Ah, the apex of human evolution, the pinnacle of human thought. And yet, is it all it's cracked up to be? Certainly there are benefits of thinking logically. Consider Spock, the pointy-eared guy from Star Trek. His logic is quite useful and impressive, especially when he keeps his cool when others are panicking. We humans try to reason through all kinds of tough issues and problems. Do we, though, always consider the underlying assumptions or foundations for our logic? Do we recognize the role of emotion or prior experiences in our logic? Do we acknowledge potential fallacies in our logical reasoning, especially when we arrive at a conclusion that we like?
The series of short videos below outline some logical principles. Identify ways in which you use logic and how you may have used logical fallacies as logic. See if you can find connections between this Way of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge.
The series of short videos below outline some logical principles. Identify ways in which you use logic and how you may have used logical fallacies as logic. See if you can find connections between this Way of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge.
|
To give context to some of the logical arguments or fallacies, read the story below and look for the logical fallacies in the series of videos.
|
Once you are aware of the straw man argument, you will begin to notice a variety of distractions or simplifications of arguments, such as Dicto Simpliciter and Hasty Generalization.
Two common logical fallacies that deal with "getting personal" are Poisoning the Well, where a future statement is undermined by saying that it will be wrong or erroneous. This is often used in debates or court cases where you might here, "My opponent may tell you this; however, this is misleading..." It gets more personal when a person's credibility is brought into question before they speak. |
|
The second common fallacy is the Appeal to False Authority, where an argument is put forward by someone who is an expert in one field but is making a statement about a different one. For example, if a popular football star says that a particular car is excellent, there is nothing in the football star's background that qualifies him to make that statement.
And here is another video that explains some of the most common logical fallacies... |
|
|
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning are two ways to approach a logical conclusion. Each has its purpose. Inductive Reasoning goes from specific facts that we know and determines a logical result for the future. For example, based upon the amount of rainfall in the UAE over the last 40 years, the rainfall next year should be approximately the same. (If you need further clarification, click HERE for more information.) Deductive Reasoning draws specific conclusions from general principles. Monty Python uses faulty principles for humor to create a "logical" conclusion. Sherlock Holmes reasons deductively to draw his conclusions, using general information collected from a variety of details to arrive at a conclusion. (Click HERE for further explanation.) Both forms of reasoning rely upon correct facts and a logical progression of the facts in order to draw logically valid conclusions. As a result, if any of the facts or the order of the facts is in error, the conclusion will also be in error. |