Nature Of LogicEssay Preview: Nature Of LogicReport this essayNature of Logic and PerceptionThe nature of logic as it relates to critical thinking is a process. Logic is defined as a science that deals with the rules and tests sound thinking and proof by reasoning (The Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1998). It involves perception, assumption, emotion, language, argument, logic, and fallacies. Logic is a key component of critical thinking and without there can be no critical thought. In addition, perception ties into logic and critical thinking because it incorporates clarification and understanding. The perceptual process uses steps to provide better understanding to how you may perceive things. The way people perceive things can be similar, but most often it is very different. Many different things have an effect on the way you perceive things and the way that you think about situations critically.
The Definition of “Critical Thinking” or the Science of Thinking
The scientific definition of critical thinking differs from that of the critical thinking field, as it primarily focuses on the basic principles of logic and methodology.
I refer to the science of logic as “logic of reasoning”. This is because it is based on a simple principle. In other words, the scientific definition of critical thinking is simply science that deals with the specific rules and tests of logical reasoning and the ability to interpret results, concepts and actions from the environment. The scientific definition of critical thinking does not necessarily have any such rule or method.
The science of logic involves understanding and validating processes. Logic can also be used to evaluate (dis)evaluate (correct) a given situation, especially to determine which aspects of the action are the most important parts to consider and to determine the action(s) that ultimately lead to the outcomes. The scientific definition of a “critical analysis” or even its “critical method” as a means for analyzing, determining, and resolving situations is based not on the same basic principles that they all share. Instead, the science of logic means the principles have all been described in a logical context, with the use of simple techniques or algorithms. The science of logic also encompasses logic through an intuitive approach to reasoning, reasoning, logic theory, reasoning through logic, and logic over action theory.
Some scientists and laymen believe that logic is the way to become more powerful for solving problems, even solving problems without the need to rely on more complex ways of reasoning. Yet the general public is aware of a scientific and scientific ignorance of many different aspects of the science of logic. The fundamental difference between scientific philosophy and popular education in philosophy and economics is that philosophy tends to have an emphasis on problem solutions rather than problem solving. In order to understand the science of logic, both mainstream and philosophical philosophy should consider that the scientific definition of critical thinking reflects their own view.
Why do we think we can solve problems (criticisms) if we know exactly what we need? What do we really need to understand? Here are some concepts that describe critical thinking (analyzing, analysing, answering questions, or simply looking at evidence):
The Concept of Being-Based on a Logic-Based Approach. This concept is about the understanding of how science and logic interact to create and understand knowledge.[1] One way in which these two domains interact is by being based on a logical framework (or, at the very least, a logical theory). By that we can construct rational accounts of the logic of the whole. One way in which a rational approach to explaining a phenomenon (in particular, thinking about what that phenomenon may or may not have been like) can be derived is by applying a logic that combines (or is coupled with) the empirical knowledge of different phenomena and the knowledge of the different aspects of the question that is directly relevant to the hypothesis[2].
The Concept of Being-Based on Intuitive Reasoning. This idea is about our ability to distinguish things from others using natural reason, such as intuition and deduction or intuition and evidence, so we treat the questions raised therein (and some the questions not raised in the current study) as an example. This approach assumes a priori that one knows only the things that one knows. To understand whether one knows about a phenomena that one does know or something that nobody has really seen (in this respect, the concept of being-based on intuition) we can ask: Why have I not seen it from all angles? There is no way to answer this question without being able to see what’s happening around you
The Definition of “Critical Thinking” or the Science of Thinking
The scientific definition of critical thinking differs from that of the critical thinking field, as it primarily focuses on the basic principles of logic and methodology.
I refer to the science of logic as “logic of reasoning”. This is because it is based on a simple principle. In other words, the scientific definition of critical thinking is simply science that deals with the specific rules and tests of logical reasoning and the ability to interpret results, concepts and actions from the environment. The scientific definition of critical thinking does not necessarily have any such rule or method.
The science of logic involves understanding and validating processes. Logic can also be used to evaluate (dis)evaluate (correct) a given situation, especially to determine which aspects of the action are the most important parts to consider and to determine the action(s) that ultimately lead to the outcomes. The scientific definition of a “critical analysis” or even its “critical method” as a means for analyzing, determining, and resolving situations is based not on the same basic principles that they all share. Instead, the science of logic means the principles have all been described in a logical context, with the use of simple techniques or algorithms. The science of logic also encompasses logic through an intuitive approach to reasoning, reasoning, logic theory, reasoning through logic, and logic over action theory.
Some scientists and laymen believe that logic is the way to become more powerful for solving problems, even solving problems without the need to rely on more complex ways of reasoning. Yet the general public is aware of a scientific and scientific ignorance of many different aspects of the science of logic. The fundamental difference between scientific philosophy and popular education in philosophy and economics is that philosophy tends to have an emphasis on problem solutions rather than problem solving. In order to understand the science of logic, both mainstream and philosophical philosophy should consider that the scientific definition of critical thinking reflects their own view.
Why do we think we can solve problems (criticisms) if we know exactly what we need? What do we really need to understand? Here are some concepts that describe critical thinking (analyzing, analysing, answering questions, or simply looking at evidence):
The Concept of Being-Based on a Logic-Based Approach. This concept is about the understanding of how science and logic interact to create and understand knowledge.[1] One way in which these two domains interact is by being based on a logical framework (or, at the very least, a logical theory). By that we can construct rational accounts of the logic of the whole. One way in which a rational approach to explaining a phenomenon (in particular, thinking about what that phenomenon may or may not have been like) can be derived is by applying a logic that combines (or is coupled with) the empirical knowledge of different phenomena and the knowledge of the different aspects of the question that is directly relevant to the hypothesis[2].
The Concept of Being-Based on Intuitive Reasoning. This idea is about our ability to distinguish things from others using natural reason, such as intuition and deduction or intuition and evidence, so we treat the questions raised therein (and some the questions not raised in the current study) as an example. This approach assumes a priori that one knows only the things that one knows. To understand whether one knows about a phenomena that one does know or something that nobody has really seen (in this respect, the concept of being-based on intuition) we can ask: Why have I not seen it from all angles? There is no way to answer this question without being able to see what’s happening around you
For example, Kirby & Goodpaster (1999) state:Who we are is how we think. Where and how we were raised may determine whether we are pessimists or optimists, conservatives or liberals, atheists or theists, idealists or realists. Our upbringing shapes our fears, which keep us from facing thoughts. It shapes our self-concept, which moves us to defend our thoughts. And it shapes our emotions, which can distort our thinking to an exceptional degree. In this and in other ways our psychological world, shaped by our exposure to cultural and genetic forces, often acts as a barrier to sound thinking” (pp. 1-2)
The environment I was raised in was traditional in some aspects and shaped how I perceived the world. It also shaped my emotions and how I felt the world should work, not to mention how people behave. For example, respect was a huge issue when I was growing up. When you came across an adult, you had to say, “Yes sir” or “Yes Maam”. If you did not then you would face consequences. Usually that was in the form of a whipping, slap to the face, or some sort of physical redirection to deter you from making that mistake again. Respect also meant opening doors for women, saying “thank you” and “please”, and opening car doors for women. It made respect for me very important now that I am an adult and I do and say those things in my everyday life. I feel that respect is one of the most important factors of communication and relationships. I also feel though, that if was not instilled in me as it was then the importance of respect may have been very low for me now.
“Many of the values and preferences you have now, including religious ideas, sexual mores, and work ethic, were instilled in you since birth by your culture. This process, called enculturation, is going on continually, even now, no matter what your age.” (Kirby & Goodpaster, 1999). I agree, enculturation is continuous for all of us regardless if we recognize it or not. It is of our unconscious mind that it happens because we do not realize it as it is going on.
In my line of work, the issue of respect is ever-present. I work with severely emotionally disturbed children and teens that are involved with gangs. Respect is something that is rarely a concern of theirs. Although I communicate to them how important it is to respect a person and to receive respect, it seems to go unnoticed most of the time, especially with the teenagers.
One situation in particular was a learning experience for one of my young, troubled, teenage boys. He felt that no one really deserved respect unless they were doing something for him. That was his logic for his relationships in his life, buying him some shoes, a jersey, some jeans, or a nice shirt meant you were worthy of his respect. He felt that he could get want he