HSS F236 SYMBOLIC LOGIC

ASSIGNMENT 1

Role of Paradoxes/Fallacies in
Critical Thinking

Submitted by:
Anamya Agarwal

(2015B4A7625P)

Manthan Goyal

(2015B4A4702P)

Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. Critical
thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying,
analysing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary
form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy,
precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It
presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails
effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native
egocentrism and sociocentrism.
The ability of thinking critically generally calls for certain abilities, as follows;

Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems

Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving

Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information

Recognize unstated assumptions and values

Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment

Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments

Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions

Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations

Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives

Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience

Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

Paradox
A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true. Most Logical paradoxes
are known to be invalid arguments, but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking. Some paradoxes
have revealed errors and definitions assume to be rigorous, and have caused axioms of mathematics and
logic to be re-examined. In common usage the word paradox often refers to statements that are ironic or
are unexpected, such as The paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
A paradox is a chain of reasoning that starts from seemingly obvious premises and arrives at a
conclusion we find unacceptable. The story below is just a simple example, but it illustrates nicely that
even very innocent seeming propositions can sometimes lead us into trouble.
At a desert oasis, A and B both separately undertake plots to try to kill C. A poisons his canteen, and later
B punches a hole in it. C dies of thirst. Who killed him? At the trial, A argues that she can't possibly be the
killer, for C never drank the poison. B argues that it couldn't have been him either, for B only deprived C
of poisoned water. Both of their arguments seem pretty good, but C was surely killed, and someone
should be held accountable.

Fallacy
A fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid but in reality it is not so. It is an invalid argument
which is camouflaged and which can deceive or mislead us by a show of truth. It is, so to speak, a trap,
something tricky or hidden. Being mistakes in reasoning, fallacies arises from the violation of one or
other of the principles on which the correctness of reasoning depends.

Some Standard Fallacies:

1. Overgeneralisation
Asserting something of a whole class of things when it is not true
e.g., Japanese people are shy.

2. False cause
Attributing to something a cause which is incorrectly based
e.g., Paul Keating was Prime Minister when Australia had the greatest recession in 60 years. Clearly, he is
a cause of this misery.

3. False analogy
Making a false or misleading analogy
e.g., the democratic system is a poor way of governing, because electing members of Parliament is like
having children elect their teachers.

4. Begging the question

Assuming to be true what is in dispute.
e.g., this sort of behaviour cant be tolerated; it is un-Australian.

5. Circular reasoning
The use of a premise to prove a conclusion and the conclusion to prove the premise (an extended case of
begging the question)
e.g., one should not drink alcohol because it is against the will of Allah and one must do the will of Allah
because it says so in the Koran

6. Non-sequitur
A confusion of cause and effect, something is claimed to follow or to cause something else when it is not
obvious at all.
e.g., The Rolls Royce is the worlds finest car; therefore, you get your moneys worth when you buy a
Rolls Royce.

7. False dilemma

The incorrect suggestion that only one of two alternatives apply

e.g., there are only two political choices left in the world: Communism and Capitalism.

8. Complex question
The invitation of only a simple answer, when there are really many issues involved and no simple
response
e.g., you have stopped beating your wife havent you?

9. Argument from ignorance

The suggestion that lack of evidence/argument is sufficient proof for asserting something
e.g., Communism must have been wrongthere hasnt been a shred of evidence to the contrary.

10. Relevance
There are several varieties of this:
(a) Ad hominem argument: using irrelevant (and/or false) points to attack the opposing side
e.g., Feminism is a lot of rubbish; only women who are too unattractive to get men become feminists.
(b) Appeal to authority: using irrelevant appeals to famous people to argue a point.
e.g., It is wrong to criticise the PM on this point. After all, he has more information and responsibility
than we have, and should be better than us in deciding these matters.
(And many more such varieties of such fallacies exist.)

11. Ambiguity
Shifting the meaning of terms of the argument while in the process of arguing a point
e.g., an elephant is an animal; thus a small elephant is a small animal

12. Composition
Arguing improperly that what is true of parts of something must be true of the whole.
e.g., the new laws will benefit single parents substantially, so therefore they will also benefit the
community as a whole.

13. Division

Arguing improperly that what is true of the whole of something must be true of its parts.
e.g., the army is very inefficient so we cannot expect Major Smith to do a good job.

Linking the Paradoxes and Fallacies with

Critical Thinking
When it comes to role of paradoxes in critical thinking, which is the process of arriving at a conclusion
after analysing, evaluating and conceptualising all of the evidences, facts, statements and premises
available, the human brain analyses the everyday life relativity and circularity, evaluates the complexity
of the paradox and conceptualises the paradox as vertical, falsidical, antinomy or dialethia (which is
one of the most famous way of classification of paradoxes distinguished by W.V. Quine(1962) ).
Taking an example of a paradox:
A crocodile snatches a young boy from a riverbank. His mother pleads with the crocodile to return
him, to which the crocodile replies that he will only return the boy safely if the mother can guess
correctly whether or not he will indeed return the boy. There is no problem if the mother guesses
that the crocodile will return himif she is right, he is returned; if she is wrong, the crocodile keeps
him. If she answers that the crocodile will not return him, however, we end up with a paradox: if
she is right and the crocodile never intended to return her child, then the crocodile has to return
him, but in doing so breaks his word and contradicts the mothers answer. On the other hand, if she
is wrong and the crocodile actually did intend to return the boy, the crocodile must then keep him
even though he intended not to, thereby also breaking his word.
The Crocodile Paradox is such an ancient and enduring logic problem that in the Middle Ages the word
"crocodilite" came to be used to refer to any similarly brain-twisting dilemma where you admit something
that is later used against you, while "crocodility" is an equally ancient word for captious or fallacious
reasoning.

Such paradoxes always work as an exercise to the brain for:

Identifying the everyday life relativity and circularity : Many situations arrive in an
individuals life where the person is bound identify the circularity or the extent he might have
to go over the problem to finally arriving at a solution and making such a decision to create least
of the uncertainty in reaching the destiny or the goal.

Evaluating the complexity: Complexity of such a situation creates a very big impact on making
the decision to minimise the uncertainty of the decision, which is obviously made by thoroughly
analysing each and every evidence and premise.

Conceptualisation of paradox : Very similar to the conceptualisation of the paradox, creating

different categories and different type of approach to different type of situations arising, help very
much in the process of Critical Thinking(explained thoroughly above).

A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or intentionally. When the fallacy is committed

unintentionally it is called paralogism, and when it is committed intentionally then it is called sophism.
Fallacies can be formal and informal.
Logical fallacies are errors that occur in arguments. In logic, an argument is the giving of reasons
(called premises) to support some claim (called the conclusion).A fallacious argument is an argument
rendered weak by some flaw. It would be impossible to supply an exhaustive catalogue of these flaws,
but some of them infiltrate argumentative discourse regularly enough to earn their own name.
Since the goal is to report about these flaws so that they can be spotted and avoided in the give and take
of daily life, it is important to introduce them systematically. Theorists offer different ways to do this that
are keyed to different relationships.
The example for the Begging of Question Fallacy is discussed:

Well, what form of government do you want, a government by liberal do-gooders ready to spend
your hard-earned dollars or a government led by business minds that understand how to live
within a tight budget and generate jobs that put people to work?
This statement includes the following assumptions that should not be taken for granted:
1. That a liberal government would spend money unwisely.
2. That business people know how to live within a tight budget and generate jobs that put people to work.

The use of words or phrases that prejudge an issue by the way the issue is put. For example, Shall we
defend freedom and democracy or cave in to terrorism and tyranny? By putting the question in this way
we avoid having to talk about uncomfortable questions like: But are we really advancing human
freedom? Are we really spreading democracy (or just extending our power, our control, our dominance,
our access to foreign markets)?
Pay close attention to the words people use when articulating the facts with respect to an issue.
They will often choose words that presuppose the correctness of their position on an issue.
When this trick is used by governmental officials, it is usually called spreading disinformation (false
charges that the government knows will be believed). For example, planting stories about atrocities of
one country (which never in fact occurred) is very effective for validating an aggressive attack by another
country. Hitler used this strategy effectively. The US government has often spread disinformation for
example, to justify sending Marines into Central or South American Countries to depose one government
and put a more friendly government into power. The fact that these stories will be discredited years
later is of no consequence, of course, to the fabricators of such stories. Disinformation often works.
The discrediting of it is usually too late to matter. Years later, people dont seem to care. Since most
people think in simplistic ways, manipulators and politicians can often get them to reject someone
simply by mentioning something about the person that seems inappropriate or that goes against
social conventions. For example, Kevin has already admittedly smoked marijuana. That tells us a lot
about him! Or, look at that teenage girl wearing that skimpy top. I guess we know what she is after.