LOGICAL THINKING
INCREASES SMARTNESS, LEADS TO SUCCESS
A logical thinking process can make people smarter. In any event, it is a necessary skill for improving one's life.
And critical thinking leads to success.
However, many will say that can get by without it or that it is just not in their temperament, which, in both cases, is an example of not using logical thinking and definitely not having a logical argument.
LOGIC IS...
Logic is the art and science of correct reasoning. It includes the analysis, clarification, and evaluation of words, statements, and arguments.
The result of sound logic is that it produces a sound argument with a conclusion is valid.
An argument is a group (or set) of statements in which one of the statements, the conclusion, is claimed to follow logically (by way of inference) from the others (premises, which are claimed to be facts).
A "SOUND" "ARGUMENT"
Premises, based on fact (that is verifiable or obviously true): :
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is human.
The argument, conclusion:(valid if it is logical inference, it follows logically from its premises)
3. Socrates is mortal.
This is a sound argument based on sound reasoing based upon sound premises.
We test for validity:
The premises
The argument's logic, if the premises are valid
IS THIS ONE SOUND?
Murder and the death penalty
This is, often, an emotional issue, but let's apply logic.
Premises:
Murder is a form of initentional homicide. (homicide is defined as the killing of a human being)
The death penalty is a form of intentional homicide.
Argument:
Therefore, the death penalty is murder.
Is this a valid argument?
An analysis from Dr. George Cronk in Philosophy & Logic, The Process Of Correct Reasoning:
The premises of the argument assert only one common characteristic of murder and the death penalty: they are both forms of intentional homicide. Although true, the premises do not take into account the significant differences between murder and the death penalty. A typical definition of murder is this: “premeditated criminal homicide perpetrated voluntarily, intentionally, and maliciously, and in wanton (or ‘cold blooded’) disregard for the value of human life.” Now, the death penalty is not illegal (as is murder), and it need not be carried out maliciously or in “wanton (or ‘cold blooded’) disregard for the value of human life.” Thus, while the premises of this argument are true as far as they go, the conclusion that the death penalty is murder does not follow from those premises.
Notice, if you're an advocate of either side, if you reacted emotionally and/or resisted the final conclusion.
WHAT'S THE PROCESS?
The first three steps require us to
(1) identify the conclusion of the argument (the claim the arguer is seeking to prove true);
(2) identify the premises of the argument; and
(3) portray the formal structure of the argument: Premises laid out, then argument identified.
Then we analyze:
(4) are the premises factual
(5) is the logical inference of the argument true, based on the premises?
Followed by:
(6) a review of the process of argument analysis.
If all are true and logical, then the argument is deemed sound.
OTHER LOGIC TESTS
1. All cats are animals.
2. All tigers are animals.
3. All tigers are cats.
While the conclusion is true, the argument is unsound, as the premises do not logically lead to the argument's conclusion.
Another
1. All dogs are animals (true).
2. All tigers are dogs (false).
3. All tigers are animals (true).
1. If Ronald Reagan was once President of the United States, then he is an officer of the federal government. (false, he is no longer in the federal government.
2. Ronald Reagan is an officer of the federal government.
3. Ronald Reagan was once President of the United States. (true)
Unsound argument: faulty reasoning, one false statement
Is this one sound?
1. The great majority of college professors are politically liberal.
2. Patricia Quinn is a college professor.
3. Patricia Quinn is a member of the Republican Party.
4. Patricia Quinn is an officer of the American Conservative Union.
5. Patricia Quinn is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
6. Few Republicans are politically liberal.
7. Officers of the ACU are politically conservative, not liberal.
8. The AEI is a conservative think tank.
9. Patricia Quinn is probably a political liberal.
The premises of the foregoing argument make it very improbable that its conclusion is true.
Is this argument valid
1. All people who are Irish get drunk.
2. Fiona is Irish.
Therefore, Fiona gets drunk.
No, generalizing error in #1.
To learn more...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Notes for later that I may develop
Do I have reason to believe this person has credible knowledge that is relevant?
Is this person probably biased, so I have to doublecheck the data?
logical thinking Process - this is a learned mental process, period
The basis of all logical thinking is sequential though. The process involves taking the important ideas, facts, and conclusions involved in a problem and arranging them in a chain-like progression taht takes on a meaning in and of tself. To think logically is to think in steps.
Sequential thought involves taking facts and stringing them together to form a conclusion. The difficulty of sequential thought arrives when there is a weak link in the chain. One error of fact in logical reasoning can produce a false conclusion.
socyberty.com
