background preloader


Facebook Twitter


Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics. It is commonly supposed that there is a vital difference between ancient ethics and modern morality.

Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics

For example, there appears to be a vital difference between virtue ethics and the modern moralities of deontological ethics (Kantianism) and consequentialism (utilitarianism). At second glance, however, one acknowledges that both ethical approaches have more in common than their stereotypes may suggest. Oversimplification, fallacious interpretations, as well as a broad variation within a particular ethical theory make it in general harder to determine the real differences and similarities between ancient ethics and modern morality.

Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion.

Inductive reasoning

While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[1] The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below).

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions.

Deductive reasoning

If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left. Abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference[2] or retroduction[3]) is a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.

Abductive reasoning

In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation".[4] Rationalism. Rationalism. Logically Speaking. Graham Priest interviewed by Richard Marshall.

Logically Speaking

Graham Priest is one of the giants of philosophical logic. He has written many books about this, including Doubt Truth to be a Liar, Towards Non-Being: the Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality, Beyond the Limits of Thought, In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent and Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. He can be found in Melbourne and New York, and sometimes in St. Andrews. His big theme is paraconsistency and dialetheism. 3:AM: You’re famous for denying that propositions have to be either true or false (and not both or neither) but before we get to that, can you start by saying how you became a philosopher? Graham Priest: Well, I was trained as a mathematician. 3:AM: Now, you’re interested in the very basis of how we think. GP: Well, first a clarification. 3:AM: So paraconsistent logic is a logic that tries to work out how we might formally understand treating some propositions as being both true and false at the same time.

Logic and Neutrality. The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

Logic and Neutrality

Here’s an idea many philosophers and logicians have about the function of logic in our cognitive life, our inquiries and debates. It isn’t a player. ArgumentEssayRubric.pdf. ArgumentEssayRubric.pdf. Logos, Ethos and Pathos: 3 Ways to Appeal to an Audience in Essays. Identifying and Understanding the Fallacies Used in Advertising. ReadWriteThink couldn't publish all of this great content without literacy experts to write and review for us.

Identifying and Understanding the Fallacies Used in Advertising

If you've got lessons plans, videos, activities, or other ideas you'd like to contribute, we'd love to hear from you. More Find the latest in professional publications, learn new techniques and strategies, and find out how you can connect with other literacy professionals. More Teacher Resources by Grade Your students can save their work with Student Interactives.

More Home › Classroom Resources › Lesson Plans Lesson Plan. Fallacies. Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies. Guide to Philosophy on the Internet (Suber) Welcome to my collection of online philosophy resources.

Guide to Philosophy on the Internet (Suber)

If you are stuck in a frame, click here to escape. If you are a frequent visitor, press reload or refresh on occasion to be sure that you are viewing the most recent version of the page, not the version cached on your hard drive from your last visit. I've marked recommended sites with a red star . Generally the starred sites are those I've found especially helpful for shortening the search for what one wants, as opposed to outstanding sites in themselves for which one ought to search. Philosophy - Education and Science. Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies. Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Popularity. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Fallacies. Dr.


Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice.