"It is ______ to their wonder that people, both _____ and at _____ began to philophize"

-Aristotle

1. owing

2. now

3. first

Formal Definition of Philosophy

1. Literal Definition

2. Intermediate Definition

3. Final Definition

1. Love of Wisdom

2. Pursuit of insights into topics of wonder

3. Rational Investigation

Critical Thinking

Central Idea

Give an example

How you determine what food to buy

-reject the bad stuff

-keep the good stuff

Criticial thinking occurs when...

people communitcate with each other

(ex. via, books, newspaper, talking)

What are the two prerequisites for Critical thinking?

1. Imagination

-role play

-put yourself in the place of the character the ablility to view something from another person's perspective

2. Dispassion

-the ablility to set aside ones own views and not let them influence ones judgement

-requires the willingness to change ones mind, opinion view

What are the two Central Activities of Critical Thinking?

1.Analysis

2. Evaluation

Explain Analysis

-to break up

- breaking up a position into its component parts and understanding how the parts fit together

Explain Evaluation

-the action of identifiying the strengths and weakness of a position and making a judgement about its worth(value)

The first Canon of Rational Discourse

(RD)

RD is a cooperative venture

Adversial venture is -

Cooperative venture is-

-the parties have incompatible goals (win-lose)

-the parties have a common goal

(win-win; lose-lose)

Common goal of RD-

-to establish new knowledge

Requirements of First Canon:

1. Accuracy of Information

2. Completeness of Information

Violations of the First Canon

1. Fallacy of the strawman

-misrepresenting a persons view so that is easier to criticize/ reject

2. Fallacy of suppressed evidence

-deliberately withholding evidence that is unfavorable to ones position

Second Canon of Rational Discourse

Rational Discourse proceeds throught argumentation alone

Requirements of Second Canon of RD

1. the author must present a clear and complete arguments to the audience

2. no method of persuasion (except argumentation is premitted in RD)

Violations of Canon of RD

1. Fallacy of appeal of force

- attempting to persuade an audience by means of coercion instead of arugmentation

2. Fallacy of Appeal to Emotion(pity)

-attempting to persuade an audience ny manipulation its emotion instead of argument

3. attempting persuasion by Rhetorical question

- a question that doesnt try to get answers, but makes a specific point

4. Fallacy of Unwanted Statement/ Assertion

-by failing to provide evidence justification for a controversial

Third Canon of RD

Arugments stand or fall on their own merits

Requirements of Third Canon of RD

1.The status of the author should have no impact of the acceptance/rejection of the argument by the audience

2. The author should not take praise/criticism of the argument personally

Violations of Third Canon

1. Fallacy of ad hominem

-attacking the author rather than the argument

2. Withdrawal from the argument by an author whose argument has been criticized

-author takes criticism personally and takes away from RD  altogether

Fourth Canon of RD

Good arguments compel the assent of the audience

Requirements of Fourth RD

1. The audience must accept the truth of a good arguments conclusion

2. When rejects an argument the audience must identify a flaw in the argument

Violations the Fourth Canon

1. Refusal to accept the conclusion of a good arguments

2. Refusal to identify a flaw in a rejected argument

Misleading Rhetorical Devices

 -authors technique for persuasion however misleading

1. Emotive language

2.Fine print disclaimer

3. Weasel words

4. Irrelevancy

Emotive Language

-framing an argument using terms that emotionally dispose the audience to accepting the authors position

Fine Print Disclaimer

-providing relevant information in a way that is easily overlooked by the audience

Weasel Words

-using short words or phrases that radically alter the meaning of the sentence containing them

Irrelevancy

-including information that does not support the authors conclusion