Logical Thinking

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I have a whole unit/subject on it in my Psychology degree this year, well, this semester. So I'm studying it for weeks. We require logical thinking as part of the course, and being a psychologist obviously.

In basic terms, we define logical thinking (or also known as critical thinking) as a kind of skill - being able to accept both sides of an argument while still keeping your own side...being able to critique things - say what is good and bad about a source for example...

We're learning about the different types of arguments, like how things are worded, explicit or implicit things, etc.

Is this what you think logical thinking is? Or is it something different?

 

[Zorak]

To me, logic isn't debatable. Unless you're being illogical. Something either is logical, or it isn't. And if two people disagree over the validity of a certain logic; then one of them isn't thinking logically.

 

[porterjack]

i suppose in it's rawest form the ability to think logically is to approach any situation with no pre conceived influences or opinions

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

To me, logic isn't debatable. Unless you're being illogical. Something either is logical, or it isn't. And if two people disagree over the validity of a certain logic; then one of them isn't thinking logically.

Sometimes it's not as easy as one, two, three...some people don't know what logical thinking is, nor can they recognise when they are using non-rational forms of persuasion.

i suppose in it's rawest form the ability to think logically is to approach any situation with no pre conceived influences or opinions

In a way that is true. But even more better so, to have your own preconceived ideas, but have the ability to put them aside and not be so one-sided. Plus not to mention you look way more intelligent if you can critique the opposing side AND your own side.

 

[Minor Axis]

There are lots of hits if you google it. Try these:

http://socyberty.com/philosophy/logical-thinking-and-reasoning/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

1+1=2 is logical with foundation. Most religious views are not logical because they can't be backed up with any kind of data to draw a conclusion. It comes down to "a feeling". So logic must have a sound methodology that backs up your reasoning.

 

[Peter Parka]

To me, it's sticking to the facts completely and treating both sides who stick to that impartialy

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

So logic must have a sound methodology that backs up your reasoning.

Well that's when you use deductive arguments, where the conclusion is logically entailed by the premises. It is valid if it follows this structure, and the argument is sound if the argument is valid and has true premises.

Science is mainly inductive, whereby they don't base it on validity, because inductive arguments can't be valid. But rather they base it on how acceptable/strong premises are in supporting the conclusions. I guess religion is like that in a way. Because with deductive arguments, something is either wrong or right. But with inductive arguments, you never know, it depends upon support.
You can only really use deductive arguments for science by using falsification, and expressing it via modus tollens and testing it.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well that's when you use deductive arguments, where the conclusion is logically entailed by the premises. It is valid if it follows this structure, and the argument is sound if the argument is valid and has true premises.

Science is mainly inductive, whereby they don't base it on validity, because inductive arguments can't be valid. But rather they base it on how acceptable/strong premises are in supporting the conclusions. I guess religion is like that in a way. Because with deductive arguments, something is either wrong or right. But with inductive arguments, you never know, it depends upon support.
You can only really use deductive arguments for science by using falsification, and expressing it via modus tollens and testing it.

Really? Science can't be validated, ever? I need to think on that a little. What about areas of science that are well understood? Guess I need to study up on logic a bit more.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Really? Science can't be validated, ever? I need to think on that a little. What about areas of science that are well understood? Guess I need to study up on logic a bit more.

Lol what I mean by validity is the structure of the argument, not whether the arguments are true or false
Inductive arguments lead forward to a conclusion, beyond information given in the premises (evidence/support). It is judged on the degree of plausibility or likeliness. That is how science works Science does not actually 'prove' anything, but it's a case of providing evidence to support your idea or theory. It's the same for all sciences really.

Only deductive arguments are valid (in structure) because the conclusion is logically entailed by the premises. Deductive arguments can be valid, but have false premises/evidence, because validity applies to the structure only. If an argument is deductive (valid) along with true premises, then it is sound. The inductive form of this is cogency where it is judged on the plausibility of premises and how much support they give to the conclusions etc etc...

One way to distinguish them is that deductive arguments follow a certain form (such modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogisms, etc). Inductive arguments on the other hand, give new information that isn't contained in the premises, so it's really quite fitting for science lol

But yes, that is right, science doesn't 'validate' anything as such

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

*ahem* Maybe I should say that it is not A class that I am doing, rather a series of classES. And that I am not implying that I am an expert on the matter, but do take into consideration that this is a skill I will need for the rest of my practicing career so if anyone wants to imply I don't have this skill well that's like saying I'll never be a proper practicing psychologist.
Sorry if I appear over-confident, but none of you are experts on the matter as well.

 

[Abcinthia]

*ahem* Maybe I should say that it is not A class that I am doing, rather a series of classES. And that I am not implying that I am an expert on the matter, but do take into consideration that this is a skill I will need for the rest of my practicing career so if anyone wants to imply I don't have this skill well that's like saying I'll never be a proper practicing psychologist.
Sorry if I appear over-confident, but none of you are experts on the matter as well.

I'm sorry but what do you know about what people are experts in? There are people on this forum who have studied Psychology and just becuase they haven't replied doesn't mean they don't know more than you do.

Psychology isn't the only subject where logic is studied. My friend has just started a degree in Law and guess what, he's studying logic. I studied fallacious arguments and subjectivity/objectivity in English Language, whilst doing a section on Power Language, and I studied it in Psychology.

I think people are just throughly annoyed that your 'over-confidence' appears to be more arrogance and assuming that people are somewhat lacking intellect-wise just becuase you are 'at university and studying it', due to you always saying you are at university and studying it. Just step back and look at it how some of your posts can be viewed from another person's point of view. I know you don't mean them to appear in an arrogant, know-it all manner; but sometimes that is how they appear.

 

[Accountable]

I'm sorry but what do you know about what people are experts in? There are people on this forum who have studied Psychology and just becuase they haven't replied doesn't mean they don't know more than you do.

Psychology isn't the only subject where logic is studied. My friend has just started a degree in Law and guess what, he's studying logic. I studied fallacious arguments and subjectivity/objectivity in English Language, whilst doing a section on Power Language, and I studied it in Psychology.

I think people are just throughly annoyed that your 'over-confidence' appears to be more arrogance and assuming that people are somewhat lacking intellect-wise just becuase you are 'at university and studying it', due to you always saying you are at university and studying it. Just step back and look at it how some of your posts can be viewed from another person's point of view. I know you don't mean them to appear in an arrogant, know-it all manner; but sometimes that is how they appear.

:nod::nod: That's called empathy, another skill that's vital in the field of psychology. In therapy, logic shrinks in the shadow of empathy's importance. Without this skill well that's like saying you'll never be a proper practicing psychologist, or at least not an effective one.


eta: I'm not sure if you'd consider me an expert or not. I majored in psychology until my senior year, when I changed majors and got my degree in Human Relations, a psych degree with a concentration on business & management. My Masters is in Human Resource Development, which I used for a time teaching leadership development. That, combined with the practical knowledge gained from individual & group therapy I had as a teenager, makes me knowledgeable, at least.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I am aware that other courses and other people study the same thing I do.

Tell me, if learning how to think critically won't make you any good at it, then what's the point of studying it?
Because that's what it is all about.

I know what I said in my previous post sounded rude, but my point was the same one you made earlier - who are people to judge who is good at it and who isn't? Because someone else thought they could judge me.

As for 'treating people like they lack intellect', I don't think I do, unless you want to point it out to me. In my opinion, I think me pointing out flaws in things was taken the wrong way, and people hate me for 'sticking up for a troll', or for asserting some kind of dominance on here. My apologies if they sound self-centred in some way. The only thing that comes to mind was me saying that me learning Arabic was clever and cool...

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

As for the thing on empathy, I think you are right...there's a battle between finding the right balance of rational thinking and empathy, both have advantages and disadvantages...

 

[mazHur]

I have a whole unit/subject on it in my Psychology degree this year, well, this semester. So I'm studying it for weeks. We require logical thinking as part of the course, and being a psychologist obviously.

In basic terms, we define logical thinking (or also known as critical thinking) as a kind of skill - being able to accept both sides of an argument while still keeping your own side...being able to critique things - say what is good and bad about a source for example...

We're learning about the different types of arguments, like how things are worded, explicit or implicit things, etc.

Is this what you think logical thinking is? Or is it something different?

Kimmy, congrats on this educational cum entertainment thread.
could you plz shed some more light on Critical logic with brief example ...and how does it differ
from Inductive and Deductive logic??

 

[itsmeJonB]

clinical psychologists are crazier than their patients

 

[cam elle toe]

The basic skills have to already be there. No amount of classes or courses will teach some people to think logically or argue critically...they dont have the grey matter necessary.

and thats NOT directed at you.....its an observation I have after doing classes and using it in MY work for over 15 years.

I also had to do clinical Psychology.

 

[mazHur]

clinical psychologists are crazier than their patients

Why do you say that?? I have a lady Professor American psychologist friend and she is great!( notwithstanding she is a blonde!)

 

[Peter Parka]

Every time I see a psychologist for my aspergers they try and get me to admit to some traumatic childhood. Guess what? I had good parents that didn't abuse me and I wont say I did, despite all their pathetic manipulations. I agree with Wyndex.:thumbup

 

[itsmeJonB]

Every time I see a psychologist for my aspergers they try and get me to admit to some traumatic childhood. Guess what? I had good parents that didn't abuse me and I wont say I did, despite all their pathetic manipulations. I agree with Wyndex.:thumbup

I and my roommate have had similar experiences with psychologists. And they always want to prescribe harder, more zombifying drugs to a condition that doesnt exist