See here guys!!!

Your Ad Here

TERMS

A term is a written or spoken word expressing a concept or an idea. Or it is a sensible conventional sign expressive of an idea.

Explanation of definition
1. Sensible- what can be perceived by the senses.
2. Conventional- arbitrary, settled by agreement.
3. Sign – something that manifests another thing aside from itself.

Classification of terms

I. According to Meaning
1. Univocal or homologous: Term bearing the same meaning as applied to several individuals. The Greek original homology denotes same meaning.

2. Analogous: Term expressing kindred meaning. The Greek original analogy means associated meaning. It may be analogous:

a) by proportion, or by association of the objects to which the term is applied. Thus, e.g., the term healthy is analogous by proportion, when applied to a man as subject of health, to climate as a factor, and to color as a sign of health.
b) By proportionality, or by virtue of kindred similarity of conceptual and formal reasons denoted (metaphysical analogy). E.g. the 1/3 of 27 and the 1/3 of 9: the former is 9, and the latter is only 3.
37
4. Equivocal: Term outwardly or apparently the same, bur expressing different meanings. The Latin original equivocal denotes sameness as to term only. The term may be equivocal:

a) In pronunciation only. E.g.: sweet and suite; week and weak; sun and son; hens and hence; In Hiligaynon: Mayo and mayo( as month and as good), tu-od and tu-od (as true and as a protruding something).
b) In writing only. E.g., bow(bou) and bow(bo) (inclination or weapon);
c) Both in pronunciation and writing. E.g.: ball(round and dance); bat(animal and club); club(weapon and group); butt(a thick end of anything and a push delivered by the head).

5. Metaphorical: Term transferred from its proper meaning or object and applied to something else, on account of the latter’s resemblance to the former and to denote that resemblance. E.g.: the King of animals, henpecked husband, tomboy; hand of God, School head.


II. According to Quality:

a) Positive: Term that expresses a formal reason of a thing proper. E.g., life ; plants; love; tall; being; substance.
b) Negative: Term that expresses the absence of something or its lack of perfection. E.g., nothing; poverty; ugly; blindness; death.


38
Other divisions of term are according to comprehension, components, function, relation and object which we do not consider with great practical usage.

THE PREDICAMENTS AND PREDICABLES

What are they?

The predicaments are classifications of universal natures and concepts. Whereas, the predicables are classification of universal predicates in general. Predicaments are useful in giving order into our universal concepts by way of classification.

The Supreme Predicaments

Aristotle called them categories, which is Greek term for Predicaments. According to Aristotle there are two Supreme Predicaments: that of substance and that of accident. Substance is a being that carries existential reality by itself. Accident is a modification of the substance and does not carry existential reality by itself.

The Ten Predicaments

The first predicament is that of substance; the remaining nine are the sub-classifications of the predicament accident:

1) Substance: A nature that carries existential actuality by itself and not as inhering in something else. E.g., a tree , an animal, table, chair , chalk.
39
2) Quantity: Modification of substance as having extended and measurable parts. This with regards to dimension and weight. E.g. 140 lbs; 6’ 2” tall, 5 fingers.
3) Quality: A formal modifier of the substance( health, figure, beauty, color, etc.) E.g. Sexy body; blue eyes, white lady, dangerous enemy.

4) Relation: Reference of one substance to another. Eg., motherhood or mother, friend, kinship, mentor.

5) Action: motion of the substance, commonly inducing result in another thing. E.g., running, sawing ,playing, hitting, flying.

6) Passion: Modification of a substance as a result of another agent. E.g., a wound , a contusion.

7) When: Circumstantial determination as to time or duration. E.g., at noon, at dawn, at three o’clock.

8) Where: Circumstantial determination as to place. E.g, In Bacolod , on your knee, in your stomach.

9) Posture: Determination of the substance as top disposition of the parts. E.g., Standing. lying, upright.

10) Habit: Determination of the substance as to external outfit. E.g., armed, dressed up, tatttoed, bespectacled.

40

DEFINITION

Definition discloses the formal or conceptual comprehension of an object. Division discloses the formal and conceptual extension of an object. Hence, Definition and Division were called by ancient Logicians ways of knowing.

Definition is the conceptual manifestation either of the meaning of a term, or of the formal features of an object.


Definitions may be:

1. Nominal definition – is the synonymous or equivalent term or its etymology or word origin E.g. : Sow or a female pig; philosopher or lover of wisdom.
2. Real definition – is the conceptual manifestation of a thing by its objective features or reasons. E.g.: microscope is an optical instrument designed to magnify the image of minute objects; a house is a structure for human dwelling.


RULES

1. The definition must be clearer than the thing to b defined.
2. The definition must not contain the term or feature to be defined.
3. The definition must be positive as must as possible.
4. The definition must be adequate.

41

DIVISION

Logical division is the conceptual manifestation of the inferiors of the universal, or of parts of an object, by way of an orderly and comprehensive enumeration of them.

RULES

1. The division must be adequate, that is, the parts taken together must equal to the whole, and must not be more or less. Hence:

A. All parts must be enumerated. The following is wrong: Substances are animals and men. The Filipinos are the Ilocanos, the Tagalogs and the Visayans.

B. No part may exceed the whole. Hence, the following is wrong: University of St. La Salle Has the following colleges: CAS, CBA, Nursing, Engineering, Education, Medicine, Law and Architecture.

C. No part may equal the whole. Hence the following is wrong: College of Arts and Sciences Comprises the following departments: Masscom, IDS, Languages, Philosophy, Religious Studies, P.E., social Sciences and CAS Family.


D. Nothing must be included as part which is not a true part. the following is wrong: Negros is composed of Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental and Siquijor.

42

2. The division must be clear.
A. It must be reasonably limited.
B. There should be one basis for division.

3. The members of the division must be mutually exclusive; otherwise they would not all be different parts as presented to be. The following is wromng: The religious denominations I the Philippines are Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims and sects
4. The division must be orderly, that is, it must be done first by the immediate members or parts, and so on.

THE PROPOSITION

The proposition is the mental manifestation of the mental pronouncement. Or simply it is a statement which affirms or denies something. The Logical proposition is differentiated from ordinary sentence in the following points;

1. The logical Proposition is expressed in the Indicative Mood.
2. The logical Logical Proposition is expressed in the present tense.
3. The predicate of the logical proposition should be separately expressed from the bonding verb is, otherwise such objective identity or non-identity is not properly expressed.

43

ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSITION

The subject and predicate are called the matter of the proposition, because they are the materials out of which the proposition is made. The copula or bonding verb is called the form, because it is the unifying principle that maintains the structure o0f the proposition and imparts to its material the nature of the proposition.

It should be noted that the Subject, or the Predicate may be compound term, or a term with a dependent clause 9complex term) E.G.: “The student you introduced to me” is “the most intelligent in their class.”

KINDS OF PROPOSITIONS

1. Categorical Proposition is one that express a positive, or a negative judgment in an absolute manner. E.G.: La Salle is an academic institution; Negros is an island; Silaynons are not stingy; No Bacolodnon is a senator. Faculty members are not happy with their salary; Paul is faithful and strong.

2. Hypothetical Proposition is one that does not express an absolute judgment, but a qualified one. E.G.: If you fail in Philosophy one, you will not graduate; A student is either honest or dishonest.


44

The basis of the truth of the conditional proposition is the dependence of the consequent on the Antecedent; and the lack of
it , is the basis of its falsehood. E.g.: If one has a cellular phone,
then he has easy access to communication – true. If one has easy access to communication, then he has a cellular phone – false.

3. Disjunctive proposition is one that expresses alternatives, all of which cannot be together true, or together false; but only one is true with the exclusion of the rest. E.g.: Either whales are mammals or they are large fish; It is either male or female.

KINDS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

A. Simple categorical proposition is divided according to: 1. Quality 2. Quantity 3. Quality and Quantity

1. Quality:
1.1. Affirmative- is a proposition which expresses the objective identity of the subject with the predicate: Catholics are Christians; Non-Christians are the majority in the world; Ecumenism is a movement; Pre-marital sex is a sin;
1.2. Negative – is a proposition which expresses the objective non-identity of the subject with the predicate. E.G.: Parents are not adversaries; No student is stupid.

45

2. Quantity:
2.1. Universal – is a proposition that covers all its extension, or all its inferiors distributively. E.g.: All Negrenses are Visayans.
2.2. Particular – is a proposition where the subject expresses only parts of the universal. E.g.: Some students are intelligent-looking.
2.3. Singular – is a proposition wherein the subject expresses a specific individual. E.g.: Gil P. is a professor.

3. Quantity and Quality:

3.1. Universal-Affirmative – is designated by the symbolic letter “A”, E.g.: All Faculty members are college graduates.
3.2. Particular-Affirmative – is designate by the symbolic letter “I”. E.g.: Some parents are irresponsible.
3.3. Universal-Negative – is designated by the symbolic letter “E”. E.g.: No mother is a male.
3.4. Particular- Negative – is designated by the latter “O”. E.g.: Some drivers are drunkards.

The symbolic letters are taken from the Latin verbs: AffIrmo (I affirm) and nEgO (I deny).

46


OPPOSITION

Opposition is the disagreement or difference of two propositions having the same subject and the same predicate, as regards Quality, Quantity or both. This is illustrated in the “Square of opposition” given below:

A- All men truthful O- All men are not truthful


A CONTRARY O
C Y
O R
N O
T T
R C
A I
SUB-ALTERN D SUB-ALTERN
A I
R C
T T
N O
O R
C Y
I SUB-CONTRARY O

I- Some men are truthful Some men are not truthful- O

47


KINDS OF OPPOSITION

A. Contradictory propositions are those that have the same subject and the same predicate; but differ in quantity and quality. E.g.: All Bacolodnons are Negrenses – Some Bacolodnons are not Negrenses; No philosopher is insane – Some philosophers are insane.
Rule: If one proposition is true, the other is false; the other false.

B. Contrary propositions are those that have gthe same subject ansd same predicate and universal extension; but differ in quality. E.g: All Bacolodnons are Negrenses – All Bacolodnons are not Negrenses; No Philosopher is insane –Philosopher is insane.
Rule: If one contrary proposition is true, the other is false. If one is false the other is doubtful.
C. Sub-contrary propositions are those that have the same subject and the same predicate and the same particular extansion; but differin in quality,. E.g.: Some Bacolodnons are Negrenses – Some Bacolodnons are not Negrenses; Some philosophers are not insane – Some philosophers are insane.
Rule: If one sub-contrary proposition is false, the other is true. If one is true, the other is doubtful.

D. Sub-altern propositions are those that have the same subject, same predicate and quality; but differ as to quantity. E.g.: All Bacolodnons are Negrenses – Some Bacolodnons are Negrenses; Some philosophers are not insane – Philosophers are not insane.
Rule: If the universal subaltenant is true, then the particuklar subalternate is also true; because the truth of the universal is also the

48

truth of the particular but not vice-versa. If the universal subaltenant is false; then the universal subalternant is also false; but not vice-versa.



A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole, except in the case of begging the question, a false analogy and other informal fallacies. In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy, or logical fallacy is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.
Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several categories, depending on the source of the fallacy. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies involving causal reasoning, and fallacies resulting from ambiguities. A similar approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory.

49

Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. As we illustrate with various examples, fallacies may also exploit the emotions or intellectual or psychological weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence.
A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.

50

Contents

• 1 Aristotelian fallacies
• 1.1 Material fallacies
• 1.2 Verbal fallacies
• 1.3 Logical fallacies
• 2 Other systems of classification
• 3 Fallacies in the media and politics
• 4 General list of fallacies:
• 5 General examples
• 5.1 Example 1: Material Fallacy
• 5.2 Example 2: Verbal Fallacy
• 5.3 Example 3: Verbal Fallacy
• 5.4 Example 4: Logical Fallacy
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 External links

51
Aristotelian fallacies

Material fallacies

The classification of material fallacies widely adopted by modern logicians and based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows:
• Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) meaning to argue erroneously from a general rule to a particular case, without proper regard to particular conditions that vitiate the application of the general rule; e.g. if manhood suffrage be the law, arguing that a criminal or a lunatic must, therefore, have a vote.
• Converse Fallacy of Accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter) meaning to argue from a special case to a general rule.
52

• Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi), wherein, instead of proving the fact in dispute, the arguer seeks to gain his point by diverting attention to some extraneous fact (as in the legal story of "No case. Abuse the plaintiff's attorney"). The fallacies are common in platform oratory, in which the speaker obscures the real issue by appealing to his audience on the grounds of
• purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem)
• popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority)
• fear (argumentum ad baculum)
• conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam)
This fallacy has been illustrated by ethical or theological arguments wherein the fear of punishment is subtly substituted for abstract right as the sanction of moral obligation.


53

• Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii or Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle) consists in demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises that pre-suppose that conclusion. Jeremy Bentham points out that this fallacy may lurk in a single word, especially in an epithet, e.g. if a measure were condemned simply on the ground that it is alleged to be "un-English".
• Fallacy of the Consequent, really a species of Irrelevant Conclusion, wherein a conclusion is drawn from premises that do not really support it.
• Fallacy of False Cause, or Non Sequitur (L., it does not follow), wherein one thing is incorrectly assumed as the cause of another, as when the ancients attributed a public calamity to a meteorological phenomenon (a special case of this fallacy also goes by the Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc; the fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation).


54

• Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum), wherein several questions are improperly grouped in the form of one, and a direct categorical answer is demanded, e.g. if a prosecuting counsel asked the defendant " What time was it when you met this man? " with the intention of eliciting the tacit admission that such a meeting had taken place. Another example is the classic line, "Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?"

Verbal fallacies

Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.
• Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms ("All heavy things have a great mass; This is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass").

55

• Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure, e.g. of the position of the adverb "only" in careless writers ("He only said that," in which sentence, as experience shows, the adverb has been intended to qualify any one of the other three words).
• Fallacy of Composition is a species of Amphibology that results from the confused use of collective terms. e.g. "The angles of a triangle are less than two right angles" might refer to the angles separately or added together.
• Division, the converse of the preceding, which consists in employing the middle term distributively in the minor and collectively in the major premise.
• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

56

• Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress, or an expert's depreciation of a popular hero, or it may imply that the person in question is a deplorable violinist.
• Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.

Logical fallacies

The standard Aristotelian logical fallacies are:
• Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio terminorum)
• Fallacy of Undistributed Middle
• Fallacy of Illicit process of the major or the Illicit minor term;
• Fallacy of Negative Premises.
In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy : a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

57

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies. – valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation – .
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.

Other systems of classification

Of other classifications of fallacies in general the most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J. S. Mill. Bacon (Novum Organum, Aph.

58

33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone. With these should be compared the Offendicula of Roger Bacon, contained in the Opus maius, pt. i. J. S. Mill discussed the subject in book v. of his Logic, and Jeremy Bentham's Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks. See Rd. Whateley's Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847) ; A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks.

allacies in the media and politics

Fallacies are used frequently by pundits in the media and politics. When one politician says to another, "You don't have the moral authority to say X", this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. Arguably, the politician is not even attempting to make an argument against X, but is instead offering a moral rebuke against the interlocutor. For instance, if X is the assertion:

59

The military uniform is a symbol of national strength and honor.
Then ostensibly, the politician is not trying to prove the contrary assertion. If this is the case, then there is no logically fallacious argument, but merely a personal opinion about moral worth. Thus identifying logical fallacies may be difficult and dependent upon context.
In the opposite direction is the fallacy of argument from authority. A classic example is the ipse dixit—"He himself said it" argument—used throughout the Middle Ages in reference to Aristotle. A modern instance is "celebrity spokespersons" in advertisements: a product is good and you should buy/use/support it because your favorite celebrity endorses it.
An appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy, though it can be an appropriate form of rational argument if, for example, it is an appeal to expert testimony. In this case, the expert witness must be recognized as such and all parties must agree that the testimony is appropriate to the circumstances. This form of argument is common in legal situations.

60

By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid, but they can often be (re)written in such a way that they fit a valid argument form. The challenge to the interlocutor is, of course, to discover the false premise, i.e. the premise that makes the argument unsound.

General list of fallacies:

Common logical fallacy examples:
• formal fallacies
• Argument from fallacy "ad logicam"
• Affirming the consequent or Denying the antecedent
• Faulty generalization Inductive fallacies like
• Biased sample
• Hasty generalization (also called fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
• Misleading vividness
• Package-deal fallacy or False dilemma (also called false dichotomy or bifurcation)

61

• Questionable cause Informal causal fallacies (also called non causa pro causa)
• Begging the question, circular logic "petitio principii"
• Correlation implies causation "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Appeal to consequences "ad consequentiam"
• Appeal to force "Ad baculum"
• Appeal to probability & Slippery slope
• Informal Relevance fallacies
• Irrelevant conclusion "Ignoratio elenchi" like Red Herring
• Straw man
• Association fallacy & Guilt by association
• Ad hoc
• Argument from ignorance, incredulity, belief, conviction... "ad ignorantiam"
• Appeal to emotion like Appeal to fear, Appeal to flattery, Appeal to pity, Appeal to spite...

62

• Wishful thinking
• Appeal to authority or Appeal to ridicule "Ad hominem"
• Appeal to the majority "ad populum"
• Appeal to tradition "ad antiquitatem"
• Informal Verbal fallacies
• Equivocation like Loki's Wager
• Undistributed middle & No true scotsman
For a concise list of "appeal to" fallacies, see Appeal (disambiguation).
General list of fallacies: The entries in the following list are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive; that is, several distinct entries may refer to the same pattern. As noted in the introduction, these fallacies describe erroneous or at least suspect patterns of argument in general, not necessarily argument based on formal logic. Many of the fallacies listed are traditionally recognized and discussed in works on critical thinking; others are more specialized.
• Appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem)

63

• Argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio)
• Appeal to wealth (also called argumentum ad crumenam)
• Appeal to poverty (also called argumentum ad lazarum)
• Argument from repetition (also called argumentum ad nauseam)
• Base rate fallacy
• Conditional probability fallacy
• Conjunction fallacy
• Continuum fallacy (also called fallacy of the beard)
• Correlative based fallacies including:
• Fallacy of many questions (also called complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question or plurium interrogationum)
• Denying the correlative
• Suppressed correlative
• Definist fallacy
• Dicto simpliciter, including:

64

• Accident (also called a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
• Converse accident (also called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)
• Fallacies of distribution:
• Composition
• Division
• Ecological fallacy
• False analogy
• False attribution
• False premise
• False compromise
• Faulty generalization including:
• Gambler's fallacy/Inverse gambler's fallacy
• Genetic fallacy
• Historian's fallacy
• Homunculus fallacy
• If-by-whiskey (argues both sides)
65

• Inappropriate interpretations or applications of statistics including:
• Screening test fallacy
• Incomplete comparison
• Inconsistent comparison
• Invalid proof
• Judgmental language
• Juxtaposition
• Lump of labour fallacy (also called the fallacy of labour scarcity)
• Meaningless statement
• Middle ground (also called argumentum ad temperantiam)
• Naturalistic fallacy
• Negative proof
• Non sequitur like Affirming the consequent, also including its opposite
• Perfect solution fallacy
66


• Poisoning the well
• Proof by assertion
• Proof by verbosity (also called argumentum verbosium)
• Questionable cause (also called non causa pro causa) including:
• Fallacy of the single cause
• Joint effect
• Regression fallacy
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy
• Wrong direction
• Reification (also called hypostatization)
• Relativist fallacy (also called subjectivist fallacy)
• Restricted Universalism, Fallacy of
• Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
• Shifting the burden of proof
• Special pleading
• Style over substance fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy
• Syllogistic fallacies, including:
67

• Affirming a disjunct
• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
• Existential fallacy
• Fallacy of exclusive premises
• Fallacy of four terms (also called quaternio terminorum)
• Illicit major & Illicit minor

[edit] General examples
Fallacious arguments involve not only formal logic but also causality. Others involve psychological ploys such as use of power relationships between proposer and interlocutor, appeals to patriotism and morality, appeals to ego etc., to establish necessary intermediate (explicit or implicit) premises for an argument. Indeed, fallacies very often lay in unstated assumptions or implied premises in arguments that are not always obvious at first glance. One way to obscure a premise is through enthymeme.
68

We now give a few examples illustrating common errors in reasoning. Note that providing a critique of an argument has no relation to the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion could very well be true, while the argument itself is not valid. See argument from fallacy.
In the following, we view an argument as a dialogue between a proposer and an interlocutor.

Example 1: Material Fallacy
James argues:
1. Cheese is food.
2. Food is delicious.
3. Therefore, cheese is delicious.
This argument claims to prove that cheese is delicious. This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. Any argument must have premises as well as a conclusion. In this case we need to ask what the premises are, that is the set of assumptions the proposer of the argument can expect the interlocutor to grant. The
69

first assumption is almost true by definition: cheese is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear as to its meaning. Since the assertion has no quantifiers of any kind, it could mean any one of the following:
• All food is delicious.
• Most food is delicious.
• To me, all food is delicious.
• Some food is disgusting.
In all but the first interpretation, the above syllogism would then fail to have validated its second premise. James may try to assume that his interlocutor believes that all food is delicious; if the interlocutor grants this then the argument is valid. In this case, the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point to James. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe that some food is disgusting, such as a sheep's liver white chocolate torte; and in this case James is not much better off than he was before he formulated the argument, since he now has to prove the assertion that cheese is a unique type of universally delicious food, which is a disguised form
70


of the original thesis. From the point of view of the interlocutor, James commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.

[edit] Example 2: Verbal Fallacy
Barbara argues:
1. Andre is a good tennis player.
2. Therefore, Andre is 'good', that is to say a morally good person.
Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Barbara says that Andre is good at some particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, she says that Andre is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Andre might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the
71

part of Barbara. Nothing concerning Andre's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the fallacy of equivocation, that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.

Example 3: Verbal Fallacy
Ramesh argues:
1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.
This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity. In fact, the first premise semantically does not predicate an attribute of the subject, as would for instance the assertion
72


A potato is better than eternal happiness.
In fact it is semantically equivalent to the following universal quantification:
Everything fails to be better than eternal happiness.
So instantiating this fact with eating a hamburger, it logically follows that
Eating a hamburger fails to be better than eternal happiness.
Note that the premise A hamburger is better than nothing does not provide anything to this argument. This fact really means something such as
Eating a hamburger is better than eating nothing at all.
Thus this is a fallacy of composition.

Example 4: Logical Fallacy
In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle:
1. Some drivers are men.
2. Some drivers are women.
73

3. Therefore, some drivers are both men and women.
This is fallacious. And so is this:
1. The average family has 2.5 children.
2. The Smiths are a very average family.
3. therefore, the Smiths must have 2.5 children.
Indeed, there is no logical principle that states
1. For some x, P(x).
2. For some x, Q(x).
3. Therefore for some x, P(x) and Q(x).
An easy way to show the above inference is invalid is by using Venn diagrams. In logical parlance, the inference is invalid, since under at least one interpretation of the predicates it is not validity preserving.

See also
• Attacking Faulty Reasoning
• Anecdotal evidence
• Apophasis
• Cogency
74

• Cognitive bias
• Demagogy
• Fallacy
• Fallacies of definition
• False statement
• Informal logic
• Invalid proof
• Paradox
• Sophism
• Soundness
• Spurious relationship
• Validity
• Vacuous truth

RESOLVED THAT CELEBRITIES (ACTORS AND ACTRESSES) CAN BE GOOD NATIONAL POLITICIANS


RESOLVED THAT DIVORCE BE LEGALIZED ON CASES OF WIFE BATTERING(debate sked: Sep. 25;1st)
Aff: Aff: Ambasadress: Relyn Jay Parba & Janine Lupaz
Neg: PRILTIA: Kristia Marie Maldeguia & April Mae Carillo



RESOLVED THAT ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL IS BETTER THAN NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING METHODS(Oct. 2;2nd)

Aff: Sison & Valerncia
Neg: Abello & (Baello)Tubungan



RESOLVED THAT ABORTION BE LEGALIZED ON CASES OF INCEST
RAPE(Sept. 25; 2nd)

Aff: Gabrido & ban iel
Neg: Maningo & De los Reyes Stella

RESOLVED THAT DEATH PENALTY LAW BE ABOLISHED(Oct. 9; 2nd)

Aff: Chua & Bibar
Neg: Alberto & Lachica

RESOLVED THAT FHM IS A PORNOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE(Sept. 30; 2nd)

Aff: Oliveros & Quebrar
Neg: Flores & Juson

RESOLVED THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BE LEGALIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES(sept. 23; 2nd)

Aff: Deroma & Enema
Neg: Ronato & Larraga

RESOLVED THAT CATHOLIC PRIESTS BE ALLOWED TO MARRY(Oct.9;1st)

Aff: Vidal & Sabusap
Neg: Piadoche & Ascalon

`Aff: Rogoue: John Michael Piadoche & bChristia Anne Ascalon
Neg: Mark Sabusap & O’Brianne Vidal




9. RESOLVED THAT MEN ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN WOMEN(Sept. 30;1st)

Aff: Villanueva & Tionko
Neg: Judith & Padel

Aff: Night Mode: Ezekiel Tionko & Kevin Villanueva
Neg: Loveless Shatics: Jane Judith & Kristia Padel


RESOLVED PROSTITutION BE LEGALIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES(Sept.23;1st)

Aff: Rojo & Juesna
Neg: Fuentes & Buendia

RESOLVED THAT CONDOMS BE PROMOTED TO PROTECT THE FILIPINOS FROM THE MENACE OF AIDS(Oct. 7;1st)

AFF: Sombero & Um
Neg: Hoyumpa & Penuela

RESOLVED THAT SENDING FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS ABROAD IS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE FILIPINO NATION

Reviewer- just answer them so that you can really review , best wishes to you all!!!

_________________1. Another tern for nature.

_________________2. English translation of the Greek term: sophia.

_________________3. It is the mental power.

_________________4. The object of the will.

_________________5. The object of the intellect.

_________________6. The rational animal.

_________________7. Sensible representation of an object.

_________________8. Etymologically, it means to think.

_________________9. It is the beginning of philosophy

_________________10. That which makes a being what it is.

_________________11.The goodness or badness of a human act.

_________________12. Anything that exists.

_________________13. Systematic body of knowledge.

_________________14.It is a step by step process of thinking.

______________15.Etymologically, it means to draw out from.

______________16. Another term for idea.

______________17.It is where phantasm is found.

______________18. The sign which is provided by common understanding.

______________19. The act of knowing the essence of a thing without affirming or denying anything about it.

______________20.All ideas passes through this.

______________21. Mental representation of an object.

______________22. It is the use of language to persuade or to affect emotionally.

______________23. In Hiligaynon dialect, this term is always confused with bertuldo.

______________24. That which can be developed as a skill.

______________25. In our life, if this is broken, something becomes illogical.

______________26. It gives the meaning to phantasm.

______________27. It means love of knowledge.

______________28. A sign which manifests an object from its likeness to it.

______________29. The fallacy committed when one distorts the obvious meaning of a term.

______________30. The power used by irrational animals when they act.

Your Ad Here

PRACTICAL LOGIC

Gil Pellejo

INTRODUCTION

Philosophy as a part of College or University curriculum still confused many, those who had taken the course and those who intend to take it. For the term Philosophy, in the Filipino mind set, generally connotes fallacious reasoning, id est, Pilosopo.

In the Hiligaynon dialect, Pilosopo is always confused with bertuldo. The latter being the intentional-intellectual act of deceiving another through stealthily changing the meaning of terms for the sake of fun or just to sound intelligent. We have had experienced people who are fond of this. As: Malakat ta sa La Salle! And someone answers: ikaw lang to lakat masakay kami ya!; Gaulan mani ! someone answers: manalud ta e, another declares :binaho ta e, then, maligo ta e, mabaho na gid ta e!: “Ka-on anay.” “Sigi lang tyay kan-on ya amon ginaka-on”; “Kamusta ka?” –“Mayo man”- “Paano nagmayo kay Abril man subong” ;

This opus is an attempt to make Logic more useful and deeply appreciated. This attempt will be successful if the user will be a constant reasoning observer. Either with talking to friends, watching films and news and any other information that may come upon him.

Again, this is only an attempt to make Logic fun to learn and practical to do as well as practical in life. So let us have fun and learn. Or learn to have fun while learning!
1
CHAPTER ONE
We are Logical by Nature

Learning Logic is not always the first time, for in all our human existence we are following a pattern. If the pattern is broken then we can conclude that something is wrong or something becomes right. Example, when a student who is not fond of studying philosophy becomes involved and interested in Logic after taking it thrice- the pattern is broken, either he is forced to be interested in order to graduate or the teacher has influenced her to the practicality of the subject or for other reasons (as a student-friend would say: “teacher is the best experience”).

When a boyfriend who had always been punctual in dates becomes constantly late. The girlfriend should know that the pattern is broken. When the boyfriend would not anymore hold her hand in public as he did before, the pattern is broken. When he does not call or text back her inquiries, the pattern is broken. When her birthday, St. Valentine’s Day, “Anniversary”, etcetera are forgotten then these are not forgotten but intentionally erased out of his memory! The girlfriend should know by these symptoms that their cardiac relationship is pathological. And ergo needs antidote to bring back to its cardiac health or to totally reject the male-subject of this obviously-one-sided- relationship. If the girlfriend does not still see or cannot identify these crystal-clear rejection of her then she is illogical!

2

When a Nanay cannot detect that every time her intelligent –looking son mans their Sari-Sari Store the income always decreases by fifty percent then she is a bit illogical. When a Professor will constantly believe that a particular student is absent because his Dadalways dies, then he is Lowiq for he is too illogical! How many Dad can one student have anyway? When a young lady would believe a young man because he told her that he always marry the girl she gets pregnant. Then the young lady should not be called a lady but a fetus for she is EXTREMELY ILLOGICAL!!!


PHILOSOPHY

Before explaining Logic further, it is most logical to have a bit of an introduction of Philosophy. Etymologically, Philosophy comes from the Greek word- Philo which means love or friend and sophia which means wisdom or knowledge. Therefore, philosophy is love of wisdom or friend of knowledge. It is in this sense that philosophers are known to be lovers of wisdom and not necessarily wise men. They simply love to know. To know the truth and to desire the good. The term philosophy was coined by Pythagoras.

There are myriad of definitions of philosophy. Some may not even define it for fear of losing its meaning. Some may consider philosophy a continuing process thus should not be defined. But for our purpose we will define philosophy in its more classical definition.
3

Philosophy as a science dealing with the ultimate cause of being by the use of reason alone. For the author believes that if we cannot define a term, it is very hard to begin understanding it. For he believes, further, that no term has no definition. There are mentors who hates the Thomistic philosophy for it is passe but still, I think, I believe and I am convinced that it is easier to comprehend philosophy by studying first the Thomistic Philosophy than going straight to modern, new, improved, correct, or whatever term the Wise Men of our time may call it. For the author still believes that he simply is a lover of wisdom and is afraid to confront the Wise Men.

The author also believes that most of the students can easily grasp the Thomistic approach than phenomenological approach of the Ateneo de Manila, the Logico-Analytic approach of the university of the Philippines, or the alleged eclectic approach of the De La Salle University. Believing still that there is no monolithic trend in teaching philosophy in the Philippines, I will go for a simpler, more practical approach.

What then is Logic? Logic comes from the Greek term logike which means to think. This is then the etymological definition of Logic- to think. (Etymological definition means the meaning taken from the derivation of a word). Logic is commonly defined as the philosophical science dealing with correct inferential thinking. Philosophical science means that logic falls under the study of Philosophy. There are myriad of definitions of philosophy. Some may not even define it for fear of losing its meaning. Some may consider philosophy a continuing process thus should not be defined. But for our purpose we will define philosophy in its more classical definition.
4
Philosophy is a science dealing with the ultimate cause of being by the use of reason alone. For the author believes that if we cannot define a term, it is very hard to begin understanding it. For he believes that no term has no definition

Inferential thinking is the drawing out of conclusions from mental premises. Example, Filipinos are Asians but Negrenses are Filipinos therefore Negrenses are Asians.** But since not all reasoning is inferential thinking this definition may be incomplete. As when a Silaynon says that he is black complexioned because his Nanay when he is conceived is fond of eating egg plant or duhat or he was simply assembled during night time! This is a reasoning but not inferential thinking.

The more precise definition of Logic then will be a philosophical science and art dealing with patterns that govern correct inference. Logic is a science because it is a systematic body of knowledge. It is an art because it helps to proceed with order, ease and without error in the act of inferential thinking. That is, logical thinking can be developed into a skill. When one develops skill in logical thinking then the object of this opus is achieved.

If a student can easily detect unnatural, non-realistic, distorted and non-experiential events in movies, advertisements, stories, news, rumors from print and broadcast media or from friends and relatives then one has become a logical thinker. If she detects that Bong Revilla’s gun does not run out of ammunition despite the absence of a reload then a logical thinker is evolving. Just like when she can detect in most Filipino films’ perfect synchronized choreography of the
5

whole school or Barangay when an actor invites them in a party without the benefit of a practice. She can react as unbelievable to advertisements like a sardine being allowed to be eaten in a passenger airplane by a popular female star. Or a megastar entering a car and introduce a fried chicken brand to a family without them reacting negatively. Or when she quince when the American complains of the Iraqi having violated the Geneva Convention by showing the faces of American POWS when they are the first to show in CNN and BBC and other channels the faces of the captured Iraqis during the Iraq War.

When a student believes easily that her professor battered his wife inside their bedroom when they were alone by themselves because it was told her by another professor, she is not logical. For who could be the witness when they were alone by themselves, as mentioned?

The science and art of identifying lies from truth will be discuss methodically as we go along our intellectual journey. Truth is, of course, the agreement of the mind with outside reality. Falsity is the disagreement of the mind with outside reality. If one sees the prof’s dress as white and others confirm that indeed it is white then one has truthful idea. But if she believes that the one walking along the corridor is her evening class seatmate and attempts to scare her only to be shocked that the supposed seatmate was her terror teacher then she has falsity. For belief of the subject or agent of an act does not necessarily translate to truth. Many Filipinos believe in Mananangal and sorcerers, but if these were true, we could have won the war against the foreign invaders if we only have a dozen nationalist of their kind! So our belief may not necessarily be true but truth can easily be believed.

6
How many classmates do you already have known who totally believes without fear of contradiction that they are handsomely good looking or gorgeously beautiful. But were many times rejected by their intended partner? Belief may not be true. How many had believed that they can easily pass Philosophy 1(Logic) under Mr. G. but were proven wrong. How many impregnated girlfriend were abandoned by their ex-future-husband for believing that those animals are responsible! Belief is not translated into truth at all times. So if you had believed for a long time that you are good looking remember the above-mentioned concepts. By the way beauty is relative-dependent on the subject. Ask you relative and they will tell you that you are indeed beautiful!

Human person is always inclined to tell the truth. Her faculty of intellect is always inclined towards the truth. For it is easier to tell the truth than to tell a lie. Because in telling the truth one only needs to recall things up but in telling a lie she has to reconstruct events and in every reconstruction details are always lacking. When I ask my students to attend a talk and answer my given questions, almost everybody will pass their individual answers. But by their answers I can easily identify those with the same answer by reading their work so I may not record it for cheating. Then I can identify who did not attend by asking detailed questions. Like, what is the color of the speaker’s dress? At what side of the stage is she located while delivering? Is she right- handed or left- handed?
7

This technique can be used by boyfriend or girlfriend to squeeze information from their partner to confirm the truth of what she or he has heard about the partner. But of course trust is important in a relationship but sometimes trust is broken and the relationship changes.

As human person inclines toward truth she is also inclined towards good. Her faculty of will is always inclined towards the good, that is why, we can easily distinguish what is right from wrong. Good is that which agrees with one’s nature. Evil or bad is that which disagrees with one’s nature. Nature or essence is that which makes a being what it is. To clarify, let us remember that beings have different natures, so what is good for one may not be good for others. It is good for a carabao to have a horn but not good for your favorite boyfriend. It is good for your Professor to talk but not good if your Labrador, who is not a professor, talks! If ants bite, it is good, that is part of its nature but if a worm bites not good. A fish who does not know how to swim is very bad for it is its nature to habituate in water.(jokes about fish –end notes). Badness can be Physical lack or an add on to the original nature. A cat which has only two feet is bad but a rooster which has four feet is bad. If your brother has a tail, it is bad. If your sister has no lips, it is bad. This is only bad physically or Metaphisically speaking, not morally.

Sometimes our mistake is that we put other beings’ nature to our own nature. The result: we feel that it is immoral for dogs to mate along the road! They act like dogs because, indeed, they are dogs. Would you rather prefer them to do it inside your room? If we believe that women are noisier than men then we may think that beings of the same species may have minute differences when it comes to their “nature”. Nature in
8
this sense though would rather refer to characteristics but not essential differences. Just when we identify dogs which may be good only for hunting, guarding, fighting or simply for pets. They are the same canine but defer in minute characteristics not in their essence.

Are irrational animals logical? We say above that a rational being follows a certain pattern and can identify the destruction of the pattern. Pavlov’s dog was proven to have identified a pattern, can that bitch be then rational? No, for irrational animals only follow their instinct when they act. Irrational animals has no reason; not capable of reasoning. They have no intellect and will. They only used their instinct.

A human person also used her instinct sometimes. But this instinct of her is different from irrational instinct. Irrational animal’s instinct is regarded as the power used by irrational animals when they act in order to survive. Human instinct are acts done without the use of intellect and will. As when she breaths, she screams when she is surprised by a falling lizard, or when a frog is thrown on her or she covers her face when a basketball is fake-thrown quickly on her. In all this instances she does not make use of her reason, she just physically react to a particular situation.

Joke about lizard: Ano ang mga reaction sg mga estudyante sg mga eskwelahan kon may mahulog nga tiki (lizard ) sa lamesa. UST: “Osshh, reptilia kisamae”. Ateneo: “Yuck, dirty, slimy , stupid thing!”. UP: “P_tang Na, butiki lg yan e!”. La Salle: “Ooooh, La Coste!”. University of San Carlos: “Bay, sud-an bay!” Note: the school at the last portion may vary depending what school you belong!
9
The human person has intellect and will, they can reason and can identify what is not rational. Even if a child is told to shut up because the mom says “hipos na kay una ko sa duyan sa imo”(Literally:Shut up for I’m ahead of you on the hammock;Loosely: I’m ahead of you in the cradle). Here if the kid knows that he is
right he will answer in his mind: wa-ay na ko ya kaagi sa duyan tinigulang na imo rason ya .Or “damo ka pa kaunon nga kan-on” (Literally: You still need to consume a plenty of rice to mature; Loosely: grow up man). “Tiempo giyera pa na ya nga kan-on lg ginka-on nyo may sud-an na kami ya subong.” Your Tatay told you not to go with friends because “gapakadto ka pa lang gapabalik na ko.” It is exciting to hear a kid say : “Amo na Tay nga sala suspetsa mo kay - ka puli tani ginpatapus mo!” The child of this generation actually knows what is logical and not. And as long as the reasoning given them are believable and logical the Filipino kid generally can forego his schooling to help the family than to be irrational.

In one study it was shown that Kids disrespect parents who disrespects his friends and his opinions. And it is unfortunate for parents not to understand their kids for they once were kids. There must be Logic here!

Teachers who blow up at a very simple classroom mismanagement without clarifying why, will always be misinterpreted. I’m not saying that getting angry or shouting is wrong – Christ did get angry and shouted but he did clarify why He did so. He tried to tell the Jews the reason of his getting angry and told them what should have been done. Professors and Parents should do the same or else kids and
10

students will simply repeat their mistakes. For most of them know that what they did was wrong but a great number of them need to know what is right thing to do in such circumstances. There is a distinction between doing something wrong because one does not know what is right and doing wrong despite she knows what is right.

Telling a girlfriend or boyfriend that she/he had done something wrong without telling her/him the right thing is the open formula for failed relationship. For obviously each one of us has different cultural background what is acceptable act for one family or group may not be acceptable for others. If you don’t want an acquaintance to go or to do something, just get real, and tell him. Sometimes we presumed too much that people will understand our situation or how we feel by just our body language or intonations or facial expressions. But this are not fool-proof. We are the only animals who are given the gift of speech and language. This has to be used in order to be clarified. Although, what we really need is to communicate not just talk for we can talk without communicating.
Joke on Miscommunication: May isa ka mahuluy-on nga fourth year-Agribusiness student nga patay lugay gid sa second year student nurse. Pero indi sya kahambal kay naga apa sya kon ma atubang na si babaye. Nalu-oy gid ang mga klasmet ni Agri gani naghimo sila sg tikang para mapaupod si baye sa bakahan ni lake sa Murcia.

Sg si Nars na lg kag si Agri nabilin sa bakahan, naga lantaw-

11

lantaw gid sila sg mga baka sg hinali ginhaluk-hakukan kag gindilapdilapan sg toro ang baye nga baka sa guya. Nakita ini ni Agri, nagsiling sya kay Nars: “Day, gusto ko na bala himu-on ang ginahimo sg Laki nga baka sa bayi nga baka? Galing nahuya ko.” Nars: “Nga-a mahuya ka, imo man na baka!”

Another joke on miscommunication: May is ka bugtong nga anak nga taga-Talisay pero nakapangasawa sa Capiz. Ugaling bisan may pangabuhi na sya pirme sya gihapon nagapangayo sa iya ginikanan.kay gade two lg ang iya naeskwelahan. May gamay nga tiangge ang iya iloy. Isa ka adlaw nakabaton naman sulat nga dalagko and agi ang iloy nga amo sini:

DEAR TATAY,

PADALHI AKO ISA KA SAKO NGA BUGASKAG ISA KADOSENA NGA ITLOG .

ANG IMO ANAK,
DAKO

Naakig ang iloy ni Dako, gingisis-gisi niya ang sulat. Nakita sg Amay: “nga-a gingisi mo na? Indi na sya magsulat kon indi importante. Dal-a di ang sulat.” Iloy: “kuha-a da sa basurahan!”. Kag ginkuha sg amay kag ginsugpon ang gisi-gisi nga sulat nga nagsinumbali ang parte kag amo ini ang iya nabasa:

12

DEAR BUGAS,

PADALHI AKO ISA KA SAKO NGA TATAY, ISA KAG DOSENA NGA ANAK.


ANG IMO ITLOG,
DAKO


In the real world a lot of confusion and conflicts happen because of presumptions. As one actor in Steven Segal’s movie Under Siege says: “Presumption is the mother of all fuck ups.” That is, presumption is the source of all confusions and conflicts. This can be avoided, let us just communicate our logical thinking.


HISTORY OF LOGIC

The actual name Logic was introduced by Zeno (ca. 300B.C.), founder of the Stoic School. It comes from the Greek Word Logike, which is allied to logos the Greek term for thought; hence the word Logic would etymologically mean a treatise on matters pertaining to thought. This etymoliogical definition is close to the real nature of logic. Aristotle designated hios main logical treatise as the Prior Analytics and the Posteriori Analytics.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Greek philosopher, student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great, is the founder of this science. He wrote six treatises on logical matters, the collection which was subsequently known as the Organon by his followers.

Zeno the founder of the Stoic School (ca. 336-264B.C.), introduce its actual name.

Porphyrius (ca.232-304 A.D.), a Neo-Platonist, who wrote an introductory treatise to the categories of Aristotle, called the Isagoge, a Greek word meaning introduction.

Severinus Boethius (ca. 470-524 A.D.), A Roman Christina Philosopher, who translated the Organon of Aristotle and wrote commentaries on the Isagoge of Porphyrius.

The Arabian philosophers Avicenna 9Ibn-sina 980-1037 A.D.) and Averroes (Ibn-Rosh 1126-1198 A.D.) also wrote commentaries on the organon of Aristotle. From them we received our comprehensive science of logic.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) wrote the Novum Organon, New Organon, with the view of improving the organon of Aristotle. ?He introduced the theory of inductuion, which john Stuart Mill (1806-18730 developed into a general theory for scientific investigation.

In the recent past a new Logic, known as Symbolic Logic, came to the forefront. It covers the same subject matter as our standard Logic, but differs as to the mathematical symbols and language that it uses. It may be considered as a version and complement of standard logic. George Boole is considered as the founder of this new Symbolic Logic. In the English speaking countries its chief exponents were A.N. Whitehead and B. Russell. At present Symbolic Logic lost mush of its earlier popularity because of its limited scope of application.

While many cultures employ intricate systems of reasoning, it is generally agreed that logic as an explicit analysis of methods of reasoning was independently developed by only three traditions: China, India and Greece. Although exact dates are uncertain, especially in the case of India, it is possible that logic emerge in all three societies in the 4th Century B.C.

In China, a contemporary of Confucius, Mo Zi, “Master Mo”, is credited with founding the Mohist School, whose canons dealt with issues relating to valid inference and the conditions of correct conclusions. In particular, one of the schools that grew out of Mohism, the Logicians, are credited by some scholars for their early investigation of formal logic. Unfortunately, due to harsh rule of Legalism in the subsequent Qin Dynasty, this line of investigation disappeared I China until the introduction of Indian philosophy by Buddhists.

The “Nyayasutras” of Gautama represent the basic texts of one of the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. This realist, one might say materialist, school worked out a rigid five-member schema of inference involving an initial premise, a reason, an example, an application and a conclusion. The idealist Buddhist philosophy became the chief opponent to the Naiyayikas. Nagarjuna, the founder of Madhyamika “Middle Way” developed an analysis known as the “catuskoti” or “tetralemma”. This four-cornered argument systematically examined and rejected the affirmation of a proposition, its denial, the joint affirmation and denial, and finally, the rejection of its affirmation and denial. But it was with Dignaga and his successor Dharmakitri that Buddhist logic reached its height. Their analysis centered on the definition of necessary logical entailment, “vyapti”, also known as invariable concomitance or pervasion. To this end a doctrine known as “apoha” or differentiation was developed. This involved in this enterprise, in part, stimulated the neo-scholastic school of Navya-Nyaya.

In Greece, Aristotle’s collection of work known as the Organon or instrument almost ex nihilo created the discipline known as logic. Aristotle’s examination of the syllogism bears interesting comparison with the Indian schema of inference and the less rigid Chinese discussion. Through Latin in Western Europe, and disparate languages more to the East, such as Arabic, Armenian and Georgian. The Aristotelian tradition was considered to pre-eminently codify the laws of reasoning. It was only in the nineteenth century that acquaintance with the classical literature of India and deeper knowledge of China brought about a change in this viewpoint.

ACT OF THE MIND

There are three acts of the mind. Apprehension, Judgment and Inference:

1. Apprehension- is the act of the mind by which we know the essence or nature of a thing, without affirming or denying anything about it.
2. Judgement- is the act of mind affirming or denying one concept or another by way of subject and predicate.
3. Inference- is the step by step process of reasoning.

13

CHAPTER TWO

IDEAS AND TERMS

Anything that comes into our mind passes through our senses. There is no idea in our mind which the human person has not experienced in his physical senses. If she knows how to differentiate colors, it is because she has seen colors and she heard the teaching of parents and teachers about colors. If she can distinguish hot from cold, it is because she has touched something hot or cold. If she can identify sour from sweet it is because she had lick something sour or something sweet. She can differentiate a fart from a perfume for obvious reason, she had smelt it.

A human person that is born blind cannot identify colors. For she had never seen colors. Even how much explanation you give to a born-blind-person, she can never comprehend the effort. The reason is that color has not passed to her sense of sight for she does not have it.

Idea or concept is a mental representation or an intellectual image of an object. So idea is not the real object, it is just a representation of it. Idea comes through abstraction. Abstraction being the mental process of getting an idea. It comes from the Latin term abstractio which means to draw out from.

Conflict of ideas happens when two human persons have come to believe in a certain idea according to their biases. Example if you ask students if they believe in aswang (witch) , one may say yes, the

14

other may say no. For the bias of the former can be that an aswang is somebody eats human flesh then she is an aswang. For the latter, it is no; for the bias can be that an aswang is a lady who has the power to separate herself from the torso up and can fly or others of her kind. It is therefore important for us to clarify our concepts of certain things when we seem not agreeing on certain objects. For both of you could have been right all along only that you are referring to different objects.

To give further example, a boy was slapped by a girl because of a kiss. The boy believes that to kiss a girl on the cheek during her birthday is okay but the girl believes that is not so. Who is right and who is wrong. Both can be right or can be wrong, depending upon our concept of kiss. The boy is wrong when he kiss a birthday girl whom he is not an acquaintance. The girl can be wrong when she does not simply want to be kissed that day but on her previous birthday the same boy with the same act was not slapped.

Let us remember that a term may have different meaning depending upon the usage and the intention. For an obvious term which has an obvious concept can be intentionally interpreted differently for some other purpose than to be truthful. As when a student invites a classmate: “Lakat ta sa Downtown”. The other replied: “Ikaw lang lakat masakay ko ya”. The term lakat has an obvious meaning but the other person has an obvious distortion of its meaning. This is a fallacy of equivocation as we will later know. Let us further remember that there are actions and actuation which betray the terms used thus betrays the concepts.

15

A girlfriend who has been waiting for the boyfriend for one hour may not tell her boyfriend that she is incense with anger. She may even say “wala” whan ask if “nagapangakig ka”. But the way the term wala is being said, the intonation, the volume and facial distortion may betray the real meaning.

Logic is a science of correct thinking so it is not believing the term of the girlfriend that is important but knowing the truth of what is being said.

IDEA AND PHANTASM

As mentioned idea is an intellectual image or representation of a being. But it must be distinguished from phantasm. Phantasm is a sensible representation of a being. It is usually a kind of pictorial image with shape. In our present condition, a phantasm usually accompanies an idea. The idea is the meaning of a phantasm.

Characteristics of idea and phantasm:

Idea Phantasm

a. found in the mind a. found in the imagination
b. universal b. individual
c. constant c. changeable
d. possible of immaterial being d. not possible of immaterial being

17

Simple apprehension is the act of the mind by which we know the essence of a thing, without affirming or denying anything about it. It is called apprehension metaphorically because from knowing the essence or nature of a thing, the mind, as it were grasps the thing. One who does not understand or does not know a thing does not mentally grasp it.

Simple apprehension is an act associated with mental abstraction and presupposes it.

PROPERTIES OF IDEAS
The idea has two logical properties: Comprehension and Extension.
a. Comprehension is the sum-total of thought elements contained in an idea. Thus, the comprehension of the concept man is: a being that is substance, bodily, living, sentient and rational. Animal is: a being a being that is substance, bodily, living and sentient.

A concept viewed according to its comprehension is considered a metaphysical whole made up of so many conceptual features as may be graded according a widening or diminishing coverage. Comprehension is also referred to as implication or connotation.

18

b. Extension is the sum-total of individuals or categories of beings to which idea may be applied. The idea of rational animal can be applied to all men; hence, all men constitute the extension of the idea rational-animal. Living material substance can be applied to plants, brutes and men; the latter are the extension of the said concept. Extension is also referred to as denotation or application.

CLASSIFICATION OF IDEAS ACCORDONG TO EXTENSION

A. Singular: expressing conceptual features applicable to only one individual. E.g. the present Pope, the Author of Noli Te Tangere, the philosopher who coined the word Logic etc.

B. Universal: expressing conceptual features that may be applied distributively to all the individuals of the same category; e.g. student, Filipino, dog, car, tank etc.

C. Transcendental: expressing a conceptual feature of nature that applies distributively to individuals of different categories. It is a s idea because it surpasses the bounds of species and genera. E.g. being, individual, subject, something, good ,excellent etc.

D. Particular: expressing only a part of the extension of the universal, or transcendental concept; e.g. most women, few good men, some Catholic Iraqis, etc.

19

E. Collective: expressing a group as such of individuals. E.g. army, family, nation, tribe etc.

IDEAS ACCORDING TO THEIR RELATION

A. Compatible: concepts that respectively express formal reasons that can coexist in the same subject; e.g. virtue and wisdom, beauty and intelligence.

B. Incompatible: concepts that respectively express formal reasons that cannot co-exist in the same subject; e.g. health and sickness, wisdom and foolishness, etc.

Incompatible concepts may be:

1. Contradictory: concepts, one of which expresses a positive conceptual reason and the other expresses its negation; e.g. living and non-living, white and non-white. There is no intermediate alternative possible between them. A man is either living or non-living; he may be dying but he is still living.

2. Contrary: concepts which expresses conceptual reasons which are opposed to each other as extremes in a class or category; e.g. clever and stupid, black and white, wise and ignorant. Between such extremes there are several intermediate possible: a man may not be white or black, but brown; he may be neither clever nor stupid, but just average.

20

3. Correlatives: concepts that bear mutual relation to each other, so that they exclude each other from the same subject according to the same relation; e.g. teacher and student, master and servant, employer and employee, father and son. Thus, a person cannot be father and son of himself; but he can be father of one and son of another.

THE TERM, SIGN OF THE CONCEPT

The word term came from the Latin terminus which etymologically means last element.

Since logical term expresses concepts, they are essentially signs. As such we may define the term as: a spoken or a written word expressive of a concept or idea.

The spoken word is an articulated human voice, that is, the human voice modified by the use of vowel sounds and again modified by consonants. The spoken word signifies proximately the idea. But, because the idea is expressive of the object and is for the latter, hence the spoken word primarily designates the object.

The written word is a sign of the written word by its phonetics or sound. It expresses the written word in a proximate manner, but primarily, it expresses the object as has been said of the spoken word. However, there are people who do not write their spoken word, but side by side with it, they employ ideographic characters or symbols that directly expresses the idea.
21

SIGN

A sign is something that manifests another thing aside from itself. If it manifests only itself, it is not a sign. Because, the term is expressive of the idea, it is the sign of the idea whether in form of a spoken word, or a written word.


Natural sign is one whose connection to the object it manifests is provided by nature; e.g. heavy dark clouds are natural sign of oncoming rain, mellowness is a sign of a ripening mango, wetness of a sizable ground area is a natural sign for rain.

Conventional sign is one whose connection to the thing it manifests is provided by common understanding or agreement, usually a tacit one. Spoken and written words are conventional signs, hence different people have different words to designate the same object.

Sometimes the relation between sign and object is provided by nature and by agreement; e.g. the readings of a thermometer, of a barometer, or of a weathervane.

Formal sign is one which manifests an object from its likeness or identity to it; e.g. a photograph is a formal sign of a person, statue, image on the mirror etc.

22

SIGNS OF BEING UNREASONABLE

Points of logical vulnerability. For virtually everyone, there are topics about which that person, we say, “just cannot be rational.” Thi9s may be overstatement. However, what we mean is that this person has a great difficulty in being objective on thee topics. He finds it difficult, in some cases to consider the evidence impartially and draw a sensible and justified conclusion. These topics are the points of logical vulnerability for that person.

Points of logical vulnerability vary from one person to another. Although it is often recommended that we avoid the topics of religion and politics in order to keep out of nasty arguments, many other topics can bring out the fight in at least someone. In these instances, a psychological commitment to a certain belief keeps the person from weighing fairly the evidence from its side of the question.

What are your points of logical vulnerability? It is worthwhile to reflect in order to identify them. An awareness of your points of logical vulnerability can prevent you from becoming unjustifiably self-righteous and can further prevent you from managing to believe that quite nonsensical reasoning makes sense. Such arrogance and irrationality serve only to put a person in a foolish position.

Often, when you desperately want a particular belief to be true, then almost any reasoning offered in support of that conclusion looks like good reasoning, and when you want a particular belief to be false, then the reasoning that appears perfect to your neighbor may seem obviously inadequate to you. Ironically, the very same kind of reasoning may appear good to you in one context and bad in another. If you are aware of your points logical vulnerability, you will be likely to notice when you are inclined to shortchange yourself logically.
23
BIAS AND PREJUDICE

Gil is biased on some issues. Prayer in school, U.S. relations with Iraq and Death penalty law are three of those issues. Our biases creates a point of logical vulnerability. In other words we can be blind and thus vulnerable to errors in reasoning because we favor one way of looking at issue. The English word bias evolved from an old French word, biais, meaning “slant”. We often speak of having a slant or angle to our views when we want to suggest that we lean toward one way of seeing things. Bias develops in different ways, and some bias are more dangerous top our reasoning than others.

Forming an opinion too soon. When your mind is made up before you have examined and reflected on the information that could help you come to a rational understanding, you have a prejudice. You have “prejudge” (as the word prejudice suggests) the issue , person, group or idea.

If your Tatay or Nanay prejudges the moral character of your suitor on the basis of his clothing or haircut alone, their conclusions may be faulty and their decision about or assessment of him may be unfair and even demeaning. Stereotypes are caricatures- simplistic and usually extreme ideas – of groups or situations. They sometimes lead to patterned expectations. Stereotypes nourish prejudice. I may think I could trust you because you dress and talk as I do. Or I know you because we belong to the same church. In each case, my prejudgment may bias me towards a false perspective. It may even prevent me from recognizing, or lead me to dismiss, evidence to the contrary when I encounter it.
24

Forming a well-reasoned opinion.

Not all biases are unreasonable, like prejudging or beliefs that contradict our observations. Sometimes our tendency to hold on to a certain view is based on evidence which supports such bias. Now, while its true that some people prefer to use the word “bias” only to describe unjustified perspectives, if it refers to any leaning to a certain view as more evidence is anticipated, some biases would not be so bad. For example, I may disbelieve a disparaging story about you because the reported behavior seems unbelievable based on the counter evidence of the personal character I’ve seen you display over the years. What I know about you has produced a bias toward you on this issue. This is not irrational. Of course, if I continue to disbelieve the report after the addition of overwhelming evidence, then my bias may reflect a blinding and irrational commitment to one perspective.

Emotions are not to be avoided; they may not be enemies of insight and clear thinking. I should not try to rid myself of my enthusiastic allegiance to my school, my friends, my family, or even my moral and political views. These contribute to a richly meaningful life. My biases become dangerous when “I allow them to cloud evidence and suggests unwarranted conclusions.

Signs of defensiveness.

When someone said you have been defensive on an issue, we may think that you have been evasive and unwilling to talk about the issue at length. However, this is not the only way to show defensiveness.
25

Actually, your frame of mind is a defensive one whenever you concentrate more on defending one view then on openly evaluating a new view. You may, in fact, appear to be quite “on the offense”, to the point of being “offensive” and overbearing.

Not all views are correct but virtually all deserve our honest appraisal. (Being honest with yourself may be more difficult than being honest with other people.) Consider one helpful test for detecting defensiveness: When the other person is speaking, are you listening in order to find strong points in the reasoning or , or are you trying to think of a “comeback” response that would devastate the other position and demonstrate clearly the you were correct all along? If you are only seeking victory over an opponent. Your defensive posture will prevent you from gaining new insight or understanding.

Usually others notice our defensiveness and unwillingness to listen before we notice it ourselves. We give both verbal and non-verbal signs that we are closed to new ideas – or at least some new particular ideas. Since we notice them more readily in others, consider which of these you have observed in others.

Among the verbal And voice-related signs of a close mind, we find the following. Many people raise their voices as they become impatient or upset with someone’s ideas. So much can bed communicated by the tone of the voice: irritation, condescension, resentfulness. Ridicule, mockery and disgust can be communicated by the tone and the rhythm of the person’s voice.
26

A well-placed overdone sigh can suggest that the poor listener has just had to put up with so much foolishness! The knowing laugh of someone who wants to make you think of your comment as pitiful as can be especially irksome. (Ridicule is usually hard to take gracefully.) More explicitly verbal is the insult that attacks the person or the person’s ideas. Continual interruptions or responses coming so quickly that the person could hardly pondered your comments give the impression that the respondent think it’s much more important for you to hear what he’s about to say than for him to consider your comments.

Some people say that there are non-verbal signs that suggests that you don’t welcome the other’s comments. Crossed-arms, for example, are said to reflect this. There are, of course, brazen non-verbal messages. These include the condescending sideways shake of the head that seem to say, “no, no, no, a thousand times, no!” ; various facial expressions, including, rolling the eyes upward; ignoring comments; yawning dramatically or waving off remarks; folding arms and staring blankly; or even the symbolic turning away or closing up the ears with the hands so the listener doesn’t have to hear such miserable stuff!

Results of defensiveness.

What do you think of a person who acts defensively when you are making a point? Have you ever admired someone for being defensive and closed –minded about your views or views of which you were personally neutral? You may probably think of the person as rather weak of character and unable to honestly handle the mental and emotional challenge.
27

You may think of that person as a “sad case” who just can’t deal with some ideas that are seen as threatening. You may shake your head, literally or metaphorically.

Undoubtedly, you appear like this to others when you respond defensively. It’s ironic that when we may be feeling most noble and righteous, in defense of a view we hold dear, others see us as pitiful creatures. The person who walks by you on the street as you stand there arguing in a desperate or demeaning tone will probably think well of you only if your views are overheard and are similar to those of the passer-by.

The person of whom you are arguing – on the street, over the phone, in an office, or wherever – may judge you harshly. This, however, is not the only damage that can be done by your defensiveness. A person’s immediate reaction to a closed mind may be to close his or her own – or to become more defensive that the mind begin to close. You’ve certainly seen this. Two closed mind fending the other’s views without really considering them – disputing, but not really opening themselves up to any reasoning.

Besides looking foolish to others and making it difficult for someone you’re addressing to be open-minded, there is more obvious problem with defensiveness: By expending so much attention and energy in putting down another view of fending off other reasoning, you end up missing insights from that other perspective. That is not an admirable trait or character.
28

OPENING CLOSED MINDS

Do you have a closed mind? Or are you open -minded? Certainly this is an important question that calls for introspection and reflection. It’s also a misleading one. If you ask a roomful of people to tell you whether they are closed-minded, some will probably confess that they are. When you then ask who are open-minded, others may claim that label. Soon, if not immediately, some people may display a tentative facial expression, as if the question were confusing. They either will have found themselves about to admit to close mindedness and to claim open-mindedness, or they will not have been able to decide on a category for themselves.

First, let’s say a word about our definitions: Although it may seem that we don’t need to explain so common an expression as “:open-minded” or “closed-minded”, not everyone understands these expressions the same. Let’s settle on one way of understanding them.

A person who is very open-minded welcomes opportunities to think about things in different way, even if the new way provides a less comfortable or convenient perspective. When we are openly open-minded, we are just as willing to see weaknesses in the other person’s. Also we are just as willing to see strengths in the other person’s reasoning as in our own. A closed minded person resist such changes of view.
29

Start with yourself.
One very good way to open to open-mindedness in the people whom you deal with frequently is to start with yourself. Try to make yourself open-minded, and you will always find that others will be more open-minded with you.

You can begin by becoming more sensitively aware of your own points of logical vulnerability and by monitoring yourself for defensive reactions on these as well as other topics. In your mind separate the person offering the idea from the idea itself. Neither condemn the person because of the idea nor reject or ridicule the idea simply because of who offered it. Use language which makes it makes it easier for you and others to see each other’s points, rather than language which biases unfairly or builds hostility. Listen openly even to ideas that irk you. It may not be likely or desirable that you change your basic personality. Still, it is possible to make positive changes in your own thinking and behavior.

Use language fairly
Some people frequently try to use language “to their advantage” in efforts to intimidate someone with another view by belittling that person. As you know this people can be tedious, upsetting, and hard to deal with. Many of us who seldom stoop to personal attacks (Gapang-igo) still cloud an issue by describing favored or unfavored views with emotional charged language (gapanginit) that downplays or overplays one perspective.
30

How carefully you think about he word you choose to express yourself? Undoubtedly you’re more careful at some times than other times. That’s natural, but on some occasions where word choice is important, we use words that not only miss the mark, but even undermine our actual intentions. Your words can endear or offend, describe fairly or misrepresent, convince or be ineffective.

Don’t get personal

Sometimes, when one person should be directing criticism to the reasoning or the position that the other person has represented, he or she rather directs the attacks towards the person who has represented the reasoning or position. This tactic is sometimes used when the person can think of no better criticism of the point being discussed. Here is an example.

Sa debate sa Bacolod Plaza: Preacher 1: “Tanan kita gin himo sg Dios nga alalangay , palangga niya kita tanan”. Preacher2: “Pero mas palangga Niya kami nga nagbaton sa Iya bilang personal nga Manluluwas!” Preacher1: “Kon mas palangga ka, nga-a gintuga ya ka nga kalbo, punguron kag itum?!” Preacher2: “Maayo na lg ko sg sa imo nga daw ginkumos sg Makaako ang nawong kag daw bini-al ang ilong.”

In this example both get personal with each other. What are the result of such an attack? Certainly different people will react differently to a particular kind of comment. In this case the, the response is crucial to the direction of the whole conversation. When we are attacked personally, we commonly reach right down to the same level and respond either

31

with a defensive and hostile justification of ourselves or by attacking the other person in a similar way. First, whoever responds like this is cooperating in setting up an adversary relationship that promises more emotion than reason, more contention than insight.
Second, both people are now off topic. Furthermore since attack on persons are common when the speaker simply has nothing better to offer, by coming down to the attackers level and responding defensively or aggressively, the second person allows the shift just when his or her point may be on the verge of being established. If, instead he or she can maintain a balanced perspective on the conversation as a whole, holding personal emotions on check, a response that get he conversation back on track can be offered.

Be aware of emotionally charged language

You can learn by seeing the merit of other people’s arguments-arguments which you have never thought of on your own. You can learn by seeing your own arguments fall short when measured against another person’s insightful criticism. This is the profit in the exchange of ideas. At times, never the less, people make this kind of learning difficult for themselves. They think out of their positions and word their arguments in ways that polarize, minimizing the chance that each person will learn from the other.

Rhetoric, in one sense may be defined as “the use of language to persuade and/or to affect emotionally.” At times you may choose to craft your language only rhetorically, in order to deliver your point as powerfully as possible. At other times (often, one would hope), when
32

you want to be very fair and avoid prejudice and closed-mindedness, you will need to avoid language that is unfair because it biases the of a specific issue. In a discussion of abortion, for example, if you refer to abortion as murder, you discourage mutual learning for the reason expressed previously: The implication hat you will not give consideration to a view easily gives rise to combative frame of mind. Such language not only affects the other person but can psychologically commit you, in continuing discussion, to he blind defense of such an impassioned stance.

Some expressions-words or phrases- generally have an emotional charge that is “positive”. If we accept the statement which includes such expression, we are inclined to think well of whatever or whomever that expression characterizes. Some other expressions generally have a negative emotional charge. If we accept such statement that includes such an expression, we are inclined to think poorly of whatever or whomever that expression characterizes. Certainly, if we use the term generous or thoughtful to describe a person, we expect her to receive our comment as a compliment and not with indignation. Furthermore, we expect that people who hear our description will think less of her unless they reject the description.

Listen!

Someone might say that you are listened to another person’s point of view if you sat quietly while that person spoke, especially if you looked as if you were paying attention and you could afterward repeat the main ideas that were presented. This is indeed part-but only a part- of the active listening that is an aspect of an open-minded conversation.
33

Many of us have learned how to appear as if we are giving full consideration to another point of view while we are actually devising a plan of attack. Charlyn, for example, nods her head up and down slowly as she listens to Mark describe his views on the presidential plan of Roco. But if she only listen in order to attack she may not be open-minded as she appears to be.

If we find it hard to listen objectively let’s try the following four steps:

1. Give your attention. Forget about formulating a response or a next point. Don’t interrupt in order to fit in points of your own. If you’re afraid you’ll lose track of the idea, write a reminder word on an available slip of paper or ask the other person to remind you later about the point.
2. Understand before responding. Key terms may be vague or new to you. You may suspect that terms which are familiar to you are being used in a different sense. Ask for clarification. This is where interruption may be worthwhile. Even incidental word are worth the inquiry.
3. Reflect before responding. Let me think about that for a minute. The request is a reasonable one. If you start talking the very second another person responds, you may not be giving that ideas much thought. It will certainly appear, at least that you are more interested in your own remarks than in anyone else’s.
4. Acknowledge good points. As you begin your response, draw attention to anything, basic or incidental, on which each of you agrees. In other words, stress the common points shared by each

34
perspective. This keeps the other person from thinking that you don’t respect his or her intuitions and reasoning at all. If, after listening, you have any concessions to make – any points on which you have change your mind – offer these first.

When you are reading a newspaper editorial or article, or a pamphlet that endorses a divergent view from yours, or when you are listening to television news or commentary, you won’t have the opportunity to make an immediate response that will generate an on the spot interchange with the people who hold the other view. Still, the discipline of good listening skills can allow you to broaden your perspective.

See another side.

Most of us would like top be certain about more things that we can justifiably claim about. There’s so often more to be considered, including evidence that conflicts with what we want to believe. The problems we typically deal with in our daily lives as consumers, workers, family members, and citizens call for an ongoing assessment of the strength of our evidence and reasoning. It is important for us to be open to- and to actively seek- the additional; information that can either secure or challenge our present opinions and beliefs. Sometimes there is a high price for being wrong.

As careful as we may be to consider fairly each aspect of certain issues, we sometimes get lazy or fall victim to one of our points of logical vulnerability on other issues.
35

A person needs to see more than one side of an issue in order to weigh the evidence in any meaningful sense and to arrive at fair conclusions. If a person, after noting which evidence he or she judges to be relevant and important, finds that it all supports the same position, the chances are good that there is a counterevidence that has not been seriously considered enough. This is especially true on social issues, which are so often complex and elusive. You probably know people who believe that there is basically “nothing to be said for” an opposing view on abortion, labor-management disputes, the national defense budget, or price support for farmers.

Psychological research confirms a blindness to the power of evidence that supports personally distasteful conclusions. The phenomenon of being more alert to evidence that supports a welcomed conclusion and less receptive to the presence and power of counter evidence has been described by psychologists as “the fallacy of positive instances”. Indeed, sometimes the existence of counterevidence never comes to mind. When it does, psychologists agree, it may not be well received.
36