KIRIRI WOMENS UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KLC 2108 CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

LECTURER: MS. BEATRICE JANNIE MULWA
EMAIL : [Link]@[Link]
Contact:+254715462327

LECTURE 1 NOTES- MS. BEATRICE JANNIE MULWA

KIRIRI WOMENS UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

KLC 2108: CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING LECTURE 1 NOTES

1. Definition and meaning of Philosophy

Historical Origins of the Term “Philosophy”.

The word philosophy has become central to intellectual history, symbolizing the pursuit of
wisdom, truth, and meaning. But like many concepts, it has a beginning. The name itself was
first associated with Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570–495 BCE), the famous Greek thinker best
remembered for his work in mathematics. While today he is widely linked to the “Pythagorean
theorem,” his influence went far beyond mathematics. He founded a school of thought that
combined science, religion, and ethics, and, most importantly, he is credited with introducing the
very word philosophy—literally, “love of wisdom.”

Pythagoras lived in the 6th century BCE, a period of intellectual awakening in ancient Greece
known as the Presocratic era. This was the time when thinkers began moving away from
mythological explanations of the world and toward rational inquiry (logos). Pythagoras was once
asked whether he considered himself a Sophos—a wise man. In ancient Greek culture, this term
was used to describe individuals regarded as wise or possessing deep knowledge. Such men were
often admired as sages. But Pythagoras declined to call himself wise. Instead, he responded that
only the gods are truly wise. Human beings, no matter how learned, cannot claim possession of
absolute wisdom. Instead, he described himself as a philosophos—a “lover of wisdom.” From
this distinction arose the term philosophia —the love of wisdom.
Etymological definition

Philosophy is derived from the Greek term Philosophia which literally translates to the ‘Love of
Wisdom.’ Etymologically, the term is derived from 2 Greek words: Philo and Sophia. Literally,
Philo refers to Love and Sophia refers to wisdom. Thus, Philosophy is the love of wisdom. This
implies that philosophy is a thoughtful and creative response to the exigencies of life.

Popular/Common conception of Philosophy

The term philosophy has been used to mean a wide range of phenomena. For instance, the
popular/common understanding of philosophy is that it is used to denote an attitude towards
actions, activities. It can also be used to mean a people’s unique way of looking at the world (a
people’s world view). This would refer to their fundamental beliefs and convictions. Philosophy
can also be used to refer to a general outlook of what constitutes ideal society e.g. national
philosophies such as Nyayoism, Ujamaa, etc. Thus, all people and cultures can claim to have a
philosophy to the extent that they have some ideas about; physical objects/world; man; meaning
of life and death; good and bad; right/wrong; beauty and ugly etc. These ideas or views may be a
result of deliberate thinking or may be largely a result of convention.

Technical sense of philosophy

Philosophy is defined as the rational inquiry into reality. This means that it is the systematic
study of the world and our place in it and it entails a critical examination of reality characterized
by rational inquiry that aims at the Truth for the sake of attaining wisdom.

2. Branches of Philosophy

Philosophy has four broad branches which include: Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and
Axiology.

Axiology

Axiology refers to the philosophical study of values. The study of values is divided into Ethics
and Aesthetics.
Ethics is the study of moral values. This study consists of systematic study of human conduct. It
is also referred to as moral philosophy. Ethics studies how people ought to act, and the nature of
good and evil acts. The term ‘ethics’ is derived from the Greek term ‘ethos’ meaning ‘custom’ or
‘habit.’ Questions asked in ethics are such as, “How should people act,” “What constitutes a right
or wrong action,” and many others. Ethics is the study of morality and values. It deals with
questions such as:

• What is right and wrong?

• Should one always tell the truth?

• Is it justifiable to break the law for a good cause?

Aesthetics, on the other hand, is the study of beauty. It is concerned with nature and appreciation
of art, beauty, and good taste. The word Aesthetics is derived from the Greek term

‘aisthetikos’ meaning ‘of sense perception.’ It asks:

• What makes something beautiful?

• Is beauty universal or subjective?

• What is the role of art in human life?

For instance, why do people consider the Mona Lisa a masterpiece?

Epistemology

The term Epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek word Episteme which literally means
Knowledge. Epistemology therefore refers to the study of knowledge. It seeks to establish the
process of attaining knowledge, the nature of knowledge, and assesses the validity of this
knowledge. It asks questions such as, “How do we know,” “How can we justify our knowledge
claims,” “what the sources of our knowledge are” etc. It asks questions like:

• What is knowledge?

• How do we know what we claim to know?

• Can we be certain about anything?

Example: If you see smoke on a hill, do you know there is fire, or are you just assuming?

Epistemology examines such reasoning.

Metaphysics

It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of existence. The term metaphysics is
derived from 2 Greek words: meta and physica. Meta directly translates to ‘beyond’ while
physics translates to ‘physical’. Literally metaphysics studies reality beyond the physical world.
Metaphysics, Therefore, studies the essence of things (that which makes things to be what they
are). It deals with abstract reality and concepts that cannot be apprehended through the senses.

Metaphysics is the study of reality and existence. It asks questions such as:

• What is real?

• Do human beings have free will, or is everything determined?

• Is there a soul or spirit beyond the body?

Illustration: Think of a shadow. Metaphysics asks: Is the shadow real, or is it only a reflection of
something more real?

Logic

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish between good and bad/bogus
reasoning. It investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and determines
if they constitute right reasoning or not. Logic aims at securing the clarity and organization of
our thought process so that our arguments have consistency and accuracy. Questions asked in
logic include:

What is correct reasoning?

What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one? Etc.

3. Characteristics of Philosophy

Philosophy transcends common sense view of world. It is characterized by the following;

a. Philosophy is CRITICAL
To say that philosophy is critical means that it does not accept ideas blindly. Instead, it examines,
evaluates, and tests them carefully. Philosophers seek clarity, consistency, and truth by criticizing
assumptions, traditions, and arguments. This does not mean being negative or destructive; rather,
it means being analytical, cautious, and thoughtful before accepting any claim.

• Example: Instead of accepting traditions without thought, a philosopher asks, why do we

practice this custom? Philosophy asks: Why do we believe what we believe? Are our
assumptions justified?

• Example: People may assume that democracy is the best form of government. Philosophy asks:
Why? What principles justify democracy? What are its limits?

▪ Accepts only what is well grounded

▪ Bases convictions, beliefs, and actions on well-reasoned grounds

▪ Frees us from slogans, hypocrisy

b. Philosophy is INQUIRING

This means that philosophy is not content with accepting ideas, customs, or beliefs at face value.
Instead, it constantly seeks to ask questions, probe deeper, and uncover underlying reasons. To
say that philosophy is inquiring is to highlight its restless curiosity and its commitment to
understanding truth through rational investigation.

▪ Open minded view of worlds

▪ 360% perceptibility of issues, not straitjacket

c. Philosophy is QUESTIONING

Philosophy is often described as the art of asking questions. Unlike other disciplines that may
aim to provide fixed answers, philosophy thrives on questioning. It refuses to take assumptions,
traditions, or even scientific claims for granted. Instead, it interrogates them, asking: Why do we
believe this? What does it mean? Is it true? This spirit of questioning is one of philosophy’s
defining features. To say that philosophy is questioning means that it constantly challenges
assumptions and seeks clarification. Questioning is not about being skeptical for the sake of
skepticism; it is about searching for truth and deeper meaning. For example: Most people assume
happiness comes from wealth. A philosopher asks: What is happiness? Can money truly make us
happy? Is happiness the same as pleasure?

Philosophers ask whether customs, laws, or religious practices are justified. Philosophical
questioning aims to clarify vague or confusing ideas. Philosophical questioning often takes place
through conversation, where questions lead to reflection and debate.

d. Philosophy is REFLECTIVE

Philosophy involves deep thinking and self-examination. It requires one to step back and look at
life with fresh eyes. Reflection means turning inward, examining one’s own beliefs, values, and
assumptions. It is a process of careful thought that goes beyond immediate reactions or opinions.

Reflection involves deep thinking about life and experience. Instead of simply reacting to events,
philosophers step back to consider their meaning and implications. It is like holding up a mirror
to one’s thoughts and examining them critically.

e. Philosophy is RATIONAL

Philosophy depends on reasoning, not mere feelings or authority. It relies on reason and logical
argument rather than on superstition, emotion, or blind faith. To be rational is to think clearly,
consistently, and with evidence.

This is why philosophy has been called the “mother of sciences”—because its rational methods
laid the foundation for systematic knowledge. Rationality involves using logic, reasoning, and
critical analysis to reach conclusions. Philosophers argue for their positions with evidence and
reasoning rather than authority or tradition.

For example: Instead of saying, “This is true because my teacher says so or because it has always
been accepted in our society,” philosophy asks: What are the reasons and evidence for this
claim?

4. Scope of Philosophy

The scope of philosophy refers to the range of issues and areas it tries to address. These include
but not limited to:
 1. Reality – What exists? Is there a God? Is there life after death? Where did the world
come from? etc.

2. Knowledge – What can we know? How do we know it? Can human beings ever know
the truth?

3. Values – What is right and wrong? What is beauty? What makes life meaningful?

4. Society – What is justice? What is the best form of government?

5. Mind and Self – Who am I? What is consciousness?

In short, philosophy investigates the fundamental questions of life that every human being, at one
point or another, has asked.

5. Relevance of Philosophy

Inculcating Autonomy of Thought.

Philosophy nurtures the ability to think independently, empowering individuals to form their own
opinions rather than blindly following authority or popular views. In Kenya, this is especially
relevant in the political arena where voter choices are often influenced by ethnic affiliations.
Philosophical thinking encourages citizens to vote based on policies and principles rather than
tribal loyalties. For example, during election campaigns, autonomous thinkers evaluate
manifestos critically instead of simply following ethnic endorsements.

Questioning Traditions

While traditions preserve culture, not all traditions promote human dignity. Philosophy teaches
us to examine traditions critically and reform those that are harmful. In Kenya, practices such as
female genital mutilation (FGM) and early marriage persist in some communities. Philosophical
reflection enables society to question whether these traditions uphold human rights or perpetuate
injustice. As a result, many campaigns against FGM in Kenya have succeeded by using ethical
arguments grounded in human dignity and well-being.

Evaluating and Analyzing Belief Systems

Kenyan society is deeply religious and culturally diverse. Philosophy helps people evaluate
belief systems critically, distinguishing between genuine spiritual guidance and exploitative
practices. For instance, the rise of prosperity gospel churches has raised questions about
exploitation of vulnerable members through promises of miracles in exchange for money.
Philosophy provides framework for distinguishing authentic faith from manipulation. Similarly,
it helps analyze political ideologies like nationalism or Pan-Africanism, evaluating their impact
on unity and development.

Examining Assumptions

Many social and political conflicts in Kenya arise from unexamined assumptions. For example,
the assumption that certain ethnic groups are better suited for leadership fuels division and
weakens democracy. Philosophy challenges such assumptions by asking whether they are
logically valid or morally justifiable. Another example is the assumption that economic growth
automatically improves people’s lives. Philosophical reflection reveals that without equity and
justice, growth alone cannot guarantee well-being.

Eliminating Rote Learning

The Kenyan education system has often been criticized for emphasizing memorization
overcritical thinking. Philosophy combats rote learning by encouraging learners to reason,
analyze, and reflect. The ongoing Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) reforms aim to shift
from memorization to skill-based learning, which aligns with the philosophical spirit of deep
understanding. For example, instead of memorizing the provisions of the 2010Constitution,
students can be taught to debate its meaning, relevance, and implications for governance.

Inculcating Ethics

Philosophy provides ethical frameworks necessary for guiding behavior in personal and public

life. In Kenya, corruption remains a major challenge despite numerous laws. What is missing is

the ethical consciousness that philosophy cultivates. By reflecting on ethical principles such as

justice, honesty, and responsibility, citizens and leaders can make decisions that prioritize the

common good. For example, ethical reasoning helps question why public resources meant for
healthcare should never be diverted to private gain. It also guides debates on moral issues such as

LGBTQ+ rights and gender equality.

Adapting to Changes in the World Kenya is part of a globalized world, and rapid changes in

technology, culture, and economics require adaptability. Philosophy equips individuals with

critical tools to navigate these changes without losing identity. For instance, Kenya’s youth are

exposed to global media influences that sometimes conflict with traditional values. A

philosophical outlook enables them to embrace progressive ideas while critically evaluating

those that may undermine social cohesion. Similarly, in dealing with climate change, philosophy

helps balance development goals with environmental sustainability.

Integrating Technology and New Ideas Kenya is renowned for technological innovations such as

M-Pesa, which transformed financial services globally. However, the introduction of new

technologies often raises ethical and cultural concerns. Philosophy enables society to evaluate

technology’s impact critically instead of rejecting it merely because it is unfamiliar. For example,

debates about digital lending platforms in Kenya highlight concerns over privacy, exploitation,

and debt. A philosophical approach helps balance innovation with ethical safeguards, ensuring

that technology serves human welfare while avoiding harm.

LESSON 2: INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL &CREATIVE THINKING & BARRIERS

TO CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING.

Introduction

1. DEFINITION OF CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

Critical thinking Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and
skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating
information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is
based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity,
accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth,
and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit
in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical
grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections
from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.
Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes -
is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific
thinking, mathematical thinking, dialectical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic
thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking. Critical thinking is therefore:
• A higher-level thinking, as a mental activity it is self- directed activity.
• Guided by reason, it seeks evidence for claims.
• Reflective, it attempts to go deeper into things and avoid deceptive situations.
• thinking that facilitates good judgment, one is able to make more rational judgment
• thinking that is purposive, intentional, deliberate and focused not merely accidental and
spontaneous.]
A critical thinker is thus one who is;
• Autonomous (thinks for oneself)
• Who does not accept what has not been proved and well demonstrated
• One who doubts, questions, takes nothing for granted and acts on conviction
• Who distinguishes between appearance and reality
Creative Thinking
Creative thinking refers to the formation of possible solutions to a problem or possible
explanations of a phenomenon. It entails bringing into being of something which did not
exist before, either as a product, a process or a thought, or working on the old with a view
of producing harmonized new.
Creativity is demonstrated if we:
• Invent something which has never existed before
• Invent something which exists elsewhere but you are not aware of
• Invent a new process for doing something
• Reapply an existing process or product into a new or different market
 • Develop a new way of looking at something (bringing a new idea into existence)
• Change the way someone else looks at something
Creative Reasoning is characterized by imagination, innovation and originality in the
generation of ideas.
Imagination – ability to be creative, new interesting ideas or insights
Innovative – ability to be inventive, introduce new ways of thinking
Productive – generation of something new and of value to human wellbeing
Improvement – ability to better human wellbeing
Creativity implies – reasonableness, independence, handwork – which enable individuals
to solve problems and make decisions and choice
Criticality and Creativity
Criticality and creativity are two sides of the same coin. They are inextricably connected,
intertwined and reinforce each other to improve reasoning
Creativity Criticality -Generative thinking -Evaluative -Produces, ideas materials -It
assesses -Proposes – alternatives, -Critiques what creativity generates -Options, solutions,
decisions - Points out strengths and weaknesses -Defends by giving justification If critical
thinking judges something as being wanting, it means, creativity must generate further
information.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF A CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKER

Essential Characteristics of a Critical and Creative Thinker

• believes in supremacy of reason as the beacon of existence

• willingness to spend time reflecting on the ideas presented

• ability to evaluate and solve problems as they come

• logical and sequential thinking without appealing to emotions

• diligent in seeking out the truth • eager to express their thoughts on a topic

• exercise the highest level of patience

• ability to tolerate ambiguity

• seekers of alternative views on a topic

• ability to persevere and endure with a view of attaining truth

intellectual courage to pursue issues to their conclusion end

• open to new ideas that may not necessarily agree with their previous thought on a topic

• able to base their judgments on ideas and evidence

• able to recognize errors in thought and persuasion

• able to recognize good arguments from bad and fallacious arguments

• willing to take a critical stance on issues • willing to accept mistakes, correct them and
apologize

• able to ask penetrating and thought-provoking questions to evaluate ideas

• in touch with their personal thoughts and ideas about a topic

• willing to reassess their views when new or discordant evidence is introduced and
evaluated

• able to identify arguments and issues

• able to see connections between topics and use knowledge from other disciplines to
enhance their reading and learning experiences

3. THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

The value and importance of Critical and Creative Thinking cannot be underestimated

• Critical and Creative Thinking inculcates habits of thought- the ability to think outside the
box and use reason as the locomotive to existence.

• Encourages breadth of vision- the ability to see things from different points of view

• It gives us a sense of self-perspective in our activities, and our lives: the ability to examine
alternatives and choose those relevant to ensuring we live an examined and worth life.

• Its concerns are very abstract but with immense practical value: the ability to translate
ideas (theory) into practice through action.
• Its interest and value lie in its ability in helping us to understand ourselves and our world
better and more deeply than we otherwise would, and in permanently altering our approach
to our lives and our relations to others through encouraging a lifelong habit of reflection on
them. • The study of Critical and Creative Thinking is a process whose continuance can
immensely enrich one's life and can open to one view that would otherwise be closed or
overlooked.

• Its serious study can greatly enhance one's analytical, critical, evaluative and interpretive
abilities

Its grasp can greatly enhance one's ability to express oneself clearly and to formulate and
respond to arguments in speech and writing effectively.

• Critical and Creative Thinking provides one with general problem-solving skills, skills in
analyzing concepts, definitions, arguments and problems.

• It enables one to organize ideas and issues and to extract what is central to an issue from a
mass of information.

• It enhances one’s ability to question deeply one's own framework of thought

• Critical and creative thinking equips an individual with the ability to reconstruct
sympathetically and imaginatively the strongest versions of points of view and frameworks
of thought opposed to one's own

• It inculcates in one the ability to reason dialectically (multi-logically) in such a way as to

determine when one's own point of view is at its weakest and when an opposing point of
view is at its strongest

• It helps one both to make fine distinctions and to find what common ground between
opposing positions is.

• Critical and Creative thinking encourages one to synthesize or bring together a range of
different views into one more comprehensive and coherent position.
 • Critical and Creative Thinking improves one's communication skills, through improving
one's ability to present ideas in well-constructed, systematic arguments, to express what is
unique about one's views, and to explain difficult material.

• These skills in presenting well-thought-out arguments, clear formulations, and apt

examples, in turn lend one's arguments persuasive power.

• The give and take of critical and creative thinking based discussions improves one's ability
to think on one's feet, and to indicate why one's own views are to be preferred to others.

• Critical and creative thinking aids one in recognizing when and in what respect one's own
views may be incorrect, and what must be revised or discarded and what can be retained.

• Critical and Creative Thinking lays emphasis on clarity and rigor of argument, the apt use
of example and illustration, and sensitivity to the strengths and weaknesses both of views one
is examining and of one's own view thus making ideas that determine good living more
explicit and relevant.

• Critical and creative thinking plays an important role in social change- institutions in any
society (courts, governments, schools, businesses etc) - are products of a certain way of
thinking.

• Critical and creative thinking helps us in uncovering biases and prejudices.

• Critical and creative thinking is a path to freedom from half-truths and deceptions as it
opens up one’s mind in seeing things independent of emotions, native biases and from
different perspectives.

• The willingness to change one point of view as we continue to examine and re-examine
ideas that may seem obvious is a major component of critical and creative thinking. Such
thinking takes time and the willingness to say three subversive words: “I don't know." Means
need to learn and not an expression of ignorance

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from,
or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to
belief and action. This lesson is intended to awaken and equip the mind of the learner with
requisite knowledge in critical thinking skills for effective problem solving and decision-making.
It covers definitions of critical and thinking, nature and characteristics of critical thinking, uses
and importance of critical thinking.

Definition and Dimension of Critical thinking

There is a relationship between Critical and creative thinking and by defining critical thinking we
will also be able to define creative thinking. For one to embark on the path of critical thinking
there must be some issue or concern that will inform that process. To this end, the process of
generating an object or phenomenon that becomes the object of criticality is essential to the
process. Thus, there is need to understand what creativity entails before discussing what critical
thinking consists of. There are different meanings of Critical thinking. The definitions change as
indicated by the inspiration basic to it. When grounded in childish thought processes, it is
frequently shown in the handy control of thoughts in support of one's own, or one‟s groups‟
personal stake. Accordingly, it is normally intellectually defective, anyway pragmatically
effective it may be. When grounded in honesty and scholarly respectability, it is commonly of a
higher request mentally.

Creative thinking essentially refers to the arrangement of potential answers for an issue or
conceivable clarification of a phenomenon. It involves bringing into being of something which
didn't exist previously, either as an item, a process or an idea, or working on the old with a
perspective on creating a blended new. Whereas creative thinking is concerned with the
formation of possible solutions to a problem or possible explanation of a phenomenon, critical
thinking deals with the testing and evaluation of the proposed solutions to a problem or the
proposed explanations of a phenomenon. By critical thinking we mean the ability to use
cognitive skills and strategies effectively to increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is
the kind of thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed; the thinking that is involved
in effective solving problems, calculation of likelihoods, formulation of inferences and decisive
decision-making. As a way of thinking, critical thinking involves evaluating our thinking
process: the reasoning that informs the conclusions we arrived at, and the kinds of factors we
consider in making our decisions; it is that kind of thinking directed at a desired outcome.
Critical thinking is mainly concerned with having faith in the supremacy of reason, honesty,
integrity, fair-mindedness, courage, empathy, and open-mindedness
Dimensions of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the intellectually restrained process of effectively and capably

conceptualizing, applying, examining, incorporating, as well as assessing data accumulated from,
or created by, perception, experience, reflection, thinking, or communication, as a manual for
conviction and activity. In its model structure, it depends on widespread scholarly qualities that
rise above subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound
evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. As a way of thinking critical thinking aims
at reasoning through multi-faceted ways; analyzing information and facts presented as to attain
the highest desirable good; evaluating facts as to authenticate and establish their truth value and
reliability; problem solving in order to satisfy the worth of reasoning, and; decision making as a
means to attain solutions to the myriad problems confronting the contemporary world.

Characteristics of Critical Thinking and its Essential Aspects

There are eight characteristics of critical and creative thinking which include: asking relevant
questions; defining a problem; examining evidence; analyzing assumptions and biases; avoiding
emotional reasoning; avoiding oversimplification; considering other interpretations, and;
tolerating ambiguity. These characteristics of critical thinking are important if state students in
foundations of higher learning are to learn and act with imperative information. They have to
comprehend the framework and disguise these qualities for viable and productive education.
Essential Aspects of Critical thinking .

The following are the important aspects of critical thinking:

 It is a higher-level thinking and self-directed activity.

 It is guided by reason and seeks to justify claims.

 It is reflective and attempts to get in depth to avoid deceptive situations.

 It is purposeful and focused-not merely accidental and spontaneous.

 It facilitates good judgment.

 It is skillful since it employs specific reasoning skills such as intellectual standards, tools of
analysis and intellectual traits.
 It is responsible since it is accountable for all that it evaluates and generates.

 It is flexible because it cultivates open-mindedness.

The Importance of critical thinking Critical Thinking has values, and its importance cannot be
underestimated. Critical Thinking is important in life, academics and more especially at
workplace. The ability to think critically enables individuals to be adoptable, change the mind-
set, learn to contextualize and to thick effectively through issues. To this end, critical thinking
plays a greater role in human ability to think clearly, precisely and distinctly; and helps in
improving our thought patterns by:

1) inculcating habits of thought,

2) adding value to our lives through the enhancement of our ability to translate ideas (theory)
into practice through action;

3) helping us to understand ourselves and our world better and more deeply than we otherwise
would, and by permanently altering our approach to our lives and our relations to others through
encouraging a lifelong habit of reflection and harmonious coexistence;

4) immensely enriching our lives and opening to us views that would otherwise be closed or
overlooked;

5) enhancing our analytical, critical, evaluative and interpretive abilities,

6) Critical thinking greatly enhances our ability to express ourselves clearly and to formulate
and respond to arguments in speech and writing effectively;

7) Provides us with general problem-solving skills, skills in analyzing concepts, definitions,

arguments and problems; and so on.

Barriers to Critical and Creative Thinking

There are several barriers that can hinder critical and creative thinking. These barriers limit our
ability to think critically and creatively, and they often negate the principles of reason. Here are
four common barriers and how they undermine rational thinking:

1. Lack of Information: When we lack relevant information or have limited knowledge

about a subject, it becomes difficult to think critically. Without a solid foundation of
 information, our reasoning may be flawed or incomplete. This barrier prevents us from
making well-informed decisions and can lead to biased or illogical thinking.

2. Emotional Bias: Emotions can cloud our judgment and hinder critical thinking. When
we are emotionally invested in a particular outcome or have strong personal beliefs, it can
be challenging to objectively evaluate evidence or consider alternative perspectives.
Emotional bias can lead to irrational thinking and prevent us from considering all
available information.

3. Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information that
confirms our existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss evidence that contradicts them. This
barrier prevents us from critically evaluating different viewpoints and considering
alternative explanations. Confirmation bias reinforces our existing beliefs and limits our
ability to think critically and creatively.

4. Social Pressure: Social pressure can influence our thinking and prevent us from critically
examining ideas or expressing independent thoughts. When we conform to societal norms
or fear social rejection, we may avoid questioning established beliefs or challenging the
status quo. This barrier inhibits creative thinking and stifles the exploration of new ideas.

5. PREJUDICE

A prejudice is a pre-judgment or a mental bias. It usually rests on emotional grounds and

tends to be in line with self-interest, pride or comfort A prejudice impedes thinking by
making one;

 To rationalize i.e. to find reasons to continue to believe what we value

 To recognize only evidence that is favorable e.g. to our gender, tribe group

 To ignore or minimize the part of evidence that is unfavorable to us

 To overestimate parts of the evidence that are favorable to us

 Seeing things from our limited point of view

 To be unable to draw accurate conclusions

[Link]
Habits form when we learn to do things repetitively often without careful reflection and
criticism. Thus, through habits we learn to do things only in one way:

 Habits hinder our thinking by impeding:

 Our capacity for reflection and criticality

 Making us dogmatic

 Making us blind to alternatives

 Make us recognize only evidence that is familiar to us hence making it difficult to deal with
new and unfamiliar situations

[Link]

This uncritical and or blind appeal to authority, leading to uncritical and unreflective acceptance
of authority This is normally grounded in the false belief that knowledge is validated or
guaranteed by authority. Usually, we are led astray by the prestige of authority and even

fail to realize when they speak outside their area of competence. Many people rely on authority
because they have little confidence in themselves or they are intellectually lazy.

Authoritarianism impedes thinking by:

 Making us accept things uncritically and unreflectively

 Making us accept things without question

 Blocking progress in further thinking and investigation

 Making us surrender ourselves to others to think for us.

[Link]

Propaganda occurs when information is deliberately tainted or manipulated or distorted by the

source in order to achieve a certain predetermined end e.g. political

The propagandist first tries to arouse in the people some strong emotion or desire and then
through suggestion presents a line of action that appears to satisfy that emotion or desire

Propaganda inhibits thinking by:

 Controlling and manipulating our thinking

 Making it difficult for us to think for ourselves

 Leading us into biased and inaccurate conclusions

 Leads to mass-Manship - mass media use; – popular

device in advertisers

Each of these barriers undermines the principles of reason by limiting our ability to gather and
evaluate evidence objectively, consider alternative perspectives, and think independently.
Overcoming these barriers requires conscious effort, open-mindedness, and a willingness to
challenge our own assumptions and biases. By recognizing and addressing these barriers, we can
enhance our critical and creative thinking skills and make more reasoned and informed decisions.

Overcoming Barriers to Critical Thinking

Recognizing these barriers is the first step toward overcoming them. Strategies to enhance
critical thinking in reading and writing include:

 Active Engagement: Engage deeply with texts by annotating, questioning, and

discussing the material.

 Seeking Diverse Perspectives: Actively seek out and consider multiple viewpoints to
broaden your understanding.

 Reflective Thinking: Regularly reflect on your thought processes and be open to

adjusting your views based on new evidence.

 Emotional Regulation: Develop strategies to manage stress and emotions, such as

mindfulness or taking breaks, to maintain clarity in thinking.

E-References

Geoff Pynn (2014). On Critical thinking, Retrieved from 21 [Link]

v=Cum3k-Wglf
 Gregory Basham (201I). Critical Thinking, 5th edition, Retrieved from,
[Link]
bassham-irwin/[Link].

Islam Rayhanul (2015). What are benefits and Importance of Critical thinking? Retrieved from,
[Link]
Jonathan Haber (2020) Critical Thinking, Retrieved from [Link]
id=GM_XDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=critica
l+thinking&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisspmy04HrAhUyAGMBHXuvC4AQuwUwAo
ECAIQBg#v=onepage&q=critical%20thinking&f=false

Lloyd, M. (July, 2010), Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking in Higher Education,
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Retrieved from
[Link] Vol. 4, No. 2.

Namwambah, T, (2007) Elements and Pedagogy of Critical thinking, Retrieved from

[Link]
&ved=2ahUKEwi7vu3o14HrAhWO3eAKHY7NCDcQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ.

Potential (2018), Importance of Critical thinking, retrieved from

[Link]

Success Secrets 10 signs of critical thinking, retrieved from [Link]

v=RWi8FGbAvac

LEVELS OF THINKING

Introduction

This lesson aims at examining various levels of thinking; traditionally you are used to the

preconventional, conventional to post-conventional levels of thought. However, in this lesson we

will introduce these levels of thinking in a different manner as illustrated below. The aim of this

lesson is to equipping the learner with knowledge of how human mind progresses in
development as to reach the point of discerning between what is wrong and what is correct

through the use of human intellect. It covers various stages of the definitive human ability to

think, namely: Preconventional level of thought (unreflective thinker) and Conventional level of

thought, (the challenged thinker the beginning thinker, the practicing thinker, the advanced

thinker and the accomplished thinker)

Levels of Thinking 1-3

There are different levels of thinking, and for the sake of this lesson we will discuss six of them.

We have to realize that advancement in thinking is a continuous process requiring levels of

learning and outright difficult work. It is preposterous to expect to turn into a brilliant thinker by

essentially taking a starting course. Changing one's propensities for thought is a long-extend

venture, occurring over years, not weeks or months. The basic characteristics of a critical thinker,

which has been clarified in lesson two, require an extended period time of advancement. Here

are the levels of thinking we must go through if we aspire to develop as thinkers:

Level One: The Unreflective Thinker

This is the state we are unaware of the significant problems in our thinking. We are completely

brought into the world as unreflective thinkers, on a very basic level unconscious of the job that

thinking is playing in our lives. The greater part of us additionally bites the dust along these

lines. At this unreflective stage, we have no valuable origination of what thinking involves.

Unreflective thinkers are usually unaware of the role thinking plays in their lives and the many

ways inability to think clearly is causing problems in their lives. They lack the ability to

explicitly assess their thinking and make efforts to improve it. Unreflective thinkers lack the

knowledge that quality thinking requires regular practice, accurate assessment and efforts
towards improving it. They are largely unaware of thinking as such; and hence they fail to

recognize that thinking involves concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view

etc. They are often unaware of the appropriate standards for the assessment of thinking which

aims at attaining clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness etc.

Level Two: The Challenged Thinker

At the level of challenged thinkers, start becoming aware of the determining role that thinking

play in their lives and of the fact that problems in their thinking are causing them serious and

significant problems. They also begin to become aware of the determining role of thinking in life

and of basic problems that come from poor thinking. Unlike unreflective thinkers, challenged

thinkers starts becoming aware of thinking and the role it plays in bettering live. They start

recognizing some of the levels good quality thinking requires for deliberate reflective thinking.

They also start to recognize that their thinking is often flawed even if they cannot identify the

actual flaws themselves.

Level three: The Beginning Thinker

On recognizing the limitations in their thinking, beginning thinker start assuming responsibility

for their thinking over numerous spaces of their lives. They perceive that they have fundamental

issues in their thinking and they endeavor to more readily comprehend and improve their

reasoning. In view of this understanding, beginning thinkers start to change a portion of their 25

reasoning, however, have restricted knowledge about different issues characteristic in their

thinking. More importantly, the beginning thinker lacks a systematic plan for improving their

thinking; hence, their efforts are trial and error in thinking. Unlike challenged thinkers, beginning

thinkers start being mindful of thinking accordingly, yet in addition of the part of ideas,
suppositions, derivations, suggestions, perspectives, and so on in deduction. They likewise begin

perceiving not just that there are principles for the appraisal of thinking: clarity, accuracy,

precision, relevance, logicalness, etc., yet additionally that one needs to disguise them and use

them in thinking. They start becoming sensitive to the role of egocentric as an impediment to

thinking in human life.

Level Four: The Practicing Thinker.

Thinkers at this stage have a sense of the traits requisite for taking charge of their own thinking.

They not only recognize the existence of problems in thinking, they also recognize the need to

effectively deal with such problems in a systematic manner. Based on their sense of the need to

practice regularly, the Practicing Thinker makes efforts to analyze his thinking in a number of

ways. However, since practicing thinkers are just beginning to approach and attain some

systematic and perfection in their thinking, they still have limited insight into deeper levels of

thought and deeper levels understanding of the problems embedded in thinking. As a result,

thinkers at this stage begin to develop awareness of the need for systematic approach to thinking.

Unlike beginning thinkers, practicing thinkers have the knowledge about the need to

systematically monitor the role of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of 27

view, etc. in their thinking. They also start getting proficient of the stuff to normally survey their

thinking for clarity, exactness, accuracy, precision, logicalness, and so forth. Practicing thinkers

perceive the requirement for systematicity of basic reasoning and the significance of profound

disguise of those abilities into habits. They can obviously perceive the normal propensity of the

human brain to participate in egocentric reasoning and self-trickery.

Level Five: The Advanced Thinker.

At this stage, thinkers have established good habits of thought and are able to articulate their

thinking base on virtues of good and effective thinking. Based on good thinking habits, advanced

thinkers not only actively analyze their thinking in all the significant domains of their lives, but

also have significant insight into problems at deeper levels of thought. While advanced thinkers

are able to think well across dimensions of their lives, they are still not able to think consistently

at high level across all dimensions of thought. Although thinkers at this stage have good general

command over their egocentric nature, they still strive to be fair-minded and often than not, they

sometimes lapse into egocentrism and sociocentric biases. Thinkers at this level start to develop

an in-depth understanding not only of the need for systematic habits and practice in thinking, but

also the need for insight into deep problems in thought: consistent recognition, for example, of

egocentric and sociocentric thought in one‟s thinking, ability to identify areas of ignorance and

prejudice, and ability to actually develop new habits of thought based on deep values to which

one commit.

Level Six: The Accomplished Thinker

Accomplished thinkers have not only mastered the art of thinking, systematically taking charge

of their thinking, but have also developed necessary skills for continuous monitoring, revising,

and re-thinking strategies for improving their thinking and thought goals. They have deeply

internalized the basic skills of thought in a sense that critical thinking is for them both conscious

and highly intuitive. Borrowing from Piaget, they regularly raise their thinking to the level of

conscious realization. Through extensive experience and practice in self-assessment,

accomplished thinkers not only actively analyze their thinking for clarity, precision, distinctness

and logicalness, but are also continually developing new and deeper insights into problems of 28

thought. They are committed to fair-minded thinking, and have a high level of, but not perfect,
control over their egocentric nature. The main challenge to accomplished thinkers is their

inability in making highest levels of critical thinking intuitive in all domains of life. Despite the

above observation, accomplished thinkers are not only actively and successfully engaged in

systematic monitoring the role of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view,

etc. in their thinking, but are also regularly committed to improving this practice. They have not

only a high degree of knowledge of thinking, but also a high degree of practical insight in the

value of effective thinking to refined life. They instinctively evaluate their deduction for clarity,

accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, and so forth., and have profound bits of knowledge

into the deliberation of their critical thinking into their propensities and thought. Achieved

thinkers plainly comprehend the job that egocentric and sociocentric thinking plays in the lives

of individuals, just as the unpredictable connection between considerations, feelings, want,

drives and conduct.

TOOLS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Introduction

This lesson aims at introducing you to relevant instruments used in critical thinking in the
analysis and evaluation of arguments and formulation of rational statements. It covers Tools of
Analysis (dimensions of thinking), Tools of Evaluation (Universal intellectual Standards) and
Tools of Transformation (valuable intellectual Traits)

Critical and Creative Thinking Tools of Analysis (Elements of Reasoning)

Critical thinking tools of analysis are also referred to as elements of reasoning. They entail those
essential components that must be taken into consideration when confronted with issues that
need solution. The tools of analysis manage the enlightening premise to which we can continue
in deciding an answer dependent on comprehensive and definitive information. They incorporate
purpose, issue or problem or Question at hand, assumptions, points of view, data, Information
and evidence base, concepts and ideas, inferences or interpretations, and implications and
Consequences.

Critical and Creative Thinking Tools of Evaluation

Critical thinking tools of evaluation are also referred to as Universal intellectual standards.
These are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking
the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having
command of these standards, being able to solve problems and to make sound decisions, being
able to pose questions which probe our thinking- questions which hold us accountable for our
thinking, questions which, through disciplined consistency, become internalized as questions we
need to ask ourselves. The goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in our thinking,
forming part of our inner voice, which then guides us to better reasoning. While there are a
number of universal standards, the following are the most significant: Clarity, Accuracy,
Precision, Relevance, Depth, Breadth, and Logic

Critical Thinking Tools of Transformation

Critical thinking tools of Transformation are also referred to as Valuable intellectual traits. These
are transformational traits exhibited by those individuals that embrace criticality and creativity.
They are virtue traits that define maturity in reason, objectivity in thought, rationality in
deliberations and sobriety save to mention consistency in the thinker. The tools of evaluation 36
include: Intellectual Humility, Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual Integrity,
Intellectual Perseverance, Faith in Reason, Fair-mindedness.

CRITICAL AND CREATIVETHINKING TECHNIQUES AND SKILLS

LOGIC

Logic is the system of methods and principles that may be used as criteria for evaluating
arguments. It is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good reasoning
(correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. Logic involves the use of arguments.

ARGUMENT
A Broader (everyday) sense: By and large, the notion of argument is used here to refer to a
fight, a quarrel, a conflict, a disagreement or generally anytime two or more people are
screaming abuse at each other.

A Narrow (logic) sense: Here, an argument specifically refers to a process of trying to convince
someone of something. That is, it refers expressly to the dispassionate marshaling of support for
some position, point of view, a course of action, decision or conclusion. This sense of ‘argument’
has its own vocabulary; arguments here are not something one gets into but rather something that
one constructs, offers to someone, brings to bear on an issue or evaluates. Thus, to offer an
argument is, typically, to provide reason to believe the conclusion is correct.

Therefore, in logic, an argument refers to a group of statements, one or more of which (called the
premise(s)) is/are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others
(normally called the conclusion). In other words, an argument is a sequence of statements of
which one is intended as a conclusion and the other(s), the premise(s), are intended to prove or at
least provide evidence for it (i.e. the conclusion). The statements that make up an argument are
divided into premises and a conclusion.

The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons, evidence or basis and the conclusion
is the statement that is claimed to follow from the premises i.e. it is the statement that the
evidence is claimed to imply.

Examples of arguments in logic

1. Peter is not a boy scout, since he does not know how to tie a square knot and all boys’ scouts
know how to tie square knots.

2. Current economic indicators are so bad that the wise investor will stay out of stock market
until there is a substantial change in the forecast

3. Inflation has dropped considerably, while interest rates have remained high. Therefore, in Real
terms borrowing has become more expensive, since under these conditions borrowed money
cannot (as it could when inflation was higher) be paid back in highly inflated dollars.

The Standard Structure of an Argument

We can ideally identify two parts of an argument; a top (the reasons or support claims or
premises) and a bottom (conclusion), offered as having a certain relationship with one another
(the logical link): This can be illustrated as follows:

P1

P2 Premises

Pn

______________________________________ Evidential/logical link

C Conclusion

Identifying and Analyzing Arguments

1. Is it an argument?

It is not the case that everything that is presented to one is an argument. And since logic deals
with arguments, it is important to be able to distinguish cases that contain arguments from those
that do not. Generally, a case contains an argument if it purports to prove something, otherwise it
does not. That is, for something to pass as an argument two conditions must be fulfilled: a) there
must be a factual claim. That is, at least one of the statements must claim to present evidence or
reasons and b) there must be an inferential claim. That is, there must be a claim that the alleged
evidence supports or implies something or implies that something follows from the alleged
evidence.

2. What is an argument for (What is the conclusion)?

One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish
premises from conclusion. We need to note that in our ordinary discussions, arguments are never
presented to one in a neat tidy way as illustrated above. It is upon one to clearly identify the
reasons being offered and the conclusion that is supposed to follow from them. To assist in doing
this there are flag terms that one can use. For conclusions, conclusion indicators are important
since they signal that the sentence that contains them or to which they are prefixed is a
conclusion from previously stated premises.

Typical examples include Therefore, accordingly, consequently, we may conclude, so, we may
infer, thus, hence, it follows that the moral is, which proves/means among others.

3. What support does it provide (what are the premises)?

This question requires one to identify the basis or foundation of an argument. In other words, one
is expected to clearly articulate the reasons, evidence, grounds data, or information (generally
called the premises) of an argument. At this point I need to indicate that though formal logic is
not interested in the content of an argument and thus the actual truth of the premises, one needs
to appreciate that nature (truth) of the premises can determine whether the argument is good or
bad. Thus, a supplementary question that one ought to ask is: Are the premises credible and
acceptable? For the main question premise indicators are always of assistance. They include flag
terms such as; since, because, owing to, given that, for the reason that, as indicated by etc.

Example:

Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.

4. How strong is this support (How good is the argument)?

These are the pragmatics of evaluation and include practical consideration in the assessment of
an argument. This process involves the examination of the evidential link and whether it is good
enough to warrant acceptance or rejection of an argument. I need to clarify here that at this point
one is not trying to prove the truth of the conclusion but whether it follows from the premises i.e.
examining the inferential claim. To anticipate a discussion that will be coming a little later on,
depending on the nature of the argument, one ought to assess the deductive validity if it is a
deductive argument or inductive strength if it is an inductive argument.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Deductive arguments try to prove their conclusions with rigorous, inescapable logic. Thus, an
argument is considered to be deductive when the premises present absolute and irrefutable
evidence for the conclusion. When this happens such a deductive argument is said to be a valid
one; but if the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, it is termed invalid. An
argument is deductively valid if and only if its underlying structure or form guarantees that if its
premises are all true, then its conclusion must also be true. Otherwise, it will be invalid. This
means that in deductively valid argument, when its premises are true then, it is impossible that its
conclusion can be false. This is because if this happens then we involve ourselves in a
contradiction. But an argument is deductively invalid if and only if its underlying structure does
not guarantee that if its premises are all true, then so is its conclusion. The reason why it is
impossible for the conclusion of a deductively valid argument to be false if the premises are true
is that the conclusion makes no factual claim that is not implicitly made by the premises. What
the conclusion does is merely to lay bare (or make explicit) what was initially hidden (or
implicit) in the premises. So, the conclusion actually does not venture to say anything more than
what the premises contain. Such arguments are normally referred to as truth transmitting since
they merely transfer the truth contained in the premise(s) to the conclusion and the conclusion
cannot claim anything that is not already implied by the premises. It is noticeable therefore that
deductive logic regards argument correctness as all or nothing, i.e. either it is valid or it is
invalid. This is simply because these kinds of arguments provide logically conclusive grounds
for their conclusions such that it is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the
conclusion given that the conclusion follows necessarily (or with necessity) from the premises.

Notice that the above definitions of deductive validity or invalidity are not about the truth of the
premises but rather the structure of the arguments. It is precisely the structure of the argument
that guarantees that provided its premises are all true its conclusion will not be false.

Let us take an example to illustrate our point: All Nigerians are Africans; President Kibaki is

a Nigerian. Therefore, President Kibaki is an African

We observe that the second premise in the argument above is false because President Kibaki

is not a Nigerian. Nevertheless, we are claiming that if these premises were all true, then the
conclusion would also be true. Therefore, the above argument is a deductively valid argument.

We need to appreciate, however, that because of the falsity of one of the premises it is obvious
that the argument cannot be convincing. This means that validity is only the first of the
evaluative criteria for acceptability or rejection of deductive reasoning. The second standard is
what logicians term soundness. Whenever an argument has all true premises and is deductive
validity, we say that it is a sound argument. Otherwise, it is unsound.
NOTE: An argument is SOUND if and only if it is both deductively valid and has all true
premises.

INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive logic, on the other hand, is concerned with connections from premises to Concussions
that allow for gradations. We can hence have a more or less strong inductive argument. In other
words, inductive arguments try to show that their conclusions are plausible or likely given the
premises(s). Unlike deductive arguments which claim to guarantee their conclusions, inductive
arguments simply claim that their conclusions are likely or probable given the premises offered.

NOTE: An argument is inductively strong (or weak) in direct proportion to the likelihood of its
conclusion being true on the assumption that its premises are true.

This means that if the premises of an inductive argument are true then it is probable that its
conclusion can be true. The degree of inductive strength depends entirely on how improbable it
is that the conclusion is false given that the premises are true. Therefore, inductive arguments can
be of varying degrees of strength ranging from very strong inductive arguments to weak
inductive arguments.

The main reason as to why an inductive argument can be strong or weak is that its conclusion
asserts more than what is contained in the premises. That is an inductive argument is truth
increasing. It therefore makes factual claims, which lie beyond what the premises claim. A denial
of the conclusion of an inductive argument does not necessarily lead us to a contradiction since
we can describe situations in which the premises remain true and yet the conclusion is false.

Typical examples of such inductive arguments are weather forecasts of the meteorological
department or opinion polling. On the basis of the data and information gathered during the day
or throughout the week, meteorologists forecast what the weather is likely to be the following
day. The forecast certainly ventures beyond what the premises contain because it refers to a day
which has not yet arrived. This same reasoning applies to opinion polls as well.

So, in evaluating inductive arguments we should try to determine the probability or likelihood of
the conclusion being true if the premises are all true. If the conclusion is likely to be true if the
premises are true, then we consider the argument to be inductively strong. But if the conclusion
is only slightly supported by the premises, then we consider the argument to be inductively weak.

NOTE: Other than strength, when assessing inductive arguments one ought to determine its
cogency. A cogent argument is an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises; if
either of conditions are missing, the argument is uncogent. A cogent argument is the inductive
analogue of a sound deductive argument.

DISTINGUISHING DEDUCTIVE FROM INDUCTIVE REASONING

1. If the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, the argument should always be treated
as deductive.

2. If the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises, the argument should be
treated as inductive unless (a) the language or context of the argument makes clear that the
argument is deductive or (b) the argument has a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically
deductive.

3. If there is significant doubt about whether an argument is deductive or inductive, always

interpret it in the way most favorable to the arguer.

FALLACIES
Generally, fallacies are errors in reasoning which from the surface value looks accurate and
convincing but when subjected to rigor of reason one realizes that reason has been flawed. One
perfect example of fallacious reasoning is to designate any mistaken idea or false belief, like the
fallacy of believing that all men are honest or all politicians are deceptive. The two examples are
generalized statements without recourse to facts that can establish their truthfulness. Simply put,
A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but which proves, upon examination,
not to be so: - it is a type of incorrect argument. - Fallacies are not mere conceptual problems,
they have far-reaching implications as they may:
 Misrepresent
 Prejudice leading to animosity
 Used for sloganeering and propaganda to cloud our minds and divert us from the real
issues.
-Fallacies deceive because they appear good by appealing to our emotions, prejudice, self
interest or blind faith.
Note: It is a logical error in reasoning as it involves the violation of the conditions of rationally
acceptable inference or drawing of a conclusion. Hence whenever we reason invalidly or
irrelevantly, accept premises we should not or fail to make appropriate use of relevant facts at
our disposal, we commit a fallacy.
Classification of Fallacies
Broadly speaking, fallacies can be divided into two major categories – Formal and Informal
fallacies.
Formal fallacies are also known as logical fallacies. - These mistakes arise through the violation
of the logical rules, which govern correct arguments. - They occur when we misapply a valid
rule of inference as they contravene the formal structure of a valid argument. - They are invalid
deductive arguments resulting from bad deductive reasoning. - They can, therefore, be identified
by a mere inspection of the argument form.
Informal fallacies
Unlike the formal fallacies, the informal mistakes do not relate to the form of the argument in
which they occur. - They are identified through an analysis of the content of an argument. -
These arguments are subdivided into four broad categories:
1 FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE - They occur when the premises of an argument have no
bearing upon its conclusion.
That is they occur in arguments whose premises have no logical relevance to their conclusion. In
addition, such fallacies often involve a distractive element which diverts attention away from this
very problem. (Such arguments are often referred to in Latin as non sequiturs which means it
does not follow). -The irrelevance here is logical and not psychological. They are deceptive
because of the psychological relevance that is often confused with logical relevance. This then
defeats the purpose of logic namely, the observance of relevance between the premises and their
conclusion in any given argument.
a) Ad hominem (attacking the person) arguments try to discredit a conclusion (claim, proposal
etc.) by attacking its proponents instead of providing a reasoned examination of the conclusion
(proposal) itself. They are divided into several variants with the most pervasive being ad
hominem abusive and circumstantial. Ad hominem abusive arguments attack a person’s age,
character, family, gender, ethnicity, appearance, dress, personality, economic status, behaviour or
professional, political, or social affiliations. They employ the principle of transference i.e. what
is true in psychology is also true in logic. They are also called genetic fallacies. They evoke an
attitude of disapproval towards a person. The implication is that there is no reason to take the
person’s view seriously.
Circumstantial – use the unique or special circumstances of a person to discredit his reasoning.
e.g. guilt by association hence “poisoning the well” argument, Vested interest or unique
circumstances considerations etc.
b) Ad populum arguments (appeal to the people, masses, multitude or gallery) occur when we
infer a conclusion merely on the grounds that most people accept it. It tries to invoke the band
wagon effect, which asks us to join forces with others often irrationally. Hence assumes that
because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct or desirable. This fallacy is evident in
populist political speeches demagoguery. Much of advertising is also based on this fallacy as
well.
‘The car in front is always a TOYOTA,’ ‘500,000 Kenyans cannot go wrong – AAR’.
They usually associate things with people that arouse strong emotional approval from the
masses.
Note: popular opinion cannot be taken as proof that an idea is right or wrong. Remember
everyone believed that the world was flat and that the Earth was at the center of the universe!
c) Red Herring is a fallacy that introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject
under discussion. A red herring is an extraneous matter used purely to divert attention away from
the issue posed by an argument. Because it is irrelevant, it contributes nothing to an argument,
though it misleads its audience into thinking otherwise. Red herring enables those who use them
to mask other defects in their arguments and thus to evade the real issue. -The name of this
fallacy comes from an old trick used by farmers in Europe to keep hunters and their dogs from
galloping through crops. By dragging a smoked herring with a strong odour along the edge of
their fields, farmers threw the dogs off the track by destroying the scent of the fox.
d) Ad Vericundiun (appeal to authority) occurs when we accept (or reject) a claim merely
because of the prestige, status, or respect we accord with its proponents (or opponents)
e.g. Testimonials – exemplified by celebrities who appear on adverts and commercials endorsing
products, services or brands of goods. Mariga – UAP, Patrick Njiru with Panadol etc
e) Ad Misericordian (appeal to pity). This occurs when we arouse in the audience sense or
feeling of pity or sympathy and appeal to it to win argument. This is used mainly by defence
lawyers even the prosecution in cases. The legal systems encourage this.
2 FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION: arise because the premises presume what they purport to
prove.
a) False dichotomy: Also called the Either-Or fallacy
This fallacy forces one to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives
exist. It oversimplifies a complex issue by reducing it to a simple either-or choice. The
alternatives it presents do not exhaust all the possibilities e.g.
Either you are with us or you are against us
You are not with us. Therefore, you must be against us.
b) Complex question: Also called the fallacy of many questions, fallacy of interrogation consists
of asking questions in such a way that any single answer involves or implies other answers as
well. In a complex question usually two or more questions are rolled into one. In the case of two
questions the second presupposes that a definite answer has already been provided to the unasked
question. E.g. did your sales increase as a result of your misleading advertisement? Yes or No
These devices are exploited by lawyers in cross-examination to have the accused confused,
incriminate themselves. Also popular with propagandists
c) slippery slope fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an alleged chain
reaction, suggesting that a single step in the wrong direction will result in a disastrous or
otherwise undesirable outcome. In other words it is a fallacy which assumes that taking a first
step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented. It takes its name from the image of a
boulder rolling uncontrollably down a steep hill. Once the boulder gets started, it cannot be
stopped until it reaches the bottom. A person who commits this fallacy assumes that taking a first
step will lead inevitably to a second step and so on down the slope to disaster; without providing
evidence to support such a claim. However, to assume that all the later steps will occur without
proving that they will is to commit the slippery slope fallacy. E.g. Passing laws to control the
amount of violence on television is the first step in a process that will result in absolute
government control of the media and a total censorship of all forms of expression.
3 FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
Occur in arguments whose formulations contain ambiguous words or phrases and whose
meaning(s) shift and change in the course of the argument and thus render them fallacious. They
are more subtle; principally involve the use of language, hence also called fallacies of clearness
a) Equivocation
Equivocation arise when we confuse the different senses a word or phrase may have used them
in different senses in the same context. In the context of an argument this is called fallacy of
equivocation. The main aim is either to hide the truth or to mislead the listener. Examples:
The end of a thing is its perfection. Death is the end of life. Hence death is the perfection of
life.
It is silly to fight over mere words. Discrimination is just a word. Therefore, it is silly to fight
over discrimination.
Men are the only rational creatures on planet earth. No women are men. Therefore, no
women are rational
b) Amphiboly. I n language this occurs when we cannot readily determine the meaning because
of either the words being arranged awkwardly or loosely. In the context of argument fallacy of
amphiboly is committed when it is stated as premise on interpretation which makes it true and
conclusion is deduced on the basis of interpretation that makes it false. Example:
Croesus king of wanted to go to war with king Cyrus of Persia. He went to consult the oracles
who told him; if you go to war with Persia you will destroy a mighty kingdom- this statement
does not explicitly state which kingdom would be destroyed and as such, different
interpretations can be made from it.
c) Accent refers to emphases that generate multiple (and often misleading) interpretations. E.g.
Newspaper headlines, contracts and deceptive entry forms are frequent sources of fallacies of
accent.
4 INDUCTIVE FALLACIES occur when the inductive probability of an argument (i.e. the
probability of its conclusion given the premises) is low or at least lower than the arguer thinks it
is.
a) Hasty generalization means inferring a conclusion about an entire class of things from
inadequate knowledge or unrepresentative cases of some of its members. Hasty generalizations
are usually fallacious statistical/inductive generalizations and stem from biased, unrepresentative
or inadequate sampling techniques. Pollsters, Surveys, marketing gimmicks. Example;
My Pastor is insincere therefore all Christians are insincere.
b) Faulty analogy
Analogical reasoning is a powerful tool in reasoning. However, analogical reasoning depends
quite sensitively on the degree and relevance of the similarity.
Why Are Fallacies Deceptive?
1) Carelessness and being inattentive to detail
2) Use of the heart or emotions to think. They appeal to our emotions, prejudice, self-interests or
blind faith.
3) Ambiguity in language – semantics/formulation of the argument
4) Not acknowledging the limits of our knowledge, extent of our ignorance
5) Mental fatigue/tiredness
6) Generally, not being critical and creative
SOCRATIC METHOD

Introduction
In this lesson, we are going to study one of the oldest and most powerful teaching methods for
fostering critical and creative thinking called the Socratic teaching or the Socratic Method. It is a
method that focuses on giving students questions, not answers. This lesson will help you to have
a more inquisitive, inquiring and probing mind into various disciplines. You will learn the
discipline of Socratic questioning so that you can use it in reasoning through complex issues, in
understanding and analyzing the thinking of others. Socrates, by engaging in a dialogue, sought
gaps and contradictions in the students‟ thoughts to then guide them into solid tenable
conclusions through critical thinking, reasoning and logic. Under this lesson therefore, we will
look at a brief history of Socrates as a person, the definition and features of the Socratic Method
and the relevance of his method to the subject of critical thinking and problem solving.
The Origin of the Socratic Method
The Socratic Method is named after Greek philosopher Socrates who taught students by asking
question after question. His actual method was an extended public dialogue/debate between
teacher and student. Socrates lived somewhere in the range of 469 and 399 BC. He was a
classical Greek thinker who has been credited as one of the originators of the Western ways of
thinking. He is a baffling figure known mainly through the records of later classical scholars,
particularly the compositions of his understudies Plato and Xenophon, and the plays of his
contemporary Aristophanes. He composed nothing and potentially Plato's dialogues are the most
far-reaching records of him that have made survive from days of yore. Through his depiction in
Plato‟s dialogues, Socrates became renowned for his contribution to various fields through his
concepts of the Socratic Method also known as the Socratic 53 questioning. This remains a
commonly used tool in a wide range of discussions and is a type of training in which a series of
questions are asked not only to draw individual answers, but also to encourage fundamental
insight into the issue at hand. It informed the rise of critical thinking as a subject or field of
study.
The nature and relevance of the Socratic Questioning Method
In addressing the fundamental issues and challenges facing education in the 21st century, the
concept of critical thinking ought to be methodically dissected along with the Socratic
questioning method. The Socratic method of inquiry uses a dynamic approach of questioning and
intellectual analysis in order to explore the essential nature of concepts. It provides an
opportunity for teachers and students to embark the quest for knowledge so as to assist develop
the student‟s critical thinking skills that are greatly needed in this century. As a teaching
methodology that uses probing questions to guide about a dialogue about a text or concept, it
emphasizes on dialectical exchange among leaners or between the teacher and the student.

PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING

Introduction
We live in a world that is constantly and increasingly under uncertainties: pressure, challenges,
conflicting ideas and opinions abounds and continue to overwhelm us. The contemporary world
seems to be at a crossroad with itself as changes continue to unfold. Our ability to adeptly
navigate these challenges determines how able we can live and manage the world. Our ability to
think critically, to effectively address and solve ever emerging problems; and to understanding
key methods and skills for problem solving and decision making enables us to effectively
address the right problems, identify risks and make better decisions.
In this lesson, we are going to look at the best process of problem solving and decision making.
We will attempt to define problem, problem solving and decision and examine the process of
problem solving, problem solving skills, barriers to solving problems, and then highlight some of
the characteristics of good problem solvers.
Definitions of Problem, Problem Solving and of Decision
A problem is simply an issue that is out of alignment and requires to be attended to, fixed, or
corrected to enable desired outcomes to be achieved. We say one has a problem when he is faced
with a pressing or demand issue but has no immediate solution to it. Problem solving is therefore
75 the process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues that need solutions for the ease
of our needs. (Namwambah, 2020).
Closely linked to problem solving is decision making which basically refers to the mental
processes (cognitive process) of analyzing, evaluating and synthesizing data as received and
which culminates in the selection of a course of action among several alternative scenarios.
Every decision-making process produces a definite solution that characterize our actions,
opinions and choice. (ibid)
The process of problem solving
Problem solving is a process informed by various steps. These steps must be followed if we need
to solve those problems that often confront us. Any attempt to mangle up the process will lead to
making decision by indecision; meaning that we will always be in a vicious circle with problems
and we will never attain a solution whatsoever.
Central to problem solving process is the ability to recognize and define the problem. Problem
solvers habitually realize when something has gone wrong or when attention is required; they
often anticipate complications before they even exist and take precautionary measures to guard
against imminent destructive and inconvenient result. Noticing that something is amiss requires a
keen sense of what is going on around you. For example, only when you don‟t know the
consequences of poor leadership, can you be surprised when rebellions suddenly arise; and,
without being aware of typical conduits used by corrupt officers, you won't be able to confront
and stamp out corruption from your organization. The sooner you realize there is a problem, the
faster you should respond to it.
The following steps are necessary for effective problem-solving process:
Recognition and Defining the Problem
Why is the problem a problem? A problem is a problem because there is a pressing issue, a need
or a question but there is no obvious answer to it.
The first phase of problem solving therefore involves recognition and definition of the issue at
stake. Generally speaking, a typical process of problem solving and decision-making begins with
the recognition of a problem. It is commonly true, that many problems are never solved because
they are not recognized soon enough or not recognized at all. For example, some freshmen fail in
college life because they do not recognize soon enough that their study habits are inadequate or
that they are in an unsuitable curriculum.
Once a problem has been recognized, it should be carefully defined. Failure to attain a clear
definition of a problem will always result in obtaining unsuccessful solutions or you may end up
solving “some” problem but not the one that you were trying to solve.
In many situations, defining the problem will be the most difficult phase in decision-making.
But once you have correctly defined the problem, the rest will be relatively easy.
There are three rules that must be followed in defining the problem: First, the definition should
not be too general - This is so because if the definition is too broad, the guidelines for a solution
will be too broad, and the investigation may flounder. Large problems can be very real, but their
solution usually require breaking them down into smaller, clearly defined segments in order to
solve them one at a time; second, the definition should not be too specific - a definition of a
problem is said to be too specific when it unnecessarily restricts alternative solutions. When the
definition of the problem is too specific, it will always lead to temporary solutions because it will
have ignored other significant aspects that led to its emergence and which might be critical to its
solution; third, the definition should not in itself constitute a “solution” to the problem -
Suppose that in each year, there is a problem of mass drop-out of Masters Students in the School
of Humanities and Social Sciences at Kenyatta university in Kenya, and the Dean of School
defines the problem as due to lack of scholarships and/or financial limitations on the part of
students. The Dean‟s definition would in itself have contained a “possible solution” that more
scholarships and financial grants be extended to masters‟ program students. This would rule out
other solutions for consideration and possibly skew the thinking and barricade the solution to the
problem.
 These rules are necessary to observe because quite often, there is temptation to quickly jump
into figuring out solutions without understanding the nature and magnitude of the problem. If a
problem is not well understood, the solutions might not be effective and valuable time and effort
would have been unnecessarily wasted.
Establishing Causal factor
The second phase to problem solving entails finding out what caused the problem/gathering
information or conducting research. The leading question here is: what caused the problem?
Once you have identified and clearly defined the current problem, the next step is to dig a little
deeper to find out the root cause or background of the problem. Some questions to ask at this
stage include the following: When and where did the difficulty, obstacle or complication occur?
Why did the problem happen? How did it happen? What led to the problem? How real or
practical is the problem? Was it caused by one thing or many things? Was it accidental or
intentionally caused? What information is missing? Where can you find more information? What
could have prevented the problem? What is known about similar problems? What solutions have
been tried before?
Problem Impact analysis
Phase three of problem solving and decision-making entails analyzing the impact of the
problem. The principle question at this stage is: Who or what is affected by the problem? It is
important that at this stage one makes efforts to determine how widespread the problem is and its
devastating effects. Major guiding questions at this stage include: Is it affecting one person or
many; and how is it affecting them? How long has the problem been going on? Are there any
trends? Is this a re-occurring problem or a completely new one? What would happen if the
problem is not resolved?
If the problem cuts across social divide or is affecting a multitude or an institution, talk to
different people to get first-hand accounts of the impact of the problem, its possible source and
their views on how best to mitigate it. Establish if it is severe, mild or manageable.
Formation of Tentative Solutions
The fourth phase to problem solving is brainstorming and formation of possible solutions. The
guide question to this phase is: What are the potential solutions? This phase calls for a reasonable
and bias-free multifaceted critical approach. Identify as many possible solutions to the problem
through brainstorming.
In a case where the problem affects many people who are also involved in your search for a
solution, state the problem in agreeable terms then request everyone involved to independently
write down their own individual possible solution which will, together with others be used to
inform and form a solution. Thereafter, list all the answers proposed and invite others to further
build upon and refine the suggested solutions or you go further to propose and share other
additional solutions that might not have been captured by your respondents and share them out
before reaching a definite solution.
For a brainstorming session to be successful, the problem needs to be clearly defined, enough
time needs to be scheduled, participants should take time to think through the problem and
generate solutions, and solutions should not be judged during the brainstorming session. If the
problem is collective and impacting on many people or an institution, it is advisable to use a
good facilitator to listen attentively to participants, encourage input by all and drive the
discussion before you subject their opinions to the scrutiny of analytical reason.
Evaluation of Tentative Solutions
Phase five entails evaluation of alternatives/solutions. The key question to this phase is: How do
you select the best alternative/solution? Once a good number of options have been gathered, the
next step is to go through the alternatives and narrow down the ones that are most viable. It is
possible that at this stage, the top choice would be a merger between one or more other
alternative choices. In the process of synchronizing alternatives, it’s important to identify the
advantages and disadvantages of each of the top choices. In addition, also take a step back and
write down the desired results, when they should be achieved as well as how the results will be
measured i.e. what is expected after the problem has been eliminated or handled- imagine how it
would be like when the problem is solved; then finally, analyze how best the top choices would
lead to the desired results for the entire affected population.
Decision Making
The sixth and last step in brainstorming is deciding the best solution among the top alternatives
available, let’s call it choosing the best option or making the decision. The critical leading
question here is: Will this solution solve the problem? In problem solving and decision making,
this is one of the most difficult and overwhelming steps and could easily trigger hesitation
because of fear of making the wrong decision. As a result of such fear, there is always a tendency
for people to want to continue digging further in order to come up with more information or
more alternatives. As a consequence, this leads to continued suffering as the problem will
continue to hurt its victims.
Additionally, choosing an alternative could also entail making compromises, forcing some
parties to make concessions for the benefit of all; there is a possibility that not everyone would
be happy with the final solution. This is so because in one way or the other, the decision-making
process have to come to an end at some point. Following your rational gut instinct and seeking
advice from others can help in making decisions agreeable across board. And if the heat
generated by the problem is overwhelming, expectations are high, anxiety and tempers at their
pick, it’s advisable to take a break away from the scene of the problem, clear your head, relax
and then make the decision with a clear mind and be able to easily explain as to why it’s the best
of all the alternatives. And where consensus is unforeseeable, then taking a poll would similarly
be a simple way to determine the solution that should be implemented for bigger institutional
problems.
Aspects of problem-solving mistakes.
Problems are real. To a good problem solver, there is no small or big problem. Problem is just
problem and it need all the seriousness and mental input to handle. Being casual in handling
problem has unbearable consequences. The following are some of examples of problem solving
mistakes: i) refusing to admit or acknowledge that a problem exists; ii) looking for quick fixes;
iii) thinking that there won‟t be any problems; iv) fixing symptoms instead of the root cause or
real problem; .v) focusing on putting out small fires instead of addressing the big picture
problem; vi) rushing to solve a problem before understanding it; vii) fearing to share out of the
box ideas during brainstorming; viii) risk of group think during brainstorming or conforming to
what everyone else is suggesting; ix) not having an open mind during brainstorming; poor
facilitation and conditioning in brainstorming sessions; x) solving the wrong problem; xi)
looking for someone to blame or pointing fingers; xii) not listening or not seeking feedback or
solutions from others.
Other problem solving mistakes include: a) thinking that you should have all the answers; b)
solutions that are not clearly defined; c) lack of clear communication; d) assuming that people
already know what to do; failing to give credit to staff who have fixed problems; e) fear of
making the wrong decision; assuming contributions of others; f) wrong assumptions; g) getting
scared or panicking when a problem arises; h) getting emotionally excited with tentative
solutions; i) procrastinating to make a decision or choose among alternatives; j) refusing to
acknowledge when a solution is not working, k) doing nothing when a problem arises; l) taking a
82 long time before attending to a problem; m) believing that time will naturally fix the problem;
and, n) not being flexible or adaptable when assumptions and conditions change.
Problem Solving Skills
There are various skills that can increase our likelihood to solving problems. These skills are
enhanced by our ability to think critically and creatively and they include: Decision making skills
– this skill is useful especially in choosing between alternatives, identifying the best solution and
being able to explain why the chosen solution is the best one under the circumstances. i)
Communication skills -helps in letting others know that there is a problem and in outlining how
the problem will be corrected. Effective communication skills is also instrumental in assigning
responsibilities and explaining to others what they should be doing and, in letting others know
that the problem solving process is on course or it has been resolved; iii) Risk taking -the ability
to identify the pros and cons of an alternative and then arming oneself with enough knowledge to
carry out the plan effectively and efficiently; iv) Prioritization - when faced with many problems
in your study or at work, being able to identify the most urgent and important problem to be
addressed and fixed is a skill definitive of success and effective organization; v) Flexibility -
conditions and situations change all the time therefore, willingness to re-analyze plans and
assumptions and re-calibrate them as needed is essential.
Other helpful traits for effective problem solving consist of willingness to receive feedback,
determination and perseverance to see things through, patience, connecting the dots or figuring
out the relationship between things, tolerance for uncertainty and faith in reason that in the long
run the best for the self and humanity is tenable in time.
Challenges and Barriers to effective Problem Solving
Our ability to solve problems varies from individual to individual. The reason why many
institutions fail to attain their targets in growth depends on the ability of the institution’s
management ingenuity to handle and address emerging problems. At the individual level,
inability to handle and solve problems has led to many unconventional actions – suicide, stress,
depression and mental breakdown, family breakdown and other uncivil behaviors.
Reasons why most of us are unable to solve problems include: passive behavior of ignoring or
avoiding the problem; thinking that problem solving process takes too much time or effort;
casual believe that the problem will fizzle out or solve itself; not having the authority to decide
which solution should be implemented; procrastinating or inertia to resolve a problem because it
could take a long time to figure out solutions especially for complex problems; thinking that the
problem is more difficult than it really is; thinking that you have to figure it all out on your own;
lack of self-confidence in dealing with and solving problems; naivety as not to ask for help;
unwilling to take other people’s opinions; fear that implementation could be difficult and
frustrating; and fear of failure.
Other challenges and barriers include: resource constraints; insufficient resources such as
manpower and finances to properly address large scale problems; too many problems at the same
time or difficulty in prioritizing problems; resistance to change or new ways of doing things; not
following through on solutions after the brainstorming stage; mental fatigue and giving up too
soon when it takes long to solve a problem; inability to measuring progress; abrupt change in
external factors causing the need to rethink or revise solutions; inexperience in handling and
solving problems; and, not wanting to deal with uncertainty.
THINKING FOR ONESELF – A RENE DESCARTES
Introduction
This lesson will introduce you to the thought patterns of Rene Descartes and its impact on the
subject of critical thinking and problem solving. Rene Descartes, the father of modern
philosophy is widely remembered in philosophy for his systemic thinking and his method of
elucidating knowledge famously known as the Cartesian “Methodic” Doubt, named after his
Latinised name- Cartesius. In this method, Descartes sought to doubt the truth of all beliefs in
order to determine which he could be certain were true. It is the basis for Descartes' maxim,
"Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). This lesson will therefore cover the following areas;
a brief history of Rene Descartes, the “Methodic Doubt”, the rules for the logical method and the
meditations on first philosophy. The purpose of this lesson is to enable you to appreciate the
value of thinking for thyself, clearness and distinctiveness in critical and creative thinking
Descartes’ methodic doubt
Rene Descartes was born in the year 1591 close to the French city of Tours into a family of
doctors and attorneys. In 1629 he moved to the Netherlands where he lived in withdrawal for a
long time, changing his home regularly to save his security. During this period he created the
works whereupon his fame rests. His investigations were first confined to science, and just later
did he investigate metaphysics. In 1637, he published in French the discourse on method for
conducting one's reason well for finding truth in science. 1641 he distributed the contemplations
of first way of thinking and in 1644 he published the principles of philosophy. He passed on in
the year 1650.
In the Discourse on the Method (1637) he describes his scholarly turn of events, and the cycle he
arrived at for logical and philosophical investigation. In this, he says that he understood the need
to dismiss a significant part of the lessons of his childhood and, similar to the reconstructing of a
city, this necessary destroying everything and modify totally again. The way toward remaking,
he contends, ought to adhere to four standards of logical strategy, and keeping in mind that the
revamping is occurring he should live by observing four temporary guidelines of good lead.
In this endeavor, he attempted to arrive at a fundamental set of principles that one could know as
true without any doubt (foundation of knowledge). To achieve this, he employed a method of
systematic doubt where he rejected any idea that could be doubted. Descartes then arrived to the
principle Cogito ergo Sum or I think therefore I am. For him, everything was dubitable even his
own body; all except for the fact that he was doubting. He could not doubt that he was doubting,
and doubting being a mode of thinking.
Descartes’ meditations on first philosophy
In the Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Descartes wrote in a similar autobiographical
style as the Discourse on method, he describes a six-day philosophical journey from radical
skepticism to rational certainty. The work first appeared in Latin in 1641, then six years later in
French with some expanded sentences. The meditation are; i) Of the things which may be
brought within the sphere of the doubtful, ii) Of the Nature of the Human Mind; and that it is
more easily known than the Body, iii) Of God: that He exists, iv) Of the True and the False, v) Of
the essence of material things, and, again, of God, that He exists, Vi) Of the Existence of
Material Things, and of the real distinction between the Soul and Body of Man
APPEARANCE AND REALITY – BERTRAND RUSSELL
Introduction
In this lesson, we are going to look at one of the topics that have caused a lot of concerns,
confusion and trouble in philosophy: the distinction between appearance and reality. This
problem is less problematic outside the domains of philosophy because, human mind left on its
own is usually casual and it often takes things for granted. The distinction of appearance and
reality has played an important part in the thinking of many philosophers, and some of them,
including Bertrand Russell, have employed it in curious ways to support odd and seemingly
paradoxical claims; a fact that Russell had in mind when he spoke of trouble. As a consequence
of human mental laxity and the tendency to treat things casually, human beings have often and
easily become prey to the whims of politicians, conmen, advertiser and even lawyers in courts of
law, who frequently disguise appearance as reality.
This lesson is therefore intended to introduce the learner to this major problem in philosophy,
and generally in life today. It aims at awakening the learners mind into understanding and
appreciating the need and importance of distinguishing appearance and reality. It covers a profile
of Bertrand Russell, the problem of appearance, importance of distinguishing appearance and
reality, Bertrand Russell‟s refutation of reliability on senses as a source of knowledge, and the
need to comprehend knowledge via the combination of sense datum and sensation.
Definitions of Appearance The problem of appearance
Appearance refers to that which we perceive, our sensations of the empirical objects, that which
is experienced by our senses; while reality on the other hand refers to the actuality of being, the
thing in itself, the essence of reality, or that which is comprehended by the mind (Namwambah,
2020).

The problem of appearance

In life the mind presents us with only two possibilities for knowing: either we mistake
appearances for reality, or our mind is capacitated to comprehend reality or things in themselves.
Often, appearance distorts our capacity to know things in themselves, or, at least, a thing in itself.
This is caused by the fact that appearance is based on senses which are, most of the time
deceptive. Given the deceptiveness of the senses, it’s prudent not to trust where one has been
once deceived. And this, coupled with the fact that human mind has the tendency of replicating
the objects of nature makes the possibility of generating mistaken identities a common mental
phenomenon, especially when triggered in a mind which its conscience is not fully nurtured to
maturity. Knowledge is dynamic and it changes with new occurrences, causing a myriad of
challenges, confusions and to some level impeding the actualization of what reality consists of;
propagandists, advertisers, conmen, crooked lawyers, demagogues and politicians‟ prey on this
deficiency by making appearance reality.
Importance of distinguishing Appearance and Reality
Distinguishing Appearance and Reality helps us to understand ourselves, and the world much
better, and to be more knowledgeable about the essence and the nature of things around us. It is
instrumental to a well-defined form of life; helps in the voidance of errors characteristic of
mistaken identities; and gives meaning and relevance to the rational nature of the human being
and the worth of life. (Namwambah, 2012).
Summary of Appearance and Reality – Bertrand Russell
Russell begins by asking his reader to consider what knowledge, if any, exists that cannot be
doubted: “is there any knowledge that is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?” His
motivation is to deliver the acknowledgment that extreme uncertainty before long brings even
the most undeniable suppositions in our regular daily existences under reevaluation. In this
beginning chapter of his masterpiece - The problem of Philosophy, Russell describes a scene: "I
am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing
or print." All of these "facts" are easily called into question. Russell engages in his discussion to
find out how knowledge of such things is possible at all.
So as to uncover the customary suspicions at issue, Russell focuses on one model, and the table
before him. Strolling around the table, he perceives various colors from various perspectives: in
places appearing to mirror all the lighter, a more splendid shade of earthy colored shows up.
Truly we expect that there is just one color of the table, yet the presence of numerous colors
repudiates our supposition. The color is by all accounts a connection relying upon the spectator,
his perspective, and conditions like “the way the light falls on the table.
Since it appears to be evident that no two individuals could share one indistinguishable
perspective, Russell enlists an uncertainty with regards to whether one genuine color of the table
even exists. Russell proceeds with his examination of color by thinking that in ordinary language
use, when we allude to the color of an item, we really allude to something seen from the standard
point of view of the onlooker. In any case, he proceeds, there is no motivation to accept that the
typical viewpoint ought to be viewed as genuine and different points of view, under different
conditions, be viewed as less genuine. Russell doesn't believe that the most normal browncolored
ought to be viewed as the brown colour of the table, to the rejection of other clear browns.
As with color, the existence of just one texture of the table is ambiguous, because “to the naked
eye, the table appears to be smooth and hard. Aided by microscope, the grain of the wood
enlarges to appear as a mountainous range of different roughness and textures.” Russell contends
that one can't consider one surface more genuine than another. The state of the table, a square
shape, likewise changes quick shape as one stroll around it. The vibe of weight relies upon the
power we apply on the table, as does the creation of sound when we rap on the wood. In this
way, the vibes of touch and sound, similar to locate, are not fixed by reality; they are obvious
prospects and each relies upon the states of perception. These perceptions lead to Russell's first
differentiation among appearance and reality, "between what things seem to be and what they
are" Russell recommends that we are not hit with these discontinuities in our day to day life on
the grounds that in functional experience, one learns "to develop the 'real' shape from the obvious
shape." The real shape exists in to such an extent as we construe it from our faculties.
He writes, "the real table, if there is one, is not immediately known to us at all, but must be an
inference from what is immediately known." The reality of the table, in the sense that there is a
table, depends on a process of inference based on a knowable part of reality, the part Russell
calls "sense-data". Sense-data are not the same as our sensations. Sense-data are "the things that
are immediately known to us in sensation." Variations in our sensations indicate that sensation
does not directly reveal the reality of an object like the table. Instead, it is probable that our
sensations are "signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations." To completely
get a handle on Russell's differentiation, consider sensation as a demonstration having a place
with the domain of experience and consider the object of that immediate experience to be
senseinformation. The item, a fix of red, delivers the sensation or experience of redness. Since
we have seen that specific information on the table's world isn't accessible through the faculties,
Russell asks how we can realize that a genuine table exists at all and what sort of assurance we
can have. It stays clear that we do have an encounter of mindfulness where we perceive colors
and different properties as a component of the table. While we may question the presence of a
genuine table, it is more enthusiastically to question our attention to our own sensations.
Accordingly, we can respect our trust in the sense-information of our ordinary encounters as safe.
The following issue that emerges as one of seeing how the genuine table, if there is one,
identifies with our sense-information. Russell expresses that it is difficult to comprehend, in this
phase of the conversation, if or how the connection would function. The inquiries we should
initially approach are: "is there a real table at all" and "if so, what sort of object can it be?" This
relation, between sense-data and the real table, is a substantial concern for Russell's enquiry.
Returning to his table, he admits that when we have been saying the "real table," we have meant
the "physical object." Physical objects may be understood as "matter." The questions at issue
become: "is there any such thing as matter" and "if so, what is its nature?"
In line with the thoughts of British philosopher Bishop Berkeley (1685–1753) who drew out the
position that the imediate objects, which we call physical items, don't exist autonomously of us,
Russell thinks about one potential response to the principal question. He declares that they rely
upon our psyches. In his view, matter doesn't exist. What we call physical objects are truly just
thoughts, mental items that we venture onto the world. The presence of items that seem to
compare to our sensations is questionable on this view. Russell's thought of the table offers
Berkeley's spirit of enquiry while he concurs with Berkeley that "if there are any things that exist
independently of us they cannot be the immediate objects of our sensations." Notwithstanding,
Berkeley's contentions offer a more extraordinary philosophical view, faith in the difficulty of a
reality of a man.
Now, Russell incorporates a significant differentiation between implications stuffed in "matter."
A typical origination of issue is something restricted to the mind, something that occupies a room
in the physical world and is totally unequipped for awareness. Berkeley refutes this sense from of
matter. He doesn't deny making a difference in the feeling of things like sense-information,
which connote the presence of something free of ourselves. As per Berkeley, this freedom is
conceivable; he accepts that there is something that continues when we close our eyes or leave a
room. In any case, he accepts that this something depends on its reality on a brain that it might be
free however should be mental. It must not be "independent of seeing altogether, though it must
be independent of our seeing." Thus, Berkeley regards the reality of the table and other such
physical objects as ideas in the mind of God. Things can exist independently as long as they are
not essentially unknowable.
Berkeley’s view is just one example of idealism, the view that there is "nothing acceptable as real
except minds and their ideas." Argument supporting this view maintains that "whatever can be
thought of is an idea in the mind of the person thinking it; therefore, nothing can be thought of
except ideas in minds; therefore, anything else is inconceivable, and what is inconceivable
cannot exist." Other philosophers held that the physical objects of the world merely depend on
being observed by some entity, not necessarily God. Leibniz (1646–1716) thought that physical
objects existed because they were observed by some conceptually collective mind, like the
universe itself. These philosophers denied matter "as opposed to mind."
Russell also accepts the version of matter that they do not deny. By reiterating his initial question
- "Is there a real table at all?" Russell points out his agreement with Berkeley and Leibniz in
believing that there is a real table. However, Russell disagrees with the idealists over the question
of the nature of the real table, the latter question "what sort of object can it be?" Russell
continues that "almost all philosophers agree that there is a real table" and that our sense-data are
signs of something that exists independent of us, something that may be said to cause the "sense
data whenever we are in a suitable relation to the real table." Before going on to an analysis of
matter, Russell recognizes the positive agreement to his first question as conspicuously important
and plans, in the next chapter, to investigate the reasons why anyone should believe this. Russell
concludes by reemphasizing that what we gather from our senses directly in terms of
"appearance" are but signs from which we infer “reality.”

REFERENCES
Lecture to [Link] 2016, Critical Thinking and Obstacles to Critical Thinking Retrieved
from [Link]
Raphael 2020, Obstacles to Critical Thinking part one, Retrieved from
[Link]
Raphael 2020, Obstacles to Critical Thinking part two, Retrieved from
[Link]
Geoff Pynn (2014). On Critical thinking, Retrieved from 22 [Link]
v=Cum3k-Wglfw
Gregory Basham (201I). Critical Thinking, 5 th edition, Retrieved from,
[Link]
introductionbassham-irwin/[Link]
Islam Rayhanul (2015). What are benefits and Importance of Critical thinking? Retrieved from,
[Link]
Lloyd, M. (July, 2010), Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking in Higher Education,
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Retrieved from
[Link] Vol. 4, No. 2.
Namwambah, T, (2007) Elements and Pedagogy of Critical thinking, Retrieved from
[Link]
&ved=2ahUKEwi7vu3o14HrAhWO3eAKHY7NCDcQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ

Potential (2018), Importance of Critical thinking, Retrieved from

[Link] Success Secrets 10 signs of critical thinking,
retrieved from [Link]
Kaityin Groover (March 2015). Levels of Critical thinking, Retrieved from
[Link]
Ken Changwong, (2018). Critical Thinking Skill Development: Analysis of a New Learning
Management Model for Thai High Schools, Retrieved. 31
[Link]
Linda Elder with Richard Paul, (2010) Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory, With
Implications for Instruction, Retrieved from
[Link]
Richard Paul, Linda Elder (2017) Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your
Professional and Personal Life, Retrieved from, [Link]
id=tcuEAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=critical+thinki
ng+tools+of+analysis+2019&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJotf875TrAhULqxoKHQX1AoMQ
uwUwAnoECAIQCA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Buckner, E.D. (2005). Principles of logic; Nature and aims of logic. Retrieved from
[Link] PHILO-notes
 Whiteboard Edition (Dec 23, 2018), What is Logic? Introduction to Logic. Retrieved from
[Link]
Paul Herrick (2011). Basic concepts of logic. Retrieved from
[Link]
Hurley Patrick (2015). A concise introduction to logic (12th Ed), Stanford: Cenange learning,
retrievedfrom[Link]
id=BTMaCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Patrick+J.
+Hurley+on+the+definition+of+logic.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjgomAzHqAhVMOhoKH
Q_dBxgQuwUwAHoECAAQBw#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20J.%20Hurley%20on%20the
%20definition%20of%20logic.&f=false
Critical thinker academy, Identifying premises and conclusions. Retrieved from
[Link]
Kevin Delaplante (January 2013), What is a fallacy? Retrieved from
[Link]
Amelia Elliott (Feb, 15 2019), 10 common Logical fallacies. Retrieved from
[Link]
Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University; How to identify fallacies in an argument. Retrieved from
[Link]
Dr. Tom Namwamba (28th January 2018) What is a fallacy? Retrieved from
[Link]
is-fallacy-there-is-no-universally-accepte/2014122768827003/
Vleet, V. J. E. (2012). Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide. Lanham: University Press of
[Link]://[Link]/books?id=dnLKeGXQnJgC&p
rintsec=frontcover&dq=fallacies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0xqazjDqAhWa
A2MBHa86A8EQ6AEwAXoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=fallacies&f=false
Dr. Kerns T., in The Theaetetus, 150 b-c., Socrates as a midwife; North Seattle Community
College, Retrieved from [Link]
[Link] Namwambah (January 29th 2018) Socratic method. Retrieved from
[Link]
destinynamwambah-phdquestion-critically-examine-the-r/2014464008792879/
Socratic Method as an approach in teaching (2016). Retrieved from;
[Link]
Gregory B. Sadler, (Sep 9, 2014), The Gadfly Analogy made by Socrates in Plato's Apology –
Philosophy Core Concepts. Retrieved from [Link]
Faith Lam (2011), Thesis on “The Socratic Method as an Approach to Learning and Its
Benefits”. Retrieved from
[Link]
Chaffee, J. (2012). Thinking critically, Page 52. Boston: Wadsworth/Clengage Learning.
Retrieved from; [Link]
id=SLqXBGcbUmcC&pg=PA52&dq=socratic+method
+and+critical+thinking&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSssySue3qAhUD2uAKHXq7A5
MQuwUwBnoECAcQBw#v=onepage&q=socratic%20method%20and%20critical%20thi
nking&f=false