Philosophy and critical thinking overview

I recently completed Philosophy and Critical Thinking (Syllabus), an edX course. The course took about 2 weeks, on and off. This is my second course in philosophy, and my earlier writing on a previous course can be found here.

The course contains 6 modules in total. The format is, for each module there are submodules, and most submodules have text that explains the ideas, accompanied by videos that are a distilled version of the text. Finally, each module includes a graded quiz. The course intertwines philosophy (philosophical ideas i.e. who said what at some point) and critical thinking (logic).

(Meta) The way I consumed the contents:

• Skimming through the texts, including ChatGPT section summaries (this was particularly useful)
• Watching all videos
• Taking notes (thus this blog post)

(Meta Meta) Talking about the way I consumed the content gives more information about what my actions might have been during the course 🙂

In this blog post, I will briefly overview the ideas being discussed.

Module 1: What part of “know” don’t you understand?

• Argument – a series of connected statements that establish a proposition.
• Cogency – the quality of appealing to reason – having a rational argument.
• Argument structure – premises -> conclusion, the arrow is inference.
• Argument validity – an argument whose conclusion follows from premises.
• Argument soundness – valid argument + true premises.
• Justification – giving reasons for having a particular belief.
• Knowledge – epistemology. One possible definition is Knowledge = Justification + Truth + Belief.
  • One argument is the infinite regress problem – the argument that any proposition requires a justification, including justifications itself, e.g. recursively asking “why”. One way of addressing this is to stop at a particular level and call those justifications “self-evident” or axiomatic. To beg the question is to assume the truth of something without a proof (axiom).
  • Another argument is skepticism. Skeptics suspend all judgment and hold nothing to be true, i.e. doubt everything.
  • Belief is not vulnerable to doubt.
• Epistemic circularity – defends the reliability of a premise P by relying on premises that are themselves based on the source P.

Module 2: Mind the Explanatory Gap

• Conditional (propositional statement): Antecedent (premises) -> Consequent (conclusion)
  • Denying the antecedent: the premise being false doesn’t imply that the consequent is false.
  • Affirming the consequent: the consequent being true doesn’t imply that the antecedent is true.
  • Three equivalent statements:
    • Being a mammal is necessary for being a cat
    • Cat -> Mammal
    • Being a cat is sufficient for being a mammal
• The fallacy of division: properties of the whole needn’t be shared by the things that make it up.
• The fallacy of composition: Vice-versa of division, properties of the things that make the whole needn’t be shared by the things that make it up.
• Indubitability: A proposition cannot be doubted – it’s beyond doubt.
• Self-reflection: Augustine and Descartes believed that knowledge about the self provides the benchmark concepts of truth and immunity to doubt.
• Dualism: mind distinct from the body.
  • Descartes’ Real Distinction argument:
    • Premise 1. If A can be clearly and distinctly conceived apart from B, A can exist apart from B.
    • Premise 2. If A can exist apart from B, A, and B are really distinct.
    • Premise 3. I can clearly and distinctly conceive my mind apart from my body.
    • Conclusion: Therefore, my mind and my body are really distinct.
  • If we interpret “I think” as directly relating to the mind itself (rather than being a proposition), then we can say that this direct self-awareness provides a guarantee of existence.
• A priori (“from the earlier”) and a posteriori (“from the later”)
• Main types of identity: Numerical identity (a thing is the same thing over time) and qualitative identity (things share the same kind of property or feature)

Philosophical views:

• Four-dimensionalism – objects are made of temporal parts (time slice), extended in dimensions including time.
• Behaviorism – reduction of phenomena to observable patterns of behavior.
• Eliminativism – the majority of mental states in folk psychology do not exist.
• Epiphenomenalism – mental properties are distinct from physical properties (without interaction).
• Functionalism – mental states are defined in terms of their functional role.
• Materialism – conscious/thoughts/mind is identical to the body.
• Physicalism – only physical events can cause other physical events.
• Intentionality – the ability of minds to create a representation of ideas/things.
• Reductionism – the idea that something can always be fully explained at a more basic level.

Module 3: God

• Euthyphro dilemma – those who argue that moral values are determined by God.
• Anselm’s argument – a priori argument for God’s existence. God necessarily exists because God is the most perfect being, and nothing can be truly perfect unless it is real.
• Pascal’s wager (pragmatic argument) – by believing in God we play it safe rather than risk.
• Cosmological argument – Things exist -> things have a cause -> chain of causes end by a supernatural event -> God exists.
• Argument from design – Universe shows evidence of design/purpose -> Design/purpose implies the existence of an intelligent designer -> There must be an intelligent designer (God).
• Free will is the power to determine one’s choices and actions free from external constraints.

Module 4: Is there anybody out there?

• The deductive argument derives inferences based on conclusions logically following premises.
• The inductive argument derives general principles based on observations.
  • Generalization (universal claim) is one way of an inductive argument, producing general statements from observations.
    • The fallacy of hasty generalization – a conclusion is drawn about many instances of a phenomenon based on a few instances, i.e. when the sample size is too small.
    • The fallacy of biased generalization – a conclusion is drawn using samples that are unrepresentative or biased.
    • Counterexample refutes a generalization.
  • Argument from analogy is another example of an inductive argument. Strengthening analogy introduces a similarity while weakening analogy introduces dissimilarity.
    • Argument structure: x and y are similar in having properties a, b, and c -> x has d -> y is likely to have d.
    • The fallacy of faulty analogy: far more differences than similarities.
  • The following is an argument for inductive reasoning: inductive reasoning has been effective in the past -> the future will resemble the past (nature is uniform) -> inductive reasoning provides a good basis for drawing conclusions about the future. The argument begs the question as it assumes the effectiveness of inductive reasoning (the very thing it’s trying to prove)
  • The conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning are probabilistic. Nevertheless, inductive reasoning is entrenched in human practice as a matter of custom or habit.
• Senses (empiricism) deliver only what can be detected by the senses.
• Idealism – the view that only ideas/mental images exist. In contrast, scientific realism relies on the argument to the best explanation – the offered explanation is the best available (given the limits with our senses/reason/etc.), then we are justified in believing the conclusion.
• Instrumentalism – the value of something is determined by how useful it is.
• Anti-realists – skeptical attitude towards claims by realists that science has discovered realms of unobservable entities (multiple theories can explain the same empirical data).
• Ockham’s razor – the simplest explanation is usually the best one.

Module 5: Moral and Political Philosophy

• Utilitarianism evaluates the consequences of an action to judge its moral worth.
• Hedonic calculus: evaluating consequences and maximizing pleasure over pain: pleasure = good, painful = bad, net pleasure – any pain = right action. Mill argues “being slightly dissatisfied but engaged in higher pleasures was worth more than being blissful but rolling in the mud”
• Deontology – judge something as good or bad based on the action itself, rather than on the consequences of that action.
• Categorical Imperative – Kant’s way of judging the moral worth of an action. Autonomy per Kant: Pure freedom -> chaos, we must be constrained in some way. Constructing maxims/rules to follow that align with the moral law.
• Plato: Virtue ethics – Instead of looking at the action or the consequence, virtue ethics looks at the character of the individual and asks “are they a good person”
  • Desire: driving force (economic class)
  • Spirit: controls desire (auxiliary class)
  • Reason: directs and controls spirit (Guardian class)
  • Applying DSR both to a person and to society makes them just. However, we can never reach these as they exist in a perfect state in the realm of forms, but we can approach that knowledge through reason.
• Aristotle: Achieve a fulfilling and meaningful life by adhering to the Doctrine of the Mean – an attempt to understand what responses are appropriate under different contexts.
• Social contract theory – a clear and unambiguous way of discussing the rights and responsibilities of each individual within a society: we forgo a certain amount of freedom when we decide to live in a society, but this sacrifice leads to a better life for all.
• The state of nature contrasts society – Locke argues that humanity is capable of discovering the Law of Nature, a set of ethical guidelines given to us by God.
• Pragmatism advocates for a method of inquiry that uses doubt as its central theme. Knowledge is never certain, but we can find the knowledge that works in a practical sense.
• Cartesian doubt – uses uncertainty to question our fundamental set of beliefs.
• Anarchism – the idea that there is no legitimate political authority.
• Libertarianism – the idea that values individual freedom above all else.
• Capitalism supports private property and individual ownership of the means of production and distribution.
• Socialism moves away from individual ownership in favor of communal or state ownership
• Communism eliminates private property entirely.

Module 6: What should I believe?

Intersubjectivity – building understanding based on similar subjective experiences between individuals.

Philosophy can be personally confronting. It is not a game of abstract or idle speculation but a practice of subjecting one’s beliefs and actions to rational scrutiny

Sharing knowledge and information with others is important for improving and maximizing the benefits of discoveries. Through reproducible and sharable processes, reliable results can be produced, leading to a collective project of knowledge acquisition that goes beyond individual contributions. Other people are crucial in helping to avoid errors in thinking. A good explanation framework is simple, predicts the future, includes collective experiences and fits with what we already know.

“We can use the direct experience of others to see if the conclusions we draw are able to be generalized over their experiences.”

Per Hume, following a rule or norm is a matter of how we feel as much as what we think.

Some think being rational means following logical rules like modus ponens and modus tollens. However, “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles” shows that reasoning is not identical to logic, meaning a rule of inference isn’t the same as a conditional statement.

The Rule-Following Problem is about how we understand and follow rules in language and life. Wittgenstein says that there is no objective way to determine the meaning of words or concepts, but rather our understanding is determined by our social practices and the way we use language in specific contexts. Understanding how we think, talk about, apply rules, and adhere to standards of correctness in relation to the world is a complex and one of the most important areas of philosophy.

Naturally, we are skeptical of many knowledge claims. However, we all have tendencies to make errors in thinking, known as cognitive biases, which can be challenging to recognize and correct and can cause us to make incorrect conclusions hastily. Several fallacies:

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc – Since Y happened after X, then X caused Y.
• one thing follows another, the first must cause the second. But this is fallacious.
• Confirmation bias – when we selectively process information that agrees with an existing view.
• Anchoring bias – Frequent appeal to some initial data point in making decisions.
• Bandwagon – People making decisions according to popular opinion.
• Dunning-Kruger – People overestimate their abilities. Impostor is the reverse, people underestimate their abilities.
• Barnum – when people believe that descriptions of themselves apply specifically to them, even if they could apply to anyone.
• Framing – the way words are used to shape a conversation.
• Hindsight – where we think in hindsight, something is much more obvious than it actually was.
• Halo Effect – when our overall impression of someone as good or bad affects our judgment about their individual qualities
• More at https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com.

Some stuff about science:

• Rationalism – all knowledge originates from reason. Perception (one’s understanding of a given situation, person, or object) plays a secondary role.
• Falsifiability – Scientists make theories that can be proven false (refuted). To do this, they describe the theory so that if a specific outcome happens in certain circumstances, the theory is shown to be incorrect. This approach provides more certainty as it uses deduction over induction.

Of course, per Hegel’s Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, one can take this argument even further, as is mostly done in philosophy:

Are we overly prone to attributing biases to ourselves? When we see a pattern of reasoning error in humans, do we have a systematic tendency to posit a new bias, even if there might be alternative explanations? Given the proliferation of biases and the fact that more are ‘discovered’ each year, we seem to have strong evidence that we are biased toward explaining failures of human reasoning by positing biases.

Bias Bias

Conclusion

I really enjoyed the course, and I highly recommend it. Most of the stuff I already knew or have already read elsewhere, but I liked its compactness – a lot of useful information is included in a single place.

Regardless of what your profession is, this course will improve you as a person overall.

edX certificate of completion