RSS

Monthly Archives: June 2012

Arguments and Inference

The Discipline of Logic

Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven’t actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.

In general, we can respect the directness of a path even when we don’t accept the points at which it begins and ends. Thus, it is possible to distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning independently of our agreement on substantive matters. Logic is the discipline that studies this distinction—both by determining the conditions under which the truth of certain beliefs leads naturally to the truth of some other belief, and by drawing attention to the ways in which we may be led to believe something without respect for its truth. This provides no guarantee that we will always arrive at the truth, since the beliefs with which we begin are sometimes in error. But following the principles of correct reasoning does ensure that no additional mistakes creep in during the course of our progress.

In this review of elementary logic, we’ll undertake a broad survey of the major varieties of reasoning that have been examined by logicians of the Western philosophical tradition. We’ll see how certain patterns of thinking do invariably lead from truth to truth while other patterns do not, and we’ll develop the skills of using the former while avoiding the latter. It will be helpful to begin by defining some of the technical terms that describe human reasoning in general. Read the rest of this entry »

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 13, 2012 in ሥነ አመክንዮ

 

Informal fallacy file

fallacy file

informal fallacies

informal fallacies-

List of some fallacies


Read the rest of this entry »

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 13, 2012 in ሥነ-ሕጸጽ

 

The Argument from Desire

PETER KREEFT

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food….If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

  1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
  2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
  3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
  4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.” Read the rest of this entry »
 
 

Argument I for existence of God

Some peoples seem that atheists have good reasons with sound evidences for their belief against existence of God. But this is misunderstanding because their beliefs are suppositions and base on assumption of exceptional things that may be questionable to be taken as evidences. Rather theists are reasonable with available evidences to argue for existence of God. The following argument is one example for theists’ evidence to believe God existence confidently. Read the rest of this entry »

 
 
%d bloggers like this: