TCT 007 | 5 Essential Components of Critical Thinking | Part 1: Logic vs. Argumentation

http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com

This is episode 007 of The Critical Thinker podcast. In this episode I'm starting a new series on what in my view are the essential components of critical thinking: logic, argumentation, rhetoric, background knowledge, and a certain set of attitudes and values.

Over the next few episodes I'm going to expand on each of these and try to make the case that effective critical thinking requires that all of these components work together in the right way.

In this first episode in the series I spend a bit of time talking about the distinction between logic and argumentation.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• critical thinking
• logic
• argumentation
• gay marriage
• consistency
• reductio ad absurdum

[papajay111]

I am enjoying your podcast but i have a big problem with the your specific numbering system of the 5 components of critical thinking. In particular no 4 "background knowledge" must by its definition come first and therefore should be no 1. I hope you are not mixing up these steps intentionally because the way you are teaching now will lead students into nothing but confusion when they try to use these core tools on their own, greatly diminishing their ability to think and reason effectively.

[PhilosophyFreak]

@papajay111 The numbering isn't meant to imply anything about logical priority. If anything the numbering reflects the presuppositions of many critical thinking texts, with a primary focus on logic and argumentation, but I'm trying to distance myself from that. My own view is that the effective application of any of these five components is dependent on the other four -- you need them all working properly together.

[kenballer00]

if the first premise is that about equality, it does not matter whether or not there is justification for denying gay marriage because the logical consequence is that bans on incest would be unconstiutional or unfair as well. If someone says its justified in why those relationships should not have a legal right to be married, then a Non-sequiter has been committed since the scope of the argument is changed because its no longer about equality but its about justice which are separate concepts.

[PhilosophyFreak]

@kenballer00 Hmm. So the question is how defenders of gay marriage who base their reasoning on an appeal to "equality" avoid the conclusion that by the very same reasoning, brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters should have the right to marry as well. The only defense they would have is to argue that there are legally and morally relevant differences in those cases. That doesn't sound like a "non sequitur", that just sounds like the next move in the argument, don't you think?

[kenballer00]

Since you are the philosopher, I guess it may depend on how you determine when someone who is intentionally just be making the next argument versus someone who unconsciously commits a logical fallacy. For the most part, it may not be so much a non-sequiter but as you framed it in your infertile couples example just a logical consequence.Traditional marriage supporters say that there are also legal and moral relevant differences in cases that deal with infertile heterosexuals to argue further.

[PhilosophyFreak]

@kenballer00 I don't think a logical fallacy is being committed in either case. The original arguments aren't fallacious (they may be bad arguments, but not all bad arguments commit fallacies), and the refutations aren't pointing out a fallacy. The refutations work by pointing out the logical consequences of the original argument, and hoping that the arguer will reject those consequences, and therefore feel compelled to modify the original argument in some way. At least that's my take on it.

[kenballer00]

@PhilosophyFreak

I agree. I think that is where I was coming from.

[kenballer00]

I have an example of an argument made by supporters of gay marriage. They the discussion as a matter of fairness or equality and their argument boils down to this: if straight people can get married, its only fair that gays can get married. Let me give the logical analysis similar to yours about marriage being about procreation

[feron99]

Excellent explanation. The best I've ever heard.