Critical Thinking Fundamentals - Introduction
The Wasp Alloy now features lecture articles.
Up until this point, the platform housed satire and serious analyses. With the addition of lectures, I will be able to fulfill one of my long-standing desires - to dive into the world of the philosophical discipline called logic. People also refer to it as critical thinking.
The Purpose of Critical Thinking
In philosophical discourse, care must be taken to ensure every argument is supported by evidence, and that all of them are internally congruent.
Logic is the study of reasoning. This discipline includes both a formal and an informal branch. Both branches will be explored together in the Critical Thinking Fundamentals series. In any case, the overarching truth about logic is that it aims to teach the principles of sound reasoning.
Sound reasoning is essential across the humanities, as it determines one's credibility, which can in turn affect society on various scales - whether small or large. This is why every student of humanitarian disciplines - politicians, journalists, historians, philosophers, etc. must familiarize themselves with the concept of sound reasoning.
In a world increasingly plagued by idiotic takes on Israel, there is no better time and place than right here and now to get started.
Defining Argument, Premise, and Conclusion
The core tenet of logic is as follows:
- An argument is a collection of premises, leading to a conclusion.
- A premise is a foundational statement, assumption, or proposition.
- A conclusion is the final decision reached through reasoning.
Arguments are evaluated on two main criteria - validity and soundness. Although people colloquially use these terms interchangeably, the truth is that they are completely separate:
- A valid argument is one where the logical structure is flawless. In a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion must absolutely be true. Crucially, an argument's structure can be valid even if its premises are completely false in reality.
- An invalid argument is one where the logical structure is broken. Even if the premises are factually true, they do not logically guarantee the conclusion.
- A sound argument is the ultimate goal. It is an argument that is both structurally valid, and whose premises are empirically true in reality.
An axiom to keep in mind is that all sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.
You may find it difficult to wrap your head around these concepts at first, but in truth, they will start making sense as soon as we explore a few examples.
Examples of Argumentation
Let us take a look at the following argument, comprising two premises and a conclusion:
- Premise: All mammals have lungs.
- Premise: Cats are mammals.
- Conclusion: All cats have lungs.
This is called Deductive Reasoning, where the general leads to a sound conclusion about a particular case. In other words, it is a Categorical Syllogism.
The first premise establishes the general fact that all mammals have lungs. The second premise establishes that cats belong to the same category established in the first premise. If cats belong to the category of mammals, and all mammals have lungs, the conclusion is that all cats have lungs as well, with no exception.
Because all empirical evidence is conclusive about mammals' possession of lungs, as well as the categorization of cats based on their anatomical characteristics, the full argument is sound.
Another example:
- Premise: All mammals live on land.
- Premise: Whales live in the ocean.
- Conclusion: Whales are not mammals.
From the perspective of logic, the argument is valid because its conclusion is congruent with the established premises. However, it is not sound because the first premise is false, leading to an incorrect conclusion, and rendering the entire argument incorrect.
Mammals live both on land and in the ocean. And when this truth is established, it becomes impossible to determine whether a whale is a mammal or not solely by the fact whales live underwater:
- Premise: Mammals live on land and in the ocean.
- Premise: Whales live in the ocean.
- Conclusion: Whales may or may not be mammals.
This is why in order to determine the appropriate categorization for whales, we must inspect other features they possess that undeniably place them within the category of mammals.
"Whales are classified as mammals because they share key biological characteristics with land mammals, rather than fish. Despite living entirely in the water, they are warm-blooded, air-breathing creatures that nurse their young."
It is with this broad collection of premises that we can confirm the status of whales as mammals.
Moving Forward
Understanding the fundamentals of logic is integral to understanding future lectures. This introductory lesson is not comprehensive, and its purpose is to ease readers into the realm of critical thinking without overwhelming them with complex terminology.
You can always browse academic literature to learn more, but the core advantage of reading about it on The Wasp Alloy is the ability to see how I apply it in my Hasbara activism. The next article is a seminar which explores the utility of this lecture in real-world scenarios, specifically in relation to Israel.
Sufian M'Barki
lecture logic journalism israel antisemitism
Loading witnesses...