Critical Thinking
Philosophy 2106

Instructor: David Wisdo                                                                                                           E-Mail: wisdo_david@colstate.edu
Office: 207 University Hall                                                                                                        Phone: (706) 507-8261
Office Hours: TR: 9:00-10:30                                                                                                  Meeting: TR11:00-12:15 CCT 406
                          

TEXT: Frances Howard-Snyder, Daniel Howard-Snyder and Ryan Wasserman, The Power of Logic, 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. 

OBJECTIVES: When a person begins to reflect upon his or her beliefs about the world, he or she sometimes discovers that they amount to little more than disconnected opinions that are neither justified nor related to each other in a coherent fashion. The individual who wishes to deal with this situation in an intelligent and intellectually responsible fashion might desire to reflect on his or her beliefs in a systematic and thoughtful way. This course in critical thinking and informal logic is intended as a first step for those students whose goal is to development of those analytical skills necessary for the thoughtful evaluation of beliefs, arguments and theories.

REQUIREMENTS: It goes without saying that regular class attendance is expected of all students in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Columbus State University 2008-2009 Catalog. Throughout the semester, students will be expected to do the assigned readings and to complete homework assignments (TBA) taken from The Power of Logic Tutor, a website designed specifically for use with the text.

Grades will be based upon two in-class tests worth 25 points each, a Mid-Term Examination worth 25 points and a cumulative Final Examination worth 25 points, for a total of 100 points.

Two In-Class Tests:      50 points (25 points each)
Mid-Term Exam:          25 points
Final Exam:                   25 points
TOTAL                      100 points

The grading scale for the course will be as follows:

The schedule for the Final Examinations is listed on the CSU Academics web page.

ADA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT: Students with a documented disability as described by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 933-112 Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are encouraged to contact Joy Norman at the Office of Disability Services, Tucker Hall, (706) 568-2330. Course requirements will not be waived, but reasonable accommodations and technical support may be made to assist in meeting course requirements.

WITHDRAWAL POLICY: Students who wish to drop a course after the last official day of schedule change must officially withdraw from the course. Students must withdraw using the Integrated Student Information System (ISIS) on the university's Web. Prior to the W grade deadline as published on the Web under Registration Information on the Class Schedules page, a grade of W will be assigned by the registrar unless a grade of WF has already been assigned by the registrar for excessive absences. A grade of WF will be assigned when a withdrawal form is received in the Office of the Registrar after the deadline. A student may appeal the assignment of a WF grade by submitting to the Office of the Registrar documentation of non-academic hardship. Refer to the Registration, Policies, and Services section on the Web under the Class Schedules page for specific dates and additional information regarding course withdrawal.

ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT: It is the responsibility of every student to understand and comply with the University policy outlined on pages 64-65 of the Columbus State University Student Handbook 2008-2009.

LEARNING OUTCOMES: In order to complete the course successfully, students will be expected to master and demonstrate competency in the following areas.

I. BASIC CONCEPTS

Students should be able to:

• Explain the basic concepts of critical thinking, including logic, argument, premises and conclusion.
• Distinguish statements from other types of sentences such as commands, questions and proposals.
• Distinguish the two basic types of arguments: deductive arguments and inductive arguments.
• Evaluate deductive arguments utilizing the criteria of validity and soundness.
• Evaluate inductive arguments utilizing the criteria of strength and cogency.
• Recognize the five basic valid argument forms: modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, constructive dilemma, as well as the two invalid forms: denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent.
• Apply the counterexample method to determine whether a deductive argument is invalid.

II. IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS

Students should be able to:

• Distinguish arguments from non-arguments, such as unsupported assertions, reports, illustrations, explanations, and conditional statements.
• Identify the conclusion of an argument, the premises of an argument and distinguish these from superfluous material not directly relevant to the argument.
• Interpret an argument in a fair and charitable manner.

III. LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

Students should be able to:

• Distinguish between the cognitive meaning and emotive force of a word.
• Distinguish between extensional and intensional definitions.
• Identify the four types of intensional definitions: lexical, stipulative, precising, and theoretical definitions.
• Use the technique of Definition by Genus and Difference to give the meaning of a word.
• Identify equivocations, merely verbal disputes, and persuasive definitions.

IV. INFORMAL FALLACIES

Students should be able to:

• Explain the difference between formal and informal fallacies.
• Identify Fallacies Involving Irrelevant Premises: Argument against the Person (including the abusive ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, and tu quoque), Straw Man Fallacy, Appeal to Force, Appeal to the People, Appeal to Pity, and Appeal to Ignorance.
• Identify Fallacies Involving Ambiguity: Equivocation, Amphiboly, Composition, and Division.
• Identify Fallacies Involving Unwarranted Assumptions: Begging the Question, False Dilemma, Appeal to Unreliable Authority, False Cause Fallacy, and the Fallacy of Complex Question.

V. CATEGORICAL LOGIC: STATEMENTS

Students should be able to:

• Define “categorical statement.”
• Identify and name the four standard forms of categorical statements.
• Identify the stylistic variants for each of the four forms.
• Translate categorical statements into standard form.
• Identify and explain the logical relations associated with the Traditional Square of Opposition: contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, superalterns, and subalterns.
• Identify the converse, obverse, and contrapositive of any categorical statement.
• Explain when the inference from a categorical statement to its converse, obverse, and/or contrapositive is valid.

VI. CATEGORICAL LOGIC: SYLLOGISMS

Students should be able to:

• Define “categorical syllogism.”
• Identify the major and minor premises of a categorical syllogism and put it into standard form.
• Analyze a standard form categorical syllogism by identifying its mood and figure.
• Construct a Venn diagram to determine whether a categorical syllogism is valid.
• Explain the difference between the Modern Square of Opposition and the Traditional Square of Opposition.

VII. INDUCTION

Students should be able to:

• Explain the differences between deductive and inductive logic.
• Explain the basic concepts of inductive logic: strong argument, weak argument, cogent argument, and uncogent argument.
• Identify and analyze the main kinds of inductive arguments: statistical syllogisms, arguments from authority, induction by enumeration, arguments involving Mill's methods, scientific reasoning, and arguments from analogy.
• Identify and apply the criteria utilized to evaluate the strength of each type of inductive argument.
• Evaluate causal arguments by using Mill’s methods: the method of agreement, the method of difference, the joint method, the method of concomitant variation, and the method of residues.
• Employ basic scientific reasoning, including the criteria of adequacy used to evaluate hypotheses.
• Identify, analyze and evaluate arguments from analogy.
   

SCHEDULE OF CLASSES

I. BASIC CONCEPTS

Jan. 13: Validity & Soundness, section 1.1

Jan. 15: Forms and Validity, section 1.2

Jan. 20: Counterexamples and Invalidity, section 1.3

Jan. 22: Strength & Cogency, section 1.4
 

II. IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS

Jan. 27: Arguments and Nonarguments, section 2.1

Jan. 29: Well-Crafted Arguments, section 2.2

Feb. 3: Argument Diagrams, section 2.3

Feb. 5: Test
 

III. LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

Feb. 10: Logic, Meaning and Emotive Force, section 3.1

Feb. 12: Definitions, section 3.2

Feb. 17: Using Definitions to Evaluate Arguments, section 3.3
 

IV. INFORMAL FALLACIES

Feb. 19: Fallacies of Irrelevance, section 4.1

Feb. 24: Fallacies Involving Ambiguity, section 4.2

Feb. 26: Fallacies Involving Unwarranted Premises, section 4.3

March 3: Review

March 5: MIDTERM EXAMINATION

March 9-15 SPRING BREAK
 

V. CATEGORICAL LOGIC: STATEMENTS

March 17: Standard Forms of Categorical Statements, section 5.1

March 19: The Traditional Square of Opposition, section 5.2

March 24: Further Immediate Inferences, section 5.3
 

VI. CATEGORICAL LOGIC: SYLLOGISMS

March 26: Standard Form, Mood, and Figure, section 6.1

March 31: Venn Diagrams and Categorical Statements, section 6.2

April 2: Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms, section 6.3

April 7: Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms, again

April 9: The Modern Square of Opposition, section 6.4

April 14: Test
 

VII. INDUCTION

April 16: Inductive and Deductive Logic: Contrasts and Clarifications, section 10.1

April 21: Arguments from Authority and Induction by Enumeration, section 10.2

April 23: Mill’s Methods and Scientific Reasoning, section 10.3

April 28: Arguments from Analogy, section 10.4

April 30: Review
 

FINAL EXAMINATION: Fri., May 8 at 10:30 am-12:30 pm

Back to: David Wisdo's Homepage
              CSU Philosophy

This page is part of the Columbus State University web site. The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the page author and are not necessarily endorsed by Columbus State University. Send mail to the CSU Webmaster with questions or comments about this web site.