Logic Lect 1.pdf - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

lecture notes...

Description

1

101189 INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING

Lecture 1: Introduction to logical thinking Introduction When you see that you're going to study a subject like "Social Psychology", or "Research Methods", you usually know what to expect, and you can see how it’s relevant as part of psychology. But when you see "Introduction to Logical Thinking", it may not be so obvious what it’s all about and how it’s relevant to psychology. So my aim in this first lecture is to answer two questions: (i) What is logical thinking? and (ii) Why do it as a subject—especially why do it as part of a degree in psychology? 1. What is logical thinking? First of all, most text books use the title "Critical Thinking". There's no real difference here; "logical thinking" and "critical thinking" are pretty well interchangeable. So, then, what is logical or critical thinking? Let’s begin with its aims. 1.1 The aims of logical thinking (a) In general, logical thinking aims to achieve a kind of consciousness-raising, that is, raising our level of awareness. Whatever material we are faced with in our inquiries, we want to be able to understand it and evaluate it. In psychology, we want to describe human behaviour, understand it, explain it, predict it (if we can!), and (sometimes) change or control it. The first step is to understand and evaluate our material. But how? (b) My answer is in the form of the three “c”s: clarity, coherence and conciseness. Let me explain. First, logical thinking is basically aimed at dealing with any material more clearly. Clarity is the fundamental aim of logical thinking. No matter what material you’re faced with - let's say a research paper reporting that people may say they are not racist, and they may genuinely believe they are not racist, but their actual language use and behaviour tells the opposite story; or let’s say you’re faced with a number of claims about therapeutic techniques, or arguments about sexual identity—any material at all— faced with this, your first task is to look at it all as clearly as you can, to get clear about it, to ask how clear it is. So, to repeat, the primary aim of logical thinking is clarity. The second aim is coherence: "Coherence" literally means "sticking together". Whether it’s your work or someone else’s, you ask questions like: Does the material hang together? Is it internally consistent? Does it all make sense? How well do the parts fit together? Is there a logical flow to the sequence of ideas? The third aim is conciseness. Conciseness is all about separating what is important from what is not important. We live in an age of information overload. Just look at how much information is available on the internet! But we are busy and we are time-poor. So, we're faced with the need to select and focus. Our problem isn’t finding information; it’s navigating our way through it all efficiently without drowning in it. We have no

2

problem with information access; we have a problem with information selection. We need to be able to judge what is worth our attention and what isn't, to home in on what really matters and ignore what doesn’t matter—otherwise, we get overwhelmed and lost. Most of us have trouble sticking to an assignment word-limit. That is, we struggle with achieving conciseness. (c) . .

So, when you are asked to read a list of references and write an assignment, you need to be like the zoom function on a camera—you must be able to move back and take in the whole scene, and you must be able to zoom in close on any particular part you wish. When you are asked to read a paper or journal article—and most of these are quite difficult in psychology—you will find that, in order to understand it and be able to use it for your work, you need to be able to zoom back and forward, to do both a synthetic and an analytic job on it. Studying logical thinking teaches us how to accomplish that. In summary, The next question is: What is the content of a course in logical thinking? 1.2 The content of logical thinking The content of a standard logical thinking course usually consists of two parts: (i) a body of knowledge that we need to learn or become familiar with (just like any other subject), and (ii) a set of techniques or skills, which we use as tools and can practise and improve. That is, logical thinking includes both theory and practice. Let's take the body of knowledge first. (i) A body of knowledge The body of knowledge that a course in logical thinking will typically cover is just about everything to do with arguments. This includes things like: background concepts (such as truth, facts, models, hypotheses, theories and beliefs); the barriers and limitations (why we often can’t, don’t or won’t think clearly and logically); how those barriers can be exploited in using emotional forms of persuasion; what are the components of arguments and the different types of argument; how language can be both a friend and an enemy and how to make friends with language; how we can use language to study unconscious processes, and how people can unintentionally betray how they really feel by the language they use; the structures or patterns of argument (which is known as formal logic); the content of arguments in real contexts (known as informal logic); and, finally, all the different errors or fallacies in argument—the ways in which reasoning can go wrong through weaknesses, biases, distortions and confusions.

3

All these make up the first part of logical thinking—the body of knowledge or theoretical part. Let’s now consider the second part, the practical part, the set of techniques or skills. (ii) A set of techniques or skills There are some critical thinking websites that tell you that the “big secret” about critical thinking, the big con-job, is that you cannot learn it; either you've got it or you haven't; and if you haven’t, then there's nothing you can do about it. This is not true. What is true is that some people find it easier than do others. But it's a case of anyone can learn the skills, and the more you practise the better you get at it and the bigger the rewards for you. In this sense, logical thinking skills are just the same as any other skills. Obviously you need the basic equipment—a brain attached to your sensory apparatus. And obviously you need to learn the body of knowledge. But after that it’s just like playing sport or going to the gym or driving a car: practice, practice, practice. These skills include things like: questions to ask yourself to make yourself more aware of your own assumptions; signals which tell you which bits of an argument you are looking at (just as psychotherapists may observe body-language signals to help them in their understanding of their client); how to put arguments into visual form by drawing pictures of the way they are structured (this is called “casting”); step-by-step procedures for evaluating arguments; ways of identifying errors in arguments; techniques of focusing, selecting, and organising material. Of course, these practical skills will also help your studying—reading and basic essay-writing and report-writing. But, as we shall see, they extend way beyond that into dealing with life in general. To summarise, we asked “What is logical thinking?” and answered that it consists of two parts: a body of knowledge and a set of techniques or skills. Studying logical thinking is a mixture of theory and practice. And the skills have a wide scope of applicability—from studying to dealing with life experiences in general. The second question is even more important for this first lecture. This is the question … 2. Why do logical thinking as a subject? (a) Firstly, any job we do in life is done most successfully if we use the right tools. Logical thinking gives us the right tools for achieving the aims of becoming more aware, understanding, evaluating, and doing good scientific research. If we don't learn and develop these skills, we are left handicapped. And we don't need to be handicapped, because these tools are free—they cost nothing and they are available for us to learn and use. (b) Secondly, consider what one texbook says about your own situation as students: Students today live in two worlds—an academic one that demands clarity, rigor, and thoughtful, well-substantiated conclusions, and another world, one in which viewpoints fly like confetti on talk shows, pop psychologists “solve” complicated problems in thirty seconds, and “evidence” for any claim is just an easy mouse click away. Students come to us struggling to find their way in and between these two worlds. (Bassham, Irwin, Nardone & Wallace, 2005, p. v)

4

In every area of study, students are typically expected to develop the capacity for critical and clear thinking. Indeed, critical thinking is widely identified by universities as one of the most desirable “graduate attributes”, a skill acquired from tertiary study and taken into the wider world after graduation. But, ironically, students are rarely given any specific or targeted training in the tools of critical analysis. As students, you are told to think critically, to evaluate. You get feedback on your essays and reports that you need to include more critical evaluation. But where is the training which shows you how to do these things? This subject aims to fill that gap. (c) The third reason is the primary nature of logical thinking. It makes sense to do logical thinking before you tackle anything else. Students who are introduced to critical thinking in third or fourth year often complain that it’s come too late and they should have had it earlier in their studies. And they are right. Now we come to the heart of the “Why?” question for us. Why is logical thinking particularly important for psychologists? The answer is that there are three special challenges facing psychology, all three closely linked together. 2.1 Logical thinking for psychologists—three special challenges facing psychology (a) The first special challenge is the issue of separating scientific psychology from pop psychology, and knowing what it takes to do good science. Psychology is both a popular subject and an academic discipline. There are overlaps between these two, but there are also crucial differences. Popular psychology contains much that is common sense, but it is also full of myths and misconceptions. In contrast, . As such, i

Psychology is also an applied discipline. Our scientifically aquired knowledge and understanding can be used in a wide variety of situations—for example, to design optimal work environments, to engage students in educational settings, to develop successful parenting practices, to help people overcome trauma and negotiate life’s difficulties, to assist people to improve their relationships with others, and so on. These two sides of psychology—the theoretical and the practical—are reflected in the way that professional psychologists are trained according to the scientist-practitioner model (Belar & Perry, 1991). That is, psychologists are trained as scientists first, and then as practitioners. This model emphasises the connection between scientific theory and scientific practice. Psychological practice must be scientifically grounded and evidence-based; only those forms of practice are recommended that have been validated through scientific research. Clearly, if what we do rests on a scientific foundation, then it is important for us to be clear about science and how to do science well. Our aim is to be genuinely scientific and to avoid being unscientific or pseudo-scientific or scientistic. So what is needed to be genuinely scientific? Is it doing measurement, experiments, and statistics? Not necessarily. These things are often legitimately involved, but just using a statistical

5

package or putting numbers onto our observations does not make our research scientific—quite the opposite sometimes. Your second set reading is a paper published a few years ago by Machado and Silva (2007) in the journal American Psychologist. The title of the paper is “Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis”. The authors state that . They argue that psychology has a poor and inaccurate view of scientific method because we focus on just the first two of those components and neglect the third.

They go on to give examples of how it can help psychology and they recommend that psychology should go back to that richer, more accurate view of scientific method. I agree. I think that Machado and Silva are definitely on the right track.

Therefore, critical or logical thinking is at the core of being scientific, and making sure our psychological practice is based on a genuinely scientific approach. (b) The second challenge is that psychology is definitely not a “black-and-white” subject. It is an exciting and rapidly expanding field of inquiry into one of the richest, most difficult and most complex subjects—ourselves. So it should come as no surprise that even academic scientific psychology has its own share of prejudices, misconceptions and conceptual confusions (especially given that we neglect conceptual analysis). Psychology has difficulties with its identity (e.g., is psychology a physical science or a social science?), it has difficulties with its age (e.g., did psychology begin with the first experimental laboratories or is it much older?), it has difficulty with its competing theories (e.g., which is the best approach—behaviourism, psychoanalysis, humanistic psychology, neurophysiology?), and it has difficulty with its methods and research techniques (e.g., should we use only quantitative methods or are qualitative methods also appropriate?). Many critics have commented on psychology’s difficulties. For example: The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by calling it a ‘young science’; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings … For in psychology, there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion. (Wittgenstein, 1953, p. 232, italics in original)

6

It has become painfully evident … that psychologists, by and large, are not well equipped when it comes to defending the … assumptions which underlie their research. (Green, 1992, p.292)

So, psychology’s richness and complexity makes critical thinking skills absolutely vital for finding our way successfully through all the different and competing material. (c) The third special difficulty for psychology is that we still haven’t worked out a clear and coherent position on the “big questions”—which continue to fuel the great debates in psychology, and have significant practical implications. Are we free to choose, or is everything we do caused? If we have any personal freedom, what kind of freedom is it? Or is free will an illusion? If free will is an illusion, what happens to moral responsibility (which our legal system is based on)? Is the mind equivalent to the brain, or is it something more? If it is just the brain, why aren’t we all neurophysiologists? And how then do we fit in things like spirituality and religion? And so on. So, this subject has been specially designed for psychology students facing these three challenges. The core of the unit is in the lectures. These are supplemented with set readings on some of the more important themes. The tutorial material focuses on discussion of lecture content and exercises for practising the techniques and skills. That brings me to my general conclusion noting three benefits of logical thinking. 2.2. Three benefits of logical thinking (i) The first benefit is raising the level of awareness of our own assumptions. Why are so many people attracted to studying psychology? Perhaps they are interested in understanding other people? But who is the most important and interesting person to you? Isn’t it yourself? We are also naturally interested in understanding ourselves. But how easy is it to face and question some of our own cherished assumptions? Consider the Educashun comic strip (in your first set reading). There is much to discuss here about what it illustrates and how it is ironic. Both Socrates (the famous ancient Greek philosopher) and Freud (the famous psychologist) promoted the motto: “Know thyself”. This is also a general theme in many forms of psychotherapy. (ii) The second benefit is an increase in expertise. We come to better understand material that faces us, we see it more clearly, we can apply the three “c”s in our own work, thus allowing us to express our own ideas more clearly, coherently and concisely, and we can move freely from a synthetic to an analytic perspective (the camera zooming analogy that I used earlier). All this allows us to make more informed evaluations and choices—not just based on mere opinion. Consider your own position as students. When an essay topic asks for your "view" or "opinion", it means an informed opinion; showing how you have used your reading and information to develop and support your point of view. (iii) Finally, there is the benefit of promoting open-mindedness and freeing us from the constraints of authoritarianism by enabling independence of thought. In your first set reading, the authors point out how easy it is to give up your personal autonomy and become a slave to an authority. They cite the famous experiments by Milgram in the

7

1960s to show how many people will blindly obey authority, even if it means hurting others and giving up their own scruples. But you don’t need such dramatic examples. Consider the Doonesbury comic strip (in the first set reading). How is it portraying teaching? What is the lecturer trying to do? What are the students doing and thinking? Now consider these further comments from two different textbooks: Critical Thinking is empowering and can improve a person’s chances of success in a career, as a consumer, and so on throughout the wide variety of social roles each of us may be destined to play. This is because Critical Thinking is essential to something even more fundamental and basic: personal autonomy … Autonomy is empowering because it makes one less dependent upon – and so less vulnerable to – the dictates, directions and influence of others. A person who can make up her own mind doesn’t need others to tell her what to think or do, and so is less likely to be dominated by others. (Rudinow & Barry, 2004, p. 6) One of the most basic truths of the human condition is that most people, most of the time, believe what they are told. Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without question that the earth was the center of the universe, that demons cause disease, that slavery was just, and that women are inferior to men. Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued, can help free us from the unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society. It lets us step back from the prevailing customs and ideologies of our culture and ask, “This is what I’ve been taught, but is it true?” In short, critical thinking allows us to lead self-directed, “examined” lives. (Bassham et al., 2005, p. 11)

The last reference is to Socrates, who famously claimed that “an unexamined life is not worth living”. Of course, critical thinking can be very threatening to others; if you can see through the errors in their reasoning, and you reject their arguments on the basis of those errors, they will often feel threatened and get defensive. In fact, Socrates was condemned to death for promoting critical thinking among the youth of Athens. But critical thinking should not turn into a "power trip" or be used to belittle and intimidate others; genuine critical thinking includes sensitivity, humility and open-mindedness. But I do agree with Socrates that independent critical thinking is the major goal of all education, and that it should be encouraged, welcomed, and actively taught—not stifled and shied away from, even if it is sometimes confronting and challenging. In summary, there are several reasons why we study logical thinking, and they include three special challenges facing psychology: the need to be scientific, the richness and complexity of psychology, and getting our heads around the ...