4 ms·
'Logic' as a topic generally centers around processes of formal reasoning whereas critical thinking usually also discusses human cognitive biases which is not s
by astine 7y ago
'Logic' as a topic generally centers around processes of formal reasoning whereas critical thinking usually also discusses human cognitive biases which is not something usually covered in discussions of formal reasoning. This is important because nobody engages is formal logic all (or even most) of the time. That would be very inefficient and probably impossible. Developing the habit (which is what discussions of critical thinking often center around) of thinking critically, rather than simply understanding the process of formal reasoning is essential.
- billfruit 7y agoI think part of that is covered in Rhetoric. A good book for Rhetoric, is "Modern Rhetoric" by Robert Penn Warren and Cleanth Brookes.
- bananamerica 7y agoAbsolutely. The study of rhetoric greatly enhances our ability to identify and evaluate persuasive language. In order words, it gives us a more accurate bullshit sensor.
- jgwil2 7y agoThis probably depends on what people are looking for. I agree with you that developing the habit of thinking critically is important (this is ostensibly the goal a liberal arts education and was once highly valued). However, I think many on seeing the title "Books on Critical Thinking" will expect resources for learning about and improving formal reasoning. For this, there's no substitute for the study of mathematical logic and math more generally.
- bananamerica 7y ago> there's no substitute for the study of mathematical logic and math more generally I disagree with that account. I realize I'm on hacker news, but I must say that philosophical logic is extremely valuable in itself, and can be successfully studied without any concern for mathematics. I actually know a bunch of brilliant mathematicians, and their reasoning skills on informal reasoning are totally average.
- bananamerica 7y agoWhen I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation. If you're not a mathematician, a philosopher or a computer scientist, informal logic is more than enough (and a bit of rhetoric certainly won't hurt). Besides, you can understand a lot even if you skip the formal bits, and there are good non-formal texts on many logic topics. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] is definitely more approachable than the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[2] in that regard. I'd also like to point out that the book[3] I recommended for beginners in the comment above is entirely informal. [1] https://www.iep.utm.edu/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/ [3] https://bookofbadarguments.com/ https://bookofbadarguments.com/
- astine 7y ago"When I say people should study logic, I don't mean necessarily its formal presentation." If that's the case, you probably shouldn't have linked to that Wikipedia article because it's mostly about formal logic systems. Regardless, I'd usually classify studying informal fallacies more under critical thinking than logic strictly speaking. There's an entirely different set of formal logical fallacies that apply to formal logic.
- bananamerica 7y agoI did link to a book on informal fallacies. And I do not agree with your classification. It's narrow and doesn't reflect the history of the field. Logic is a tool for mathematicians, philosophers, and computer scientists. Like any versatile tool, it can be adapted for different — but related — tasks. On the topic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/