to be the premises

Soundness: The quality of an argument which has both validity and true premises.

Required Reading:

Wambari, K. (ed.) (1992), Readings in Introduction to Critical Thinking, Kijabe; A.I.C. Printing

Press.

Recommended further reading

Sdyrms B. (1966) Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic, Belmont, California:

Dickenson Publishing Company.

THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC

At this juncture, I would like to draw your attention to one of the most widespread and

misleading conceptions in logic. It is the simplistic contention that the distinction between

deductive and inductive arguments depends on whether they proceed from general or specific

statements.

According to this view, a deductive argument is definable as an argument that proceeds from

general premises to specific conclusion so if we take a valid deductive argument like

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal

We notice that the first premise makes a general claim about all men and the conclusion makes a

claim about a specific man, namely, Socrates.

On the other hand, an inductive argument is defined as one that proceeds from the specific

premise to the general conclusion. For example:

Water from Lake Victoria boiled at 1000C

Water from Lake Turkana " "

Water from the rainfall " "

Water from Indian Ocean " "

Water from River Nile " "

Therefore, water boils at 1000C.

We notice that the premises make claims about water from specific sources and the conclusion

makes a claim about water in general, irrespective of its source. These examples can easily lend

credence to this misconception about deductive and inductive arguments. In the previous section

we did demonstrate that deductive and inductive arguments are not two types (except for

analytical purposes). Instead, they constitute a continuous range of degrees of strength of link

between the premises and the conclusion.

Perhaps some further examples can be employed here to demonstrate that we do have arguments

which are deductively valid and yet they process either from general to general, or from specific

to specific or even from specific to general.

1. From general to general

All human beings are mortal

All Kenyans are human beings

Therefore all Kenyans are mortal

2. From specific to specific

The reader of this module is a student

This module is for students of critical Thinking

Therefore, the reader of this module is a student of critical Thinking

3. From specific to general

One is a lucky number

Three is a lucky number

Five is a lucky number

Seven is a lucky number

Nine is a lucky number

There, all odd numbers between 0 and 10 are lucky numbers

Likewise, we can get examples which illustrate that inductive arguments can proceed also from

general to specific, general to general; specific to specific.

1. From general to specific

All emeralds previously found have been green.

The next emerald to be found will be green.

2. From general to general

All students in this class are highly intelligent.

All students in this class are strongly motivated to do well.

No student in this class has a heavy workload.

No student in this has psychological difficulties that would interfere with his course work.

All students in this class will do well.

3. From specific to specific

Hitler was a dictator and was ruthless

Stalin was a dictator and was ruthless

Castro is a dictator

Therefore Castro is probably ruthless

ACTIVITY

EXERCISES

1. Decide which of the following are arguments and which are not. If arguments, indicate

premises and conclusions.

a) The flight has been delayed by bad weather.

b) Did you say "Jack is coming

c) Political dissenters have no place in our society, for those who criticize and disrupt a nation

are its enemies.

d) Nobody will take advice, but everybody will take money. Clearly, then, money is better than

advice.

e) Jones cannot be the murderer because he was miles away when the crime occurred.

f) Detective, make sure that you apprehend the thief who broke into my house.

2. Indicate whether the following arguments are deductive or inductive.

a. Since more than half of all road traffic accidents involve drivers under twenty-five, it follows

that drivers under twenty-five are probably a greater driving risk than those older than twenty-

five.

b. No triangle is a square because all triangles have three sides and squares have four sides.

c. Every class I have taught so far in Kenyatta University has had an even male-female

distribution in it. It is obvious, then, that the student population of Kenyatta University is evenly

divided between makes and females.

d. This argument is valid because its premises logically entail its conclusion, and any argument

whose premises logically entail its conclusion is valid.

e. Jack missed work today. He must be ill because in the past he has only missed work when he

has been ill.

f. Sandy was either present or she knew someone who was present. If she was present, then she

knows more than she is admitting. Either way, sandy knows more than she is admitting.

3. Arrange the following arguments in the order of the strength of the link between premises and
conclusion.

a. No one who is not a member of the club will be admitted to the meeting. I am not a member of

the club. Therefore I will not be admitted to the meeting.

b. Brutus said Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus was an honorable man. Therefore Caesar must

have been ambitious.

c. My nose itches; therefore I am going to have a fight.

d. The weatherman has said that a low-pressure front is moving into the area. The sky is Grey

and very overcast. On the street I can see several peop0le carrying umbrellas. The weatherman is

usually accurate. Therefore it will rain.

e. The last three cars I have owned have all been sports cars. They have all performed beautifully

and given me little trouble. Therefore I am sure that the next sports car I own will also perform

beautifully and give me little trouble.

LESSON=SEVEN

INDIVIDUALITY

Common to human persons is the problem of inadequacy in perfecting their characters to such an

extent that society benefits from their existence. Evidence abounds of people who, despite being

members of a wider society continuously look at themselves as the centre of everything. Human

ego, greed and personal desires have hindered man from appreciating the worth of serving

society and embracing those virtues that define a well developed, perfected and endowed human

character that is necessary for the human well-being.

Individuality can be defined as the ability and capacity to exercise autonomy, ability to stand out

and think for oneself, creativity and productiveness, having independence of thought, distinctive

innovativeness as elements definitive of human persons as rational beings. Individuality entails

being considerate of others, restraint from selfish tendencies (selflessness), ability to value

greatest happiness for the greatest majority, honest of purpose, integrity, benevolence, empathy,

courage, respect for others and faith in reason among others. These virtues can be contrasted

against individualism which entails selfishness, being driven by the self-ego, lack of appreciation

for others and unprecedented greed both in terms of our actions and ideas or opinions that we

hold.

John Stuart Mills essay on Individuality is entitled On liberty of thought and Individuality as

element of well being. In the essay he discusses the degree to which the government and society

may interfere in the lives of the citizens. His argument is that as human beings we are endowed
with the ability to think and determine the destiny of our own lives. As a result he argues that

such interference by the government in the freedom and liberties of individual persons is only

necessary if it aims at preventing one person from harming the other but such interference cannot

be warranted where the government has as its aim to appropriate and usurp the freedom and

liberties of individual persons and therefore gag their creative potentials.

The traits of individuality are essential for creativity and innovativeness. People who embrace

these traits are the ones who propel change, creativity and progress that leads to development of

any human society. In this respect the creative minority in any society have always exhibited

these scarce and unique characteristics that have led to the emergence of great nations, inventions

and civilizations worldwide.

Examples of minority creative minds abound; they have always stood out as the liberators and

innovators in history- epitomes of change. These are people who have stood for ideals that have

through history transformed the lives of their fellow human beings and the world we inhabit. For

example, Indira Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and even Jesus Christ stand out as

models of those who embrace individuality.

Individuality entails the liberties to hold opinion, expression, association and choice among

others. And since the people who embrace individuality aim at improving and contribution to the

wellbeing of society by way of their creativity and innovativeness, they have always stood out as

the role models in society. It is by virtue of the uniqueness of their character that such people

have always emerged as heroes in history and architects of civilizations.

In conclusion it is evident that the character of those that embrace individuality is unique in a

way that delineated them from conformist majority in society who are mere consumers of their

innovativeness. In other word individuality does not only lead to development of individual

unique character but it also enormously contributes to the wellbeing of society and the rest of its

members Indeed, individuality is the basic element of the wellbeing of human society.

REFERENCE

Internet Sources

Namwambah, T. N. 2006. Essentials of Critical and Creative Thinking.

Didaxis: Nairobi

Namwambah, T. N. 2005. Introduction to Critical and Creative Thinking:

Student Companion. Kenpak: Nairobi.

Wambari, K. 1993. Readings in Introduction to Critical and Creative

Thinking. AIC: Kijabe.

LESSON TEN

PRACTICALITY OF CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

INTRODUCTION

In the previous lessons, we discussed in detail aspects to do with the description of what

philosophy is in general, and in particular what critical and creative thinking entails. In the

process, we tried to indicate the meaning of the concepts "critically", "creativity, and "thinking".

We tried to show how the above concepts greatly impact on every human endeavor, be it in

ethics, epistemology, logic and metaphysics, which as you may remember, comprise the major

divisions of philosophy.

There have, however, been unfounded and unjustified claims from some quarters, that

philosophy an hence critical and creative thinking is highly abstract, not realistic and by

implication impractical. We beg to differ with this claim.

In this unit, therefore, we are going to try and demonstrate the practicality of philosophy in

general, and critical and creative thinking in particular, in various endeavors, arguing very

strongly that without a philosophical basis, many practical issues in life do, infact go the wrong

way. We are going to do this by way of examining the views of one reknowned Ghananian

philosopher-Kwasi Wiredu- whose essay is entitled "what can philosophy do for Africa".

Objectives
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

i) correctly sugggest or identify human situations in life where philosophy is readily applicable.

ii) Evaluate various contexts in society with regards to the use or lack of use of philosophy

iii) Appropriate and demonstrate, by way of several personal examples, the practically of

philosophy.

At this stage, we need, first to remind ourselves about the central concepts of "philosophy",

THINKING, CRITICAL THINKING and CREATIVITY" We begin with the general definition

of philosophy.

Philosophy may generally be taken to refer to a reflective and reasoned attempt to infer the

character and content of the universe, taken in its entirety and as a single whole, from an

observation and study of the data presented by all its aspects (Wambari, 1992, p. ii).

Philosophy, it must be remembered, has athe function of critically examining phrases and

concepts impartially and reasonably to clasify their meaning and use in daily human concern.

THINKING : Is any mental process or activity involving ideas. It ranges from antomatic and

unregulated dreaming in sleep, through day-dreaming to reflective critical thinking where the

activity is deliberately directed to contemplate itself. The activity of thinking includes such acts

as remembering, having feelings, doubting, questioning, reasoning and making judgements. It is

a manifestation that some thing is going on in our heads. There is a lowere and higher order

thinking.
CRITICAL THINKING - Lies on the higher level of thinking. It is described as the habit of

carefully reasoned inspection of the way we evaluate, judge and act with the aim of making

ourselves wiser, more self-reflective and therefore better men and women. A critical thinker

thinks for him/herself as an individual and accepts only what has been proved or demonstrated to

the satisfactiin of reason.

CREATIVITY - Has something to do with bringing forth something new. It is an immediate

result of critical thinking aimed as solving certain problems or dealing with certain situations in

everyday life. For example, where one is unable to use a regular toothbrush, because he/she

forgot it somewhere, creativity demands that one looks for an alternative in order to bruch his/her

teeth.
NOTE:

It is very important to remember or carry along the above meaning of the

terms given above as you move to the next stages of this lesson.

QUESTION:

Is it possible that small children of the ages 6 months - 1 year think

critically and creatively.

ACTIVITY:

Together with a friend, discuss and note down the various contexts

where thinking, critically and creatively is important.

Having reminded ourselves of the important concepts in critical and creative thinking, we now

move to the next stage where the ideas of Kwasi Wiredu are examined.

-According to Kwasi Wiredu:

man lives in a complex world

Despite this complexity, man must understand the world in which he lives

This understanding is difficult, unfishable but an attempt is essential.

Throughout history, therefore, philosophers, who are men and women in this world, have

been engaged in trying to understand the world.

 This understanding is not just an end in itself. It generally for the practical good of man,

for the improvement of society.

This improvement of society actually implies change, which is apparently inevitable in

society.

Now, whereas change is inevitable in society, the ideas leading to this change have to be

managed carefully and reasonably, otherwise we could end up with half-baked ideas

leading to change that is disastrous to society.

This is particularly so in Africa where we are under pressure to change our political, ans

social organization from modern conditions and foreign influence.

NOTE:

The above brief is important for the philosopher because it is here, as

Wiredu suggests, that the philosopher comes in. But how does the

philosopher come in? The next stage shows us clearly.

The philosopher, who is expected to be a thinker, must let his voice be heard on what mode of

organization is best suited for the society.

He must take an active part, leading in the praisal of our traditional culture.

The philosopher should be able to reveal the basic principles on which to manage this change

Whereas change is inevitable, change for the sake of mere change could be disastrous. The

philosophers need to look critically and advise accordingly.

NOTE:

Wiredu insists that even though change is inevitable in society, this change

occasioned by emerging ideas need critical examination. The critically

examined and evaluated to check their suitability for the society. It is here

that the philosopher is most needed.

QUESTION

Suggest reasons why you either agree or disagree with Wiredu on the idea

of critically examining ideas that lead to change in society.

ACTIVITY

Try, together with friends, to identify and discuss areas in our

Kenyan independence where philosophy would really have

helped.

CHOICE OF A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM

Wiredu argues that in case of a choice of a social and political system for example, there is

need for an ideology to be followed, infact people ask for it.

An ideology is a set of ideas about what form the good society should take.

Ideas, however,, need a basis in first principles, and it is here that philosophy enters.

Wiredu is worried that usually calls for ideology is seen as a demand for a ready made set

of ideas which are meant to be adopted - sometimes even by force.

The philosopher, according to Wiredu, needs to positively oppose the emergence of forced

dogmas-because ideology in this sense is a negation of philosophy and a bar to

development.

Forced dogmas denies others the opportunity to think for themselves. It renders others

unable to think for themselves and this is the worst sin in philosophy.

Ideas need to be thought of by all individuals and where need be contrary and competing

ideas be expressed for purposes of choice.

 Philosophers need not issue social prescriptions but encourage people to look critically at

our cultures and where necessary acknowledge our short comings. If possible, borrowing

should be allowed but this should also be done after retinal reflection.

This initiative according to Wiredu, will not come from the people at large, but must come

from the thinkers. It is the thinkers that will give direction to the society.

Wiredu further suggests that the philosopher needs not fear discussing issues that are

thought of as abstract. This is because, it is sometimes such abstract issues. They need to b

analysed and people helped to think critically about such abstract notions as "truth", which

lie at the base of ideological discourse.

SUMMARY

In this lesson, we have tried to show that philosophy-hence critical and creative thinking is

practical and necessary to society. We have noted that ideas are sources of change which is

inevitable in society. However, change, unless viewed critically, where ideas are analyzed and

dissected, this change that ought always be for the good, could end up being disastrous.

Philosophy provides this criticality in every aspect of the society's endeavors. This clearly

demonstrates that, far from being impractical, philosophy is perhaps the most practical of all

subjects.

DEFINITATIONS OF KEY WORDS

- Refer to stage 1 of the lesson content.

READING LIST
i) Required reading

a) WAMBARI, K (Ed.) 1992: Readings in Introduction to Critical Thinking, A.I.C.

Kijabe Printing Press, Kijabe.

ii) Recommended Reading

a) John-Terry C. 1994: For the love of wisdom: An explanation of the meaning and

purpose of philosophy. Alba house-New York.

b) Wilson, J. 1968: Philosophy: Thinking about meaning. Heineman Educational Books-

London.

c) Clark, M: 1973: The need to question. An introduction to philosophy Prentice-Hall in

New Jersey.

Last modified: Wednesday, 15 December 2010, 12:10 PM

UCU103