Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-5 of 5 documents


articles
1. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines: Volume > 20 > Issue: 1
Donald Hatcher Arguments for Another Definition of Critical Thinking
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
2. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines: Volume > 20 > Issue: 1
Claude Gratton Counterexamples and Tacit Premises
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I argue that there are at least two kinds of tacit premises; describe a certain type of counterexample against the validity of arguments, and then use it to identify one kind of tacit premise. I distinguish two classes of tacit premises on the grounds that they are discovered or constructed differently, they have different roles in an argument or causal explanation, and have different logical relations to each other.
3. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines: Volume > 20 > Issue: 1
Herman E. Stark Fallacies and Logical Errors
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I explore a distinction that is philosophically significant but rarely a cynosure. The distinction is betvveen fallacies and logical errors, and I approach it by advancing overlooked albeit deleterious logical errors that are not fallacies but that fall squarely within the purview of Critical Thinking if not also Informal Logic. One key claim to emerge is that these logical errors -- just as basic and thought-impeding as the fallacies -- demand that we take a hard look at what is and what should be guiding our activity in teaching such courses. Another is that although philosophers appeal to the notion of logical error in their explications of fallacies, the former notion is anything but clear and indeed usually explained in terms of the latter. Yet another is that the distinction illustrates why the oft encountered “false premise or bad inference” account of how thinking can go bad is oversimplified.
4. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines: Volume > 20 > Issue: 1
Doug Walton Evaluating Appeals to Popular Opinion
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
There is a tendency to swing to extremes in evaluating arguments based on appeal to popular opinion. Traditional logic textbooks have portrayed the argumentum ad populum, or appeal to popular opinion, as a fallacy. In contrast, many arguments based on appeal to public opinion in marketing of commercial products do not seem all that unreasonable. Three cases of commercial ads are studied. The problem posed is that of building an objective structure for evaluating such arguments that does not swing, without any objective basis for judging cases, to the one extreme or the other. This article provides such a structure. One part of it is the identifying of the argumentation schemes (forms of argtunent) for the various species of ad populum arguments involved. The other part of the structure is dialectical, referring to the conversational context in which two speech partners reason together in a collaborative goal-directed exchange.
5. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines: Volume > 20 > Issue: 1
Sol Cohen Haithe Anderson’s “Disciplining Education and Educating the Discipline”
view |  rights & permissions | cited by