[笔记] Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking

24一/111

[笔记] Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking

刚刚，花了四天时间把 Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking 看完。在rapidshare上有下载。这本书是一本国外的关于critical thinking的教材。个人强烈推荐。除了一些例子可能会有比较多的生词，整体上，这本书的语言还是比较好懂的。另外，我喜欢的一点是它没有介绍各种fallacy，而是从比较正面的角度去说怎样的argument是strong的。比如我之前介绍过名为slippery slope的fallacy。并不是所有的splippery slope argument都是不对的。书中有很多例子和习题，部分习题有解答。作者对于例子的分析还是很到位的。书的最后，作者点评了一篇学生习作，最后改写了一下。两篇文章的对比，可以让你学到很多。

Notes

A strong argument is an argument with

acceptable premises （如果premise是用sub-argument撑起来的，先看看sub-argument是不是strong)
a conclusion that follows from them
- relevant to the conclusion （如果premise能使得conclusion更像真的（正相关)，或者更像假的(负相关), 一点作用也没有的就是irrelevant）
- sufficient to establish it as probable （这一条和结论的强度有关。）

Empirical Reasoning

Generalizations:

Premise 1: Sample S is a representative sample of Xs.

Premise 2: Proportion 1 of Xs in S are Y.

Conclusion: Proportion 2 of Xs are Y.

Proportion 1 <= Proportion 2

A good generalization shows

that the individuals in the sample have some property Y, and
that the sample is representative, i.e. that it is
- of reasonable size, and
- free of bias

A strong generalization based on a poll shows

that the individuals polled have the properties in question, to the extent claimed; and
that the sample is representative, i.e. that it is
- free of sampling errors, and
  - Is the sample reliable?
  - Is its size sufficient?
  - How was it selected? Does it include all relevant subgroups?
  - Is the margin of error it allows within reasonable bounds?
- free of measurement errors.
  - How reliable is the information collected about the measured property?
  - What kinds of questions were asked? (Are the statements vague or ambiguous? e.g. How do you feel about X?)
  - How were the results of the immediate questions interpreted?
  - Were the questions or answers affected by biases(of wording, timing, sponsors, etc.)?

General causal reasoning:

Premise 1: X is correlated with Y.

Premise 2: The correlation between X and Y is not due to chance.

Premise 3: There is no second cause, Z, that is the cause of Y or of both X and Y;

Premise 4: Y is not the cause of X.

Conclusion: X causes Y.

Particular causal reasoning:

Premise 1: X causes Y. (general causal reasoning)

Premise 2: This is the best explanation of the y in question.

Conclusion:This x caused this y.

Appeals to ignorance:

Premise 1: We have found no evidence to disprove( or prove) proposition P.

Premise 2: There has been a responsible attempt to garner evidence.

（一般这一类的weak argument都是这个条件不满足。）

Conclusion: Proposition P is improbable (or probable).

Moral Reasoning

Slippery-Slope Arguments:

Premise 1: A causes B, B causes C, and so on to X. ()（每个因果关系都要论证，一个有问题，就变成了fallacy）

Premise 2: X is undesirable (or X is desirable). (moral reasoning)

Conclusion: A is wrong (or right).

Argument by analogy:

Premise 1: X,W,R,S are p,q,r,...,z

Premise 2: Y is p,q,r,...

Hidden Premise: p,q,r are the properties relevant to z.

Conclusion: Y is z.

A good argument by analogy supports a conclusion about Y by pointing out

that is true of some X
that Y is similar to X in sufficient relevant respects
that X and Y are not relevantly dissimilar （一般反驳这种argument就是反驳这一点。）

Appeals to Precedent

A strong appeal to precedent shows that some action X should be allowed (or disallowed) because some analogous case has been allowed (or disallowed), or because future analogous cases should be allowed( or disallowed).

A strong counter-argument to an appeal to precedent shows that one of these claims is unacceptable because the cases being compared are not relevantly analogous.

Two-wrongs reasoning

Premise 1: X is a response to another wrong, Y, the unjust consequences of which it is designed to cancel or alleviate.

Premise 2: X is less wrong than Y.

Premise 3: There is no morally preferable way to respond to Y.

Conclusion: X is justified

Two-wrongs by analogy

Premise 1: A wrong, X, is analogous to other wrongs (Y, X, W, ...) that have been permitted.

Premise 2: Fairness in the form of consistency is more important than preventing X.

Premise 3: There is no morally preferable way to respond to the situation.

Conclusion: X should be accepted/allowed.

Ethotic Schemes

（这种类型的论证不能单独支撑一个结论，这个结论之后还需要经过更严密的论证。）

Pro homine (for the person) reasoning:

Premise 1: X says that y.

Premise 2: X is knowledgeable, trustworthy, and free of bias.

Conclusion: y should be accepted.

Arguments from authority

Premise 1: X is an authority with credentials c, who believes and states y.

Premise 2: Credentials c are relevant to y.

Premise 3: X is not biased.

Premise 4: There is wide agreement among the relevant experts over y.

Premise 5: y is an appropriate field in which consensus is possible.

Conclusion: y should be accepted.

Ad homine (against the person) reasoning:

Premise 1: X says that y.

Premise 2: X is unreliable(i.e. not knowledgeable, trustworthy, and/or free of bias)

Conclusion: y should not be accepted (on the grounds that X says y).

A guilt(honor)-by-association argument:

Premise 1: A person or group X is associated with another person or group Y.

Premise 2: Y has questionable (creditable) beliefs or behaves in a questionable (creditable) way.

Conclusion: X's character and/or claims are questionable (creditable).

A strong guilt(honor)-by-association

there is good reason to believe that the alleged association between X and Y really exist;
there is good reason to question(credit) the beliefs or the behavior or Y;
there is no good reason to differentiate X from Y.

原创文章，转载请注明： 转载自ELLY66

本文链接地址: [笔记] Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking

文章的脚注信息由WordPress的wp-posturl插件自动生成

Evernote lets you save all the interesting things you see online into a single place. Access all those saved pages from your computer, phone or the web. Sign up now or learn more. It's free!

标签: Books, Logic 发表评论

评论 (1) 引用 (0) (订阅这个帖子上的评论)

xuebao
2011年10月24日 01:08

您好，能不能把这本书的电子稿(Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking )分享给我，谢谢。
您给出的地址我没法访问，不好意思。
最近看完李笑来老师的书，他推荐这本书。
我在网上也没找到，不揣冒昧,打扰，谢谢！

(回复)

My Google Plus

订阅本站