Logic and Critical Thinking By Dr.

Shuja

Hussain

The Module about Critical Thinking was a breath of fresh air after a stretch of dry and desolate lectures
in the other Modules. The resource person being a philosopher taught the subject as an entity of
philosophy. Grasping the concepts of Logical Reasoning and critical thinking from a philosopher is
usually a burdensome activity but Dr. Shuja made it feel like a piece of cake. Adequate and less words
explaining huge amounts of content with a relatively slow paced and unassuming voice facilitated the
digestion of the rules of critical thinking and Logic.

The day began with a quote on the habit of reasoning well and the principles and practices that govern
correct reasoning by John Stuart Mill. We then got to know about the major components of the whole
Module which were; Problem, Key Concepts, Critical Thinking, Informal Fallacies and Discussion at the
end. The session kicked off with an activity which introduced a “Problem”, in which the participants had
to infer through critical thinking what was true and what false. Later we learned about how Logic can be
used to evaluate arguments. The key concepts ranged from understanding the connections between
ideas/statements and theories to identifying constructs to reflecting on one’s own beliefs.

Furthermore, the discussion went on to explain the definitions of argument, the premise and
conclusion. In the mix of all of this we learnt a Claim and understood hypothesis. Exemplifying it the Dr.
provided comparison of how an argument is a structure and the premises being the pillars of its
conclusion. The premises being the pillars of an argument that may or may not lead to a true conclusion
based on its quality and validity. The discussion circled around a plethora of ideas and examples from
day to day to life explaining reasoning and logic and How inductive reasoning can provide probable
grounds for its conclusion and how deductive reasoning can provide necessary grounds. The dr.
provided little tidbits from daily life to make the participants understand the concepts at hand. Though
some of the participants complained about the algebraic expressions in the examples to be too grim to
understand, especially Bharat. This was a way to understand how to build a strong argument in a
research context.

The next part was about using critical thinking to spot informal fallacies. Fallacy being an error in an
argument seems adequate to the untrained mind. But learning about different types of fallacies can
train the mind to spot and attack the structure of an argument that is inadequate in its proof. Engaging
deeper we determined how paradigm shifts occur in literary criticism and how difficult it is to attack the
roots of an established idea. Based on the initial definitions we explored how to spot the underlying
flaws in an argument. These fallacies are categorized in form of vagueness, ambiguity and
presuppositions in any argument. We also learnt the dangers of the use of metaphors. After the
establishment of the grounds for our understanding of fallacies the discussion progressed to the many
types of fallacies which ranges from the fallacies of generalization to the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence.
This was a grueling session which progressed with an activity on spotting fallacies in an argument which
can be made weaker or stronger by the different statements given as options. It was a great session.

The last session was about cause and effect and its relevance in research. We started out with the types
of Causation, there are two. The first being Singular Causation which is when a single entity is effected
and the second being General Causation which effects in general terms. Cause being relative we had to
understand the different the meanings of it which culminated in a discussion of the different fallacies
related to causation. The fallacies of causation sprouted out in explanation and demonstration of causal
diagrams that can help us understand visually the generation of effects that can be traced by a singular
or a variety of causes. We can also draw networks of causes and effects that can visually represent the
whole picture. These diagrams are basically mind maps that can help in the visualization of complex
ideas, causes and effects that are difficult to explain verbally or textually.

The whole day was a good day. It was a logical day. It was a hardcore philosophical day. I personally
regard this Module the most thought stimulating and mind wrestling modules of them all. I feel that the
Module could’ve been even better if there were more probing ideas and questions that could have
stirred up a discussion amongst the participants which would have helped in gulping down the concepts
more fluidly. The session ended with a few questions and many group pictures.