Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Logic
From Wikiversity
Just getting the topic started. --Kfitton 16:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 Please help develop this page
This page was created, but so far, little content has been added. Everyone is invited to help expand and create educational content for Wikiversity. If you need help learning how to add content, see the editing tutorial and the MediaWiki syntax reference. To help you get started with content, we have automatically added references below to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. This will help you find materials such as information, media and quotations on which to base the development of "Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Logic" as an educational resource. However, please do not simply copy-and-paste large chunks from other projects. You can also use the links in the blue box to help you classify this page by subject, educational level and resource type. |
|
[edit] Introduction to Logic
Logic is the underpinnings of reason and argument. To be logical is to follow a pattern of reasoning that doesn't contain flaws or weaknesses. A true logical debate puts forward the best possible arguments from both sides and allows the evidence to carry the conclusion rather than fallacies that appeal to attacks, emotions, or trickery.
Why study logic? Simple...to be a better person, to be able to tackle an argument and break down the components into manageable chunks, to weed out poor arguments and expose them to light for the weaknesses that they are.
[edit] Logical Arguments/Syllogisims
All arguments can be broken down into basic structures that can be analyzed for accuracy. Let's look at an example:
[edit] Logical Fallacies
- Straw Man - A method of creating a weaker form of an argument and then attacking that weaker position.
- Ad Hominem - Differs from Straw Man in that the argument isn't attacked, rather the person themself.
- Red Herring - Shifting the focus of the argument to distract away from original point.
- Begging the Question (circular logic) - The conclusion is the same as the assertion, no argument is being made only a statement.
- Appeals:
- to Authority - Citing an 'expert' with no additional context...the expert could easily be a novice in terms of the discussion unless directly related to the problem. (i.e. Bill Gates being cited as an expert on Nuclear War instead of technology). Now it doesn't mean that the 'expert' couldn't be right, but it creates a weakness in the argument and is best to be avoided.
- to Emotion
- to Belief
- to Popularity
- to Fear
- to Ridicule
- Bandwagon Thinking - Also could be called Mob Rule or Rule of the Majority...using the power of a crowd as evidence of argument rather than actual evidence.
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After the fact, therefore because of it) - supposing that because circumstance B follows circumstance A, it must therefore have been caused by it.
- The 'Only Game in Town' Fallacy - supposing that since there is only one available explanation, this explanation is therefore the correct one.
- "Scape Goating" blaming a single person for a problem seemingly unsolvable such as the murder of the Lindbergh baby.
- False Dilemma - presenting two options, disproving one and making the claim that the other option is the only answer when there could be others not explored.
- Slippery Slope - assuming a small effect will produce a much larger effect down the road without accurate causation.
