PHI 111 - Basic Reasoning

1. Break down foundational concepts of argumentation.
   1. Discuss various definitions of truth
   2. Distinguish inferences from claims about truth, fact, belief, opinions, etc
   3. Differentiate between arguments and non-arguments
   4. Define the three components of an argument: premise, conclusion, and inference
   5. Define the three kinds of inferences: deduction, induction, and abduction
2. Categorize the elements of argumentation
   1. Distinguish evidence from information
   2. Distinguish common deductive and inductive argument forms, such as mathematical, definitional, or axiomatic for deduction, or prediction, analogy, generalization, from authority, from signs, or statistical for induction
   3. Describe common logical fallacies, such as against the person, slippery slope, straw figure, etc
   4. Define the evaluative criteria of deductive and inductive arguments: validity and soundness along with strength and cogency
   5. Discuss common evaluative criteria for arguments, including consistency, coherency, and non-contradiction
3. Evaluate a given communication using the fundamental concepts of argumentation
   1. Analyze a communication for its argumentative components, such as which statements are premises, inferences, conclusions; which premises are explicit vs. implicit; which premises are dependent, independent, conjoint, etc
   2. Exhibit the occurrence of common logical fallacies in a communication
   3. Evaluate the components of a given argument, i.e., whether the given premises are plausible with reference to appropriate standards, whether the inferences are valid or strong, and whether the whole is consistent, coherent, etc
   4. Discuss the differences in how various media communicate an argument, such as visual, textual, literary, speech, performance, film, music, etc
4. Perform the cognitive and metacognitive skills of critical thinking
   1. Describe how metacognitive skills may improve critical thinking
   2. Explain how factors such as worldview, perspective, cognitive bias, framing language, or different conceptual frameworks may affect one’s reasoning
   3. Discuss cross-cultural perspectives on logic, such as how cultural assumptions inform our understanding of what counts as reasoning or logic, as exhibited by the western focus on logics of truth, Buddhist and Taoist logics of transformation, or the various wisdom traditions
   4. Describe common cognitive biases, such as availability bias, confirmation bias, framing effect, etc
   5. Demonstrate common techniques for correcting cognitive errors, or realizing the divergent effects of alternative mental models, or detecting alternative plausible interpretations, such as reflective equilibrium, hermeneutic charity, mindfulness, concept mapping, argument mapping, sentence diagraming, etc
5. Differentiate the elements of empirical and scientific argument
   1. Distinguish science from pseudo-science and non-science
   2. Describe the scientific, or hypothetical-deductive, method
   3. Distinguish a hypothesis from a theory
   4. Describe the comparative evaluative criteria for scientific theories, such as simplicity, scope, explanatory power, conservatism, fruitfulness, testability, etc
   5. Describe common fallacies and errors particular to empirical and scientific arguments, such the base rate fallacy, biased samples, gambler’s fallacy; or causal fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, non causa pro causa, etc
   6. Explain how common methods to minimize cognitive biases in scientific research work, such as controlled trials, blind and double-blind trials, replication, peer review, etc
6. Evaluate a given communication per the relevant standards of information literacy 
   1. Discuss the different kinds of information sources and their typical reliability, such as encyclopedias, books, newspapers, television, radio, entertainment media, blogs, videos, social media, chatrooms, memes, etc
   2. Identify the source(s) of information and/or author(s) in a given communication
   3. Evaluate whether an information source has the requisite expertise or authority
   4. Analyze information for verifiability, including ambiguity, appropriate references, creation dates, copyright, etc
   5. Evaluate the accuracy of information sources, including clarity; completeness; context; presence of typographic, factual, logical, or cognitive errors, etc
   6. Evaluate an information source for objectivity, such as the provider’s framing language, motivation / purpose, transparency of motivation / purpose, history of being a reliable source, etc
   7. Evaluate an information source for the clear delineation of factual, opinionated, analytic, or advertising content