Critical Thinking: Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Explained

By Marco Jameson

What is a fallacy? Many people may have heard the word before but don’t grasp the magnitude of it. They erroneously assume that they aren’t guilty of embracing half-truths or false conclusions. And yet, those are often the ones who do it the most.



In this guide, you will receive greater comprehension of what fallacies are and close your blind spot to the truth of things.



Later, the author goes on to instruct you on inductive and deductive reasoning, which are two techniques that help people reach logical conclusions without going astray in their paths of thinking.



Last but not least, a long chapter is devoted to developing moral character, our conscience, and our ethics. Everything can be justified, but to live with our conscience is an art by itself.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Efalon Acies
• Release date: Oct 2, 2020
• ISBN: 9791220202695

Book preview

Critical Thinking

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Explained

By Marco Jameson

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Fallacies and Their Definition

Chapter 2: Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Chapter 3: Moral Character

Chapter 1: Fallacies and Their Definition

A fallacy is a type of error in reasoning.

Fallacies might be made accidentally, or they could be created intentionally in order to deceive other people.

The huge majority of the commonly identified fallacies include arguments, although some include clarifications, or definitions, or other items of thinking. Sometimes the term fallacy is used much more broadly to suggest any false belief or reason for a false belief. The list below includes some fallacies of these sorts, but most are fallacies that include kinds of mistakes made while arguing informally in natural language.

A charge of fallacious thinking always needs to be justified. The burden of evidence is on your shoulders when you declare that a person's reasoning is fallacious. Even if you don't clearly give your reasons, it is your responsibility to be able to provide if challenged.

An informal fallacy is fallacious just because of both its form and its content. The formal fallacies are fallacious only simply because of their rational form. For example, the Domino effect Fallacy has the following form: Step 1 typically leads to step 2. Step 2 usually results in step 3. Step three usually causes ... until we reach a certainly undesirable step, so step 1 is not acceptable. That form takes place in both good arguments and fallacious arguments. The quality of an argument of this form depends most importantly on the likelihoods. The probabilities include the argument's content, not only its form.

The first recognized organized research study of fallacies was because of Aristotle in his De Sophisticis Elenchis (Sophistical Refutations), an appendix to the Topics. He listed thirteen types. After the Dark Ages, fallacies were again studied methodically in Medieval Europe. That's why so many fallacies have Latin names. The 3rd major period of research study of the fallacies started in the later 20th century as a result of restored interest from the disciplines of philosophy, logic, communication research studies, rhetoric, psychology, and AI.

The more frequent the mistake within public conversation and discuss the more likely it is to have a name. That is one reason that there is no particular name for the fallacy of subtracting 5 from thirteen and concluding that the answer is 7, though the error is very common.

The term fallacy is not a precise term. One reason is that it is ambiguous. It can refer either to (a) a sort of error in an argument, (b) a kind of error in thinking (including arguments, meanings, clarifications, and so forth), (c) a false belief, or (d) the reason for any of the previous errors including what are usually referred to as rhetorical techniques. Philosophers who are scientists in fallacy theory choose to highlight (a), but their lead is usually not followed in textbooks and public discussion.

Regarding (d), disease, being a bigot, being hungry, being stupid, and being hypercritical of

Reviews for Critical Thinking

[Craig Naquin · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I highly recommend this. I feel that this deserved my time. Thus, I leave 5 stars indeed. And so, with this being mentioned, I do recommend it.

[Darlene Sommer · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I recommend this handbook to anybody who has an interest in topics like these. Several of the chapters were more captivating than others, naturally. So, with this being said, I do highly recommend it. And so, with that being said, I do strongly recommend it.

[Miriam Green · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This E-book stood out. I'm not always an experienced reader, but I did like this. I am content. So, with that being mentioned, I do highly recommend it.