End of Logic Final Essay

1) What are the different types of reasoning? In your opinion, is one type more valid or reliable? Explain why, using terms and examples.

There are several types of reasoning and they are; deductive reasoning which includes syllogisms and truth vs. validity, inductive reasoning which includes confirmation bias (a.k.a. generalization, prejudice and scientific law), and informal reasoning which includes circular reasoning, equivocating, arguing using ad ignorantiam, binary thinking, and loaded questions.

Deductive reasoning is the process of moving from one general truth to a particular subject to get a conclusion. Some of the types of deductive reasoning are syllogisms and truth vs. validity. Syllogisms are a series of statements with two premises and a conclusion which have three terms that occur twice as well as quantifiers. An example of this is: all carrots have an orange colour, my salad has carrots, and therefore my salad has an orange colour. Truth vs. Validity is the fact that although a statement can be false it can still be valid. The reason for this is because a statement that is valid has two true premises but it may not have a true conclusion. Reasoning understands this while logic would consider all valid statements to be true. An example of a valid yet untrue statement is: cats are small, lions are a type of cat, and therefore lions are small. This statement is valid as there is a truth to the logic and premises, but it is not a true conclusion as lions are not small by most standards.

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, instead of moving from a general truth to a particular subject, it is the process of moving from a truth about a particular subject to a general conclusion. This is also an example of stereotyping. One of the types of inductive reasoning is confirmation bias, examples of which are generalization, prejudice and scientific law. Confirmation bias is the fact that we usually believe and remember what supports our beliefs and perceptions more so than those that contradict them. This is probably one of the problems that have lead to culture clashes and arguments the most as people are unwilling to accept truths that do not agree with what they already believe. Generalizations are when you come up with a general principle about something from examples of particulars. An example of this would be if I only knew birds that sung, I would then believe that all birds sing. This is probably not true as the amount of examples that I was deriving my generalization was relatively small in comparison to the actual population of the subject. The best way to validity a generalization is to come up with it from examining a large percentage of the population of the subject or culture you are generalizing. This will ensure that the generalization is more accurate. Prejudice is when you already have an idea in your head about a particular subject and that affects your thinking and perceptions on that subject. An example of this would be that if you thought all blondes were dumb, you would be much more receptive to the less intelligent statements a blonde made and not pay as much attention to the examples of intelligence she actually gives. Scientific law is the direct link between the cause and effect of a phenomenon deduced from experiments and/or observations. An example of this would be if I experimented on water and found that it contained certain amounts of chlorine, I would believe that it was pool water because pool water contains that amount of chlorine. This system could be applicable to events such as the Big Bang, which the theory of was hypothesised from the experiments done on such conditions.

Informal reasoning is reasoning where you make a quick decision given on the information you are given, which is often used against you by deliberately manipulating the way in which you will most likely respond to the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means mistaking something following another thing to be the cause for the first thing. An example of this would be; McDonald’s sales are up this year, so is the obesity rate. Equivocating is using a word or idea in two different meanings in order to support your argument. An example of this would be; Smoking kills and criminals kill, so criminals must smoke. Circular reasoning is assuming that part of your argument is true without proving it first. An example of this would be; I am cool, because I say so, and I never lie. Arguing ad ignorantiam means believing something is true just because we cannot prove it isn’t true. An example of this is believing in ghosts because there is no way to prove there are no ghosts. Binary thinking believes in black in white sides of an argument, therefore thinking that one extreme will happen if you do/do not do something. An example of this is; I need to wear make-up or everyone will hate me. A loaded question is when you ask a question that even if you answer yes or no, will make your response mean a certain connotation. An example of this would be; Are you always ugly or is it just today?

Out of all of the different types of reasoning, it seems to me that the most accurate form of reasoning is deductive reasoning because it is generally more accurate to believe that if something usually happens, then most likely the same will be true in a particular case. There are always exceptions, but an exception is the oddity to in most cases you will be correct. Therefore that seems to be the most accurate type of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is less reliable in my opinion as it moves from particular cases into a general idea, and it is usually best to avoid stereotyping and generalizing because it can lead to issues if your generalizations are untrue and can lead to offending the parties that are being stereotyped. Informal reasoning is the manipulation of reasoning to give untrue conclusions in most cases, therefore I believe it is by far the least accurate type of reasoning and often lead to untrue and misunderstood conclusions.