Critical thinking Part 2: Broken Logic

Part 2 of the TechNyou critical thinking resource.

The resource covers basic logic and faulty arguments, developing student's critical thinking skills.

Suitable for year 8-10, focused on science issues, the module can be adapted to suit classroom plans.

The resource is found here:
https://education.technyou.edu.au/critical-thinking

Transcript can be found here:
http://technyou.edu.au/fun-stuff/videos/video-transcripts/

Transcript can be found here:
http://technyou.edu.au/fun-stuff/videos/video-transcripts/

Continued in Part 3:
The Man who was made of straw
http://youtu.be/kgdDK4XMpm0

Animated and directed by James Hutson, Bridge8.
Written by Mike Mcrae and James Hutson

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Educational
• non
• sequitur
• Critical Thinking
• thinking
• think
• critical
• Thought
• Mind
• Brain
• science
• logic
• logical
• aristotle
• logician
• premise
• logical fallacy
• Debate
• Reason
• philosophy
• philosopher
• broken logic
• resource

[chinopisces]

Religious fundamentalists should watch this video.

[lasiorhinuskrefftii]

my favourites of this series are 'Broken Logic' and 'A precautionary tale' In a world of 'short sound bites' and 'dumbing down' of topics there is so much oversimplification and broken logic going on that it make my blood boil at times (figuratively).

[chinopisces]

@Solario392: I reject the premise of religious faith being the standard to base my reasoning. All religious arguments that pose supernatural claims require this in order for their arguments to be valid. Even with this, the claims are not demonstrable. Faith is illogical by default.

[chinopisces]

@Solario392: If you want to subscribe to a particular brand of logic, be my guest. I prefer to acknowledge Bertrand Russell's notion that one should not believe anything without evidence in all practical applications. The example you posed is demonstrable, and therefore fits practical logic in the truest sense of the term.

[chinopisces]

@Yesica1993: What do you mean, not really? You mean I'm not really willing to bet? Your comment is non sequitur.

[chinopisces]

@MSoulPoet: I'm less concerned with anti-religious people than batshit crazy fundies.

[Solario392]

@chinopisces And we need to differentiate between logic that is logically sound and an logic that is valid.

Religious arguments might be valid, if we accept the premisses, but the premisses themselves are, most likely, not sound.

[Solario392]

@chinopisces I agree overall but the claim that believing in things without evidence is illogical isn't, strictly speaking, true - It's a question of what type of logic you subscribe to: fx. classical or intuitionistic logic.

If I say that in Pi there is a sequence where the number nine is repeated 100 times, classical logic would agree with it (because pi is infinite and thus it would follow that this does happen), but intuitionistic logic would demand that you could point it out.

[MSoulPoet]

@chinopisces Some anti-religious people might want to watch it, too. Especially the one about straw men.

[Grendel938]

Helpful.

[Yesica1993]

@chinopisces Not really, since a claim like this should've been followed with evidence.

[chinopisces]

@Yesica1993: I'm willing to bet atheists have a greater understanding of logic in general than theists.