Some new/interesting stuff from this book on Critical Thinking.
Fallacies of logic
Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
If A, then B. B did not occur, A could not have occurred.
But, fallacy of affirming the consequent
If A, then B. B, therefore A. Not logical since there are other ways of arriving at B.
Another fallacy would be ad hoc rescue which happens when a person is determined to believe what she wants to and will come up with as many additional premises as it takes to do so.
Disjunctive argument
Either A or B. It is a type of "false dichotomy".
Biases work as a series of filters through which information must pass in order to be considered. When it comes to experiencing new information, one generally has 3 options: acceptance, rejection or suspension of judgement. A confimation bias happens when an individual finds evidence to support what they believe in.
It is important for us to identify context related to arguments or information because if we fail to do so, we may judge and react unfairly and too quickly. Like how we interact with news of atrocities happening elsewhere in the world, too little information is available to make sense of a situation that is so horrifically different from my daily life.
We must also be mindful of "noise": factors that may or may not provide context.
Anecdotal evidence can be made more credible with statistical significance: no longer just an individual's personal experience but a collection of consistent personal experiences. Be mindful that it is only more credible but not necessarily true as what we know from ad populum. We should also be mindful that these do not apply to arguments based on evidence which also become popular but because of their soundness and ability to explain phenomenon.
Another fallacy would be "poisoning the well": a preemptive attack on a person's character in order to discredit him.
The fallacy of Disanalogy occurs when an analogy is used and it mars our understanding of the argument. Euphemisms are an example which in the effort of being less harsh or dramatic, tends to distort information.
Post Hoc fallacy
Because A precedes B, A must cause B.
Critical Thinking and its implications
An evidentialist would argue rightfully that it is morally binding to accept information for which one has satisfactory evidence.
There is no middle ground between two truth values. Truths are understood from convincing arguments. Such arguments must be consistent, simple, reliable, relevant, sufficient and devoid of logical fallacies.
We are also mindful of personal biases and historical facticity.
We need to be aware of the Relations of Natural Systems and Relations of Cultural Systems in order to understand what we know.
Range of freedoms: we have total freedom (Libertarian), we have no freedom (hard determinism), we have limited freedom (soft determinism).
The BIG 5 questions
What can I know?
Why am I here?
What am I?
How should I behave?
What is to come of me?
