Accelerating the world's research
Practical work on logic (tasks and
exercises)
Translated from: Практикум по логике (задачи и упражнения)
Ольга Дольская
Need to cite this paper? Want more papers like this?
Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Download a PDF Pack of related papers
Chicago styles
Search Academia's catalog of 47 million
free papers
translated with [Link]
TRANSLATION 1
Practical work on logic (tasks and
exercises)
Ольга Дольская
Original Paper
Abstract
The publication contains educational and methodological materials necessary for
students to master the course "Logic and Methodology of Science", to enhance self-study and
intellectual activity. Intended for students, graduate students and anyone interested in the
science of correct thinking Il. 19 Bibliography: 18 names.
FOREWORD
Logic is one of the oldest sciences, which is of fundamental importance for a wide
variety of areas of human activity. It is widely used in various sciences, mathematics and
linguistics, management theory and pedagogy, jurisprudence, and economics. Without the
principles and laws of logic, the modern methodology of cognition and communication is
unthinkable. This educational publication formulates the content of those issues that are
fundamental in logic: the theory of concepts, judgments, inferences, the theory of proof,
sophisms and paradoxes; the main provisions of the logic and methodology of the greatest
philosopher of the 20th century, Karl Popper. Knowledge of the laws of logic is necessary for
every person. The media, the internet, hundreds of books and articles bombard us with a lot
of information. How to define true knowledge? In a world overloaded with information,
misinformation spreads quite quickly. As a result, a person can refuse the power of false
information that produces a lot of misconceptions: from politics to medicine. Pseudoscience,
ufology, astrology, occultism, various primitive beliefs, prejudices, mythological delusions,
belief in the World Conspiracy, etc. find fertile ground in the minds of people. In the age of
populism, advertising and the Internet, it is necessary to form critical thinking and know the
laws of logic - this will be a reliable guide to help weed out unreliable, misleading, and
sometimes life-threatening information.
TRANSLATION 2
CONTENT
LITERATURE INTRODUCTION
Modern logic is a branch of mathematics and philosophy. At most major universities, the
mathematics and philosophy departments offer courses in logic, and there is usually a lot in
common between the two. Formal languages, deductive systems, and model-theoretic
semantics are mathematical entities, and as such, the logician is interested in their
mathematical properties and relationships, validity, and completeness. Philosophical logic is
closely related to the study of correct reasoning. Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity.
So logic is at least closely related to epistemology. Logic is also a central branch of computer
science, due in part to certain computational relationships in logical systems and in part to
the close relationship between formal deductive reasoning and reasoning. Formal languages,
deductive systems, and model-theoretic semantics are mathematical entities, and as such,
the logician is interested in their mathematical properties and relationships. Logic and
reasoning go hand in hand. We say that someone has reasoned badly about something if they
have not reasoned logically, or that an argument is bad because it is not logically sound. To
date, research has focused on exactly what types of logical systems are suitable for our
reasoning. Critical thinking based on the laws of logic is considered as the basic literacy of an
educated person.
SECTION BASIC CONCEPTS OF LOGIC
Topic 1 The subject of logic A brief glossary of terms The subject of logic is inferential
knowledge, that is, knowledge obtained from previously verified truths in accordance with
certain laws. Logic is not interested in the true characterization of the original knowledge in
each individual case. The task of logic is to establish whether the conclusion follows from
certain premises with necessity or probably.
The law of thought, or logical law, is a judgment that expresses an internal necessary
essential connection between thoughts or their elements in the process of reasoning or
proof.
The law of identity fixes one of the fundamental properties of thinking - its certainty.
According to this law, every thought in the process of reasoning must be identical to itself.
This means that the subject of thought must be considered in the same content of its
features throughout the argument or proof.
The law of contradiction expresses the requirement of consistency and consistency of
thinking. This means that, having recognized certain propositions as true and developing the
TRANSLATION 3
conclusions from these propositions, we cannot allow any assertions in our reasoning or
proof that contradict what was said earlier.
Law of the excluded middle. According to this law, of two contradictory statements, one
and only one is true. This is the case when "there is no third," i.e., a true statement cannot be
between contradictory statements.
1. Is the law of identity preserved when answering these questions? 1. What is your
specialty: -I am an economist. -I am a housewife. 2. Will you drink coffee? - I'll drink coffee.
- I won't drink coffee.
-I will drink tea.
2. Find the logic error. Justify the answer. 1. One fire brigade was always late for fires.
After another delay, the fireman issued an order: "Due to the fact that the team is
systematically late for the fire, I order from the next day everyone to leave 15 minutes before
the start of the fire."
3. What kind of logic are we talking about here: 1. “Perhaps he is a madman,” says one of
the heroes of the story of the English writer G.K. Chesterton, “but there is logic in his
madness. There is almost always logic in madness. That's what drives people crazy."
Theme 3 Judgment
Judgment is a form of thinking by which something is affirmed or denied about an object
and which has the logical meaning of truth or falsity. This definition characterizes a simple
proposition.
The subject is the part of the judgment in which the subject of thought is expressed.
A predicate is a part of a proposition in which something is affirmed or denied about the
subject of thought.
1. General affirmative - judgments that are both general and affirmative.
2. Particularly affirmative are judgments that are private and affirmative at the same
time.
3. General negative - common and negative at the same time.
TRANSLATION 4
4. Particularly negative - private and negative at the same time.
A compound proposition is a proposition formed from simple propositions through the
logical unions of conjunction, disjunction, implication, equivalence.
A conjunctive proposition is a proposition that is true if and only if all of its constituent
propositions are true. It is formed by means of a logical union of a conjunction, expressed by
the grammatical unions "and", "yes", "but", "however".
Strict (exclusive) disjunction is a complex proposition that takes the logical value of truth
if and only if only one of its constituent propositions is true.
A non-strict (non-exclusive) disjunction is a complex proposition that takes the logical
value of true if and only if at least one (but may be more) of the simple propositions included
in the complex one is true.
An implication is a compound proposition that takes on the logical value of false if and
only if the preceding proposition is true and the following is false.
Equivalence is a complex proposition that takes on the logical value of truth if and only if
the propositions included in it have the same logical value, that is, they are either true or false
at the same time.
Find the subject and predicate of the judgment:
1. The economic life of the nation appears as a direct and feedback connection between
the three sectors of the economy.
2. The economic system is an integral set of strongly interconnected economic relations.
3. Each element of a complex economic whole acts as its systemic part.
4. Labor is the most important source of wealth. 5. Factory workers create new value with
their labor.
6. Ownership is a very complex phenomenon. 7. The production of material goods is
essentially nothing but the appropriation of natural matter and energy by people.
8. Lease is an agreement on the provision of property for temporary use for a certain fee.
9. An individual is a subject of civil (property) rights and obligations.
TRANSLATION 5
10. The boundaries of the right to use are determined by law. 2. Find a conjunctive
judgment: 1. Shines, but does not warm. 2. This number is either a multiple or not a multiple
of five. 3. Writers can be either poets or prose writers. 4. We will watch the stars when and
only when the weather is good. 5. If the number is divisible by 9, then it is also divisible by 3.
6. Students will either pass the logic test or join the army. 7. The guys drank tea and coffee.
3. Find contradictory statements: 1. All people are mortal; some people are not mortal. 1.
"Meadow of grain". A large mass of small grains always produces noise when falling to the
ground. It is made up of the noise of individual grains, and, therefore, every grain and every
smallest part of the grain must produce noise when falling. However, a single grain falls to the
ground quite silently. This means that a copper grain falling to the ground should not make
noise, because it consists of many grains, each of which falls silently. But still, the medimn of
the grain falls with noise! 6. Why do logical paradoxes signal the fact of the possibility of
contradictions in scientific theories, as well as the need to overcome them by clarifying the
logical foundations of the theory, clarifying concepts, etc.?
Analyze the following paradoxes: 1. The “city mayor” paradox is as follows: every city
mayor lives either in his city or outside it. An order was issued to allocate one special city,
where only mayors who do not live in their city would live. Where should the mayor of this
special city live? If he wants to live in his city, then he cannot do this, since only mayors who
do not live in their city live there: if he does not want to live in his city, then, like all mayors
who do not live in their cities , he must live in the allotted city, that is, in his own. So, he cannot
live either in his city or outside it. The “city mayor” paradox is similar to the “barber” paradox.
According to it, each soldier can shave himself or be shaved by another soldier. An order was
issued to allocate one special soldier, a barber, who would shave only those soldiers who do
not shave themselves. Who should shave this specially assigned barber soldier? If he wants
to shave himself, then he cannot do this, since he can shave only those soldiers who do not
shave themselves; if he does not shave himself, then he must shave with a special barber
soldier, that is, with himself. So he can neither shave himself nor not shave himself. 10
theses of K. Popper
Every source is open to critical scrutiny 2. It is necessary to
reconcile statements with facts 3. Compatibility of theories with
observations 4. Search for consistency 5. Tradition as a source of
knowledge 6. Knowledge cannot begin from nothing - from tabula
rasa and cannot begin from observations. 7. There is a criterion that
helps us to detect error and falsehood. 8. Neither observation nor
TRANSLATION 6
reason have absolute authority, but they contribute to the critical
examination of those bold assumptions by which we examine our
ignorance. 9. We should not strive for a higher accuracy than our
problem requires. 10. Our knowledge can only be finite, while our
ignorance must necessarily be infinite. K. Popper
Here are the full explanations of K. Popper: 1. There are no primary sources of
knowledge. Every source, every suggestion should be welcomed, but every source, every
suggestion is open to critical scrutiny. Short of history, we usually check the facts
themselves, not the sources of our information.
2. The real epistemological question is not one of sources, we are more interested in
whether the statement is true, i.e. whether it agrees with the facts. (The work of Alfred Tarski
showed that we can use the idea of objective truth in the sense of conformity with facts
without falling into contradictions.) And we can try to discover this either by directly testing
the statement itself or by testing its consequences.
3. All types of argumentation can be used in this test. A typical procedure is to test the
compatibility of our theories with observations. But one can also check whether our historical
sources are internally and mutually consistent.
4. From the point of view of quantity and quality, the most important source of our
knowledge, apart from innate knowledge, is tradition. Most of what we know, we learned
through examples, stories, through reading books, learning to criticize, accept criticism and
honor the truth.
5. The fact that most of the sources of our knowledge are traditional shows the futility of
anti-traditionalism. However, it cannot be considered a confirmation of the traditionalist
position, for every bit of our traditional knowledge (and even our innate knowledge) is open to
critical scrutiny and can be subverted. Nevertheless, without tradition knowledge would be
impossible.
6. Knowledge cannot begin from nothing - from tabula rasa and cannot begin from
observations. The development of knowledge consists mainly in the modification of earlier
knowledge. Although sometimes, for example, in archeology, we can advance due to a lucky
observation, the importance of a discovery is usually determined by its ability to change our
previous theories.
7. Pessimistic and optimistic epistemologies are approximately equally wrong. Plato's
pessimistic account of the cave is true, not his optimistic account of anamnesis (even if one
accepts that all humans, like all animals and even plants, have some innate knowledge). But
TRANSLATION 7
despite the fact that the world of phenomena is really only a dance of shadows on the walls
of our cave, we all constantly go beyond it, and although the truth, as Democritus said, is
hidden in the depths, we can explore this depth. We have no criterion of truth, and this fact
supports pessimism. However, we have a criterion that, if successful, helps us to detect an
error and a lie. Clarity and distinctness are not criteria of truth, but things like obscurity or
confusion can indicate error. In the same way, consistency cannot testify to truth, but
contradictions and incoherence testify to falsity. And when our mistakes are realized, they
throw a weak beam of light that helps us get out of the darkness of our cave.
8. Neither observation nor reason has absolute authority. Intellectual intuition and
imagination are extremely important, but they are unreliable: they are capable of presenting
things to us very clearly and yet misleading us. They are necessary as the main source of our
theories, but most of our theories are false. The most important function of observation and
reasoning, and even of intuition and imagination, is to contribute to the critical examination of
those bold assumptions by which we examine our ignorance. 9. Although clarity is valuable in
itself, rigor and precision are not: we should not aim for a higher precision than our problem
requires. Linguistic accuracy is a misleading phantom, and problems related to the definition
or meaning of words are unimportant. Words are important only as tools for formulating
theories, and verbal problems should be avoided at all costs.
10. Each solution to a problem gives rise to new unsolved problems that are deeper than
the original problem and require more daring solutions. The more and deeper we plunge into
the study of the world, the more conscious and accurate becomes our knowledge of what we
do not know, the knowledge of our ignorance. Indeed, the main source of our ignorance lies in
the fact that our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be
infinite. We can get some idea of the vastness of our ignorance by contemplating the
vastness of the sky overhead, and although the size of the universe alone is not the deepest
cause of our ignorance, yet it is one of its causes.
(1) It is easy to get confirmations, or verifications, for almost every theory if we are
looking for confirmations.
(2) Confirmations should be taken into account only if they are the result of risky
predictions, that is, when we, not being aware of some theory, would expect an event
inconsistent with this theory, an event that disproves this theory.
(3) Every "good" scientific theory is a kind of prohibition: it prohibits the occurrence of
certain events. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
(4) A theory that is not refuted by any conceivable event is unscientific. Irrefutability is
not a virtue of a theory (as is often thought), but its vice.
TRANSLATION 8
(5) Every real test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, that is, to disprove it. Verifiability
is falsifiability; at the same time, there are degrees of testability: some theories are more
testable, more refutable than others; such theories are, so to speak, at greater risk.
(6) Supporting evidence should not be taken into account unless it is the result of a
genuine test of the theory. This means that it should be understood as the result of a serious
but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (Now in such cases I speak of "corroborating
evidence.") ad hoc reinterpretations of the theory that save it from refutation. Such a
procedure is always possible, but it saves the theory from refutation only at the cost of
destroying or at least reducing its scientific status ("conventionalist strategy" or
"conventionalist ploy".)
All of the above can be summarized in the following statement: the criterion for the
scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutation, or testability.
Astrology is not tested. Astrologers are so delusional about what constitutes
corroborating evidence that they pay no attention to examples that are unfavorable to them.
Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophecies sufficiently vague, they are able to
explain everything that could prove to be a refutation of their theory, if it and the prophecies
that follow from it were more accurate. To avoid falsification, they destroy the testability of
their theories. This is the usual trick of all soothsayers: to predict events so indefinitely that
the predictions always come true, that is, that they are irrefutable.
K. Popper Proofs and rebuttals.
Rice. 13 Soothsayers destroy the testability of their theories
Rice. 14 Cancer or Pisces? Maybe it's still human?
[Link] Here is a classic example of
"astrological prediction": All Aries needs today is good advice from a competent person.
There are probably a couple of professionals in your immediate environment who will help
you find the right solution. Consider going on vacation, now is a very good time for this, you
will not only normalize your emotional state, but also improve your health. Tune in today to a
diplomatic wave, the main thing is not to take sides, the future will put everything in its place.
Perhaps it's time to think about who to share the burden of household chores with. If you
have a clear idea of what is most important for you at the moment, feel free to take on the
implementation of your plans, but do not strive to command the parade, since the role of the
first person is not for you now, but even being in the shadows, you can do just as much.
(source: [Link]
TRANSLATION 9
These superficial predictions apply to all occasions and to all people. For example, who
does not need advice from a competent person, and who has not thought about the burden of
household chores? Astrologers do not give verifiable predictions, despite the fact that many
have personal websites where they can publish these predictions in advance.
K. Popper notes that the Marxist theory of history, despite the serious efforts of some of
its founders and followers, eventually adopted this practice of predictions. In some of its early
formulations (for example, in Marx's analysis of the nature of the "coming social revolution")
it made verifiable predictions and was indeed falsified. However, instead of accepting this
refutation, the followers of Marx reinterpreted both theory and evidence in order to bring them
into line.
In this way they saved their theory from refutation, but this was achieved at the cost of
using means that made it generally irrefutable. Thus, they gave their theory a "conventionalist
character" and, through this subterfuge, destroyed its well-publicized claims to scientific
status.
The tendency to search for regularities and impose laws on nature leads to the
psychological phenomenon of dogmatic thinking or, more generally, dogmatic behavior: we
expect regularities to exist everywhere and try to look for them even where they do not exist.
Events that do not lend themselves to these attempts, we tend to interpret as some kind of
"background noise" and do not leave our expectations even when they turn out to be
inadequate and we should admit defeat. Such dogmatism is to some extent necessary. We
need it when investigating situations that can only be dealt with when we impose our
assumptions on the world. In addition, such dogmatism allows us to gradually approach the
construction of good theories: if we admit defeat too easily, then this may prevent us from
discovering that we were close to the truth. Explanation In their desire to understand the
world around them, people created mythological systems that explained the events of
everyday life and natural phenomena. Over the past centuries, the function of explaining the
surrounding world has gradually passed to science. Explanation is a cognitive procedure
aimed at enriching and deepening knowledge about the phenomena of the real world by
including these phenomena in the structure of certain connections, relationships and
dependencies, which makes it possible to reveal the essential features of this phenomenon.
Explanation structure In the structure of explanation as a cognitive procedure, the
following elements can be distinguished: 1) initial knowledge about the phenomenon being
explained (the so-called explanandum);
2) knowledge used as a condition and means of explanation, allowing to consider the
phenomenon being explained in the context of a certain system or structure (the so-called
foundations of explanation, or, explanance);
TRANSLATION 10
3) cognitive actions that allow applying the knowledge that serves as the basis of
explanation to the phenomenon being explained.
Deductive-nomological explanation (the model of the enveloping law, or the Hempel-
Oppenheim model). To give a causal explanation of some event means to deduce its
statement, using as premises one or more universal laws together with certain singular
statements and initial conditions. For example, "The thread to which a 2 kg weight is
suspended breaks." To explain this event, the physicist will use the following universal law: "It
is true for any thread that if it is loaded more than its strength limit, then it breaks." Now, in
order to finally explain the break of a particular thread, it is necessary to apply the universal
law to this thread, imposing on the law some concretizing conditions, which are called initial
conditions. Such a model of explanation presupposes the existence of some theory with a
language within which universal laws and initial conditions are formulated.
Rational explanation Rational is rational and logical, which is different from bodily,
emotional and sensual. This is competence and knowledge, skills and abilities, and not
feelings and premonitions, desires and impulses, impressions and experiences.
Scientific rationality is a set of rules, norms, models of scientific and cognitive activity
that ensure the scientific truth of the result of cognition. Basic requirements of scientific
rationality:
Orientation to objectivity, elimination of subjective, emotional and valuable moments
from the content of knowledge.
Task 10 Find a logical error.
The American newspaper "New York Times" published a sensation: a human skeleton
was discovered on the moon. Such stunning news does not look like an ordinary newspaper
"duck", since a respectable organ refers to a recognized authority - the leading Chinese
astrophysicist Mao Kang. And it is impossible to reject this scientist from the threshold: it
was Mao Kang who in the winter of 1988 shocked the entire scientific world by publishing
photographs of a bare human foot on the lunar surface at a conference in Beijing. And he
said at the same time that he received these pictures "from a reliable source in the United
States"). Task 12 Find a logical error. At the Altai Polytechnic Institute, in the laboratory of
Professor Pavel Goskov, the following experiment was carried out: Holy water was added to
ordinary water in the ratio of -10 milliliters of "holy" to 60 liters of "ordinary". The analysis of
the obtained water showed amazing things: after some time, ordinary water turned into "holy"
in its structure and biological properties ([Link]/article/1467).
TRANSLATION 11
Scientific rationality has the evidence of any propositions put
forward that fit into the general system of scientific knowledge.
Different types of evidence are used in science: theoretical and empirical, cognitive and
practical, analytical and synthetic, deductive and inductive. In all diachronic and synchronic
sections and states of science, there is a clear and distinct desire to achieve evidence-based,
theoretically and practically substantiated knowledge, which fundamentally distinguishes
science from various forms of extrascientific knowledge.
A fact is a special sentence that fixes empirical knowledge, a statement or a condition
that can be verified (objective and verifiable observation. Objectivity here means
independence from the observer: no matter who conducts the experiment, its observed
results must remain unchanged). Facts also include statements proven within the framework
of the scientific picture of the world (“scientific fact”). Subtle bodies are not subject to any
influences: "damages", deformations, and other things that they talk about refer to their
information fields, in which there are no "currents" of life ... In fields that have their own
"current", there can be no violations maybe, but it takes some work...
Task 13
Scientific rationality has organized criticism: the desire to verify and
establish the boundaries of the truth of any put forward provisions.
The specification of various requirements for scientific rationality depends on the
characteristics of scientific disciplines. In this regard, it is customary to distinguish between:
a) the mathematical ideal of scientific rationality with a focus on the perfection of the
conclusion from the original postulates; b) the natural-science ideal of scientific rationality
with an emphasis on experimental verification of the propositions put forward; c) the social
and humanitarian ideal of scientific rationality, which allows for the possibility of correlating
the results of cognition with the fundamental values for a given society. of life, because, as a
rule, we pay too much attention to some cells and not enough to others. Research shows that
we usually pay too much attention to cell A and almost no attention to cell B (Gilovich, 1991).
This is understandable because cell A is usually more interesting and memorable than cell B.
After all, when there is a full moon and a lot of people are admitted to psychiatric hospitals,
this confirms our initial expectations, so we tend to notice it, remember it, tell others about it.
Cell A is "luck" - an unforgettable combination. But when there is a full moon and no patients
are admitted to psychiatric hospitals, we hardly notice or remember this "undistinguished
event." Nor will we probably run excitedly over to our friends to tell them, “Wow, it was a full
moon today, and guess what happened? Nothing!" Cell B is a "miss" - the absence of an
TRANSLATION 12
unforgettable combination. Our tendency to remember successes and forget failures often
leads to a remarkable phenomenon called illusory correlation, the erroneous perception that
two statistically unrelated events are in fact related (Chapman & Chapman, 1967). The
alleged relationship between the full moon and the admission of patients to psychiatric
hospitals is a striking example of an illusory correlation. Although many people believe that
this correlation exists, studies show that this is not the case (Rotton Sc Kelly, 1985; see myth
#42). Belief in the full moon effect is a cognitive illusion.
Deriving Causation from Correlation
It is incorrect to conclude that if two things happen at the same time statistically (that is,
if two things are "correlated"), then they must be causally related to each other. Correlation
does not mean causation. Therefore, if variables A and B are correlated, there can be three
main explanations for this correlation: (a) A can cause (cause) B, (b) B can cause A, or (c) a
third variable, C, can cause both A and B. This last scenario is known as the third variable
problem, because the third variable that can contribute to the association between variables
A and C. The problem is that the people who did this study may never have measured C. Or
maybe they didn't know about the existence of this S.
Thinking Post Nose, Ergo Propter Hoc
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." Many of us
quickly conclude that since A precedes B, then A must cause B. But many events that occur
before other events do not cause them. For example, the fact that almost all serial killers ate
oatmeal as children does not mean that eating this dish will lead to the transformation of a
person into a maniac in adulthood. Or just because some people experience less depression
after they take an herbal remedy, doesn't mean that the herbal remedy caused or helped them
feel better. These people might have become less depressed even without the herbal remedy,
or they might have used other effective remedies (such as talking to a doctor or a supportive
friend) around the same time. Or the use of the herbal remedy gave them hope, and this led
to what psychologists call the placebo effect: the improvement that comes from just
expecting improvement. Even experienced scientists can fall prey to post hoc, ergo propter
thinking. In the journal Medical Hypotheses, Flensmark noted that the introduction of shoes
into the Western world about 1,000 years ago was soon followed by the first cases of
schizophrenia. Based on this, he suggested that shoes played a role in the appearance of this
disease. But the advent of footwear simply coincided with other changes, such as increased
modernization or deteriorating living conditions, that may have been more conducive to the
onset of schizophrenia.
TRANSLATION 13
Non-representative sample
In the media and in many areas of everyday life, we are often confronted with a non-
random, or, as psychologists say, "unrepresentative" sample - the opinions of people
representing the entire population. For example, approximately 75% of mentally ill people are
portrayed as violent on television (Wahl, 1997), although far fewer are actually violent (Teplin,
1985; see Myth #43). Such distorted media coverage can lead people to the misconception
that the majority of those who suffer from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (once called manic
depression) and other serious mental illnesses are dangerous to others.
Psychotherapists are especially prone to err in this regard, because they spend most of
their working time with an unrepresentative group of people, namely with people undergoing
psychological (psychiatric) treatment. Here's an example: many psychotherapists find it very
difficult for people to quit smoking on their own. However, studies show that many, if not
most, smokers succeed in kicking the habit without formal psychological treatment
(Schachter, 1982). These psychotherapists are likely to fall prey to what the statisticians
Patricia and Jacob Cohen have called the clinician's delusion—the tendency of physicians to
overestimate the degree of chronicity (oldness) of a psychological problem because they
selectively deal with chronic cases. That is, because such doctors usually only see people
who cannot stop smoking on their own (because that is why they came for help), these
clinicians tend to overestimate the inability of such smokers to stop smoking without
treatment.
Reasoning with representativeness
We often judge the similarity between two things based on their superficial similarity to
each other. Psychologists call this phenomenon heuristic representativeness (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1974) because we use the degree to which two things are "representative" of
each other to assess how similar they are. "Heuristic", by the way, is a mnemonic method or a
rule of thumb.
Most often, heuristic representativeness (like other heuristics) serves us well (Gigerenzer,
2007). If we are walking down the street and see some armed masked man running out of
the bank, then we will probably try to get out of there as quickly as possible. Because this
person is representative - similar to the bank robbers we saw on TV and in the movies. Of
course, perhaps he is just joking, or this is an actor starring in an action movie, but, as they
say, God saves the safe (better safe). In this case, we relied on the mnemonic method and,
apparently, acted wisely.
However, sometimes we use heuristic representativeness when we don't need to. Not all
things that superficially resemble each other are related to each other, heuristic
TRANSLATION 14
representativeness sometimes confuses us (Gilovich & Savitsky, 1996). In these cases, it
is necessary and correct to follow common sense: we cannot always judge a book by its
cover. In fact, many myths about psychology are probably the result of a misuse of
representativeness. For example, some graphologists (handwriting experts) argue that people
who write in sweeping handwriting need interpersonal space, or that English-speakers who
draw dashes in the letters "t" and "f" like whips tend to be sadistic. In this case, graphologists
assume that two things that superficially resemble each other, such as handwriting and the
need for interpersonal space, are statistically related. However, there is no scientific evidence
for such claims (Beyerstein Beyerstein, 1992; see Myth #36).
Another example is the drawing of people, which many clinical psychologists use to study
the nature of respondents and their psychological deviations (Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding
& Hallmark, 1995). For example, a human figure drawing test is often used. The
respondent is asked to draw a person (or in some cases two people of opposite sexes) as
they wish. Some clinicians who use these tests claim that respondents who draw people with
big eyes are paranoid, those who draw people with big heads are narcissistic (selfish), and
those who draw people with long ties are horny (long tie).
Selective perception and memory cause us to remember events that confirm our beliefs
and forget those that do not.
Task 16 Find false and true statements, pick up rebuttals, for example, the statement:
“Some people have truly“ photographic memories ”. Rebuttal: There is no evidence for this
claim; our brains are not big enough to store memories of everything we have experienced.
Even people with "eidetic imagination," the closest analogue to photographic memory, fall
short in recalling and reconstructing events. Another example. "Speed reading courses are
effective." Refutation. Almost all speed reading courses are ineffective because they reduce
comprehension.
The memories of everything we have experienced are permanently stored in our brain,
even if we cannot access them.
Students usually remember only 10% of what they read.
Deaf people can understand most of what other people say by reading their lips.
There is solid evidence for the notion of "national character".
The profession of a postman is the most dangerous of all. Most psychopaths are violent.
The P. T. Barnum effect, the tendency to believable in vague and general descriptions of
personality (Meehl, 1956; see Myths #36, 40), is probably a key factor in the popularity of
TRANSLATION 15
forensic psychology (Glad-well, 2007). Most forensic psychologists dilute their predictions
with statements that are so vague as to be virtually unverifiable (“the killer has unresolved
self-esteem issues”), so general that they apply to almost everyone (“the killer has conflicts
with his family”), or rely on to basic information about most crimes (“the killer probably left
the body in or near the water”). Because many of their predictions are hard to prove no matter
who the perpetrator turns out to be, forensic psychologists can turn out to be surprisingly
accurate (Alison, Smith, Eastman 8c Rainbow, 2003; Snook et al., 2008).
LITERATURE
References
Конверський А. Є. Логіка (традиційна та сучасна) : підручник / А. Є. Конверський. – К.,
2004. – 535 с. 2. Краткий словарь по логике / сост. Д. П. Горский, А. А. Ивин, А. Л.
Никифоров. [под ред. Д. П. Горского]. – М., 1991. – 208 с.
Кремень В. Г. Логіка : підручник / В. Г. Кремень, С. М. Пазиніч, П. П. Резніков та ін. – Х.,
2004. – 636 с.
Мозгова Н. Г. Логіка : навч. посібник / Н. Г. Мозгова. – К., 2007. – 248 с.
Непейвода Н. Н. Вызовы логики и математики ХХ века и «ответ» на них цивилизации /
Н. Н. Непейвода // Вопр. философии. – 2005. – № 8. – С. 118–128.
Романовський О. Г. Логіка : навч. посібник /
О. Г. Романовський, С. М. Пазиніч, П. П. Резніков. – Х. : НТУ «ХПІ», 2004. – 492 с.
Смирнова Е. Д. Логика и философия / Е. Д. Смирнова // Вопр. философии. – 2000. – №
12. – С. 35–48.
Титов В. Д. Логическое знание в его социально- исторической детерминации
(религиозный, правовой, политический контекст Древности и Средних веков) :
монография / В. Д. Титов. – Х., 2004.
Тягло А. В. Критическое мышление : проблема мирового образования ХХІ века / А. В.
Тягло, Т. С. Воропай. – Х., 1999. – 285 с. 10. Тягло А. В. Критическое мышление на
основе элементарной логики : учебное пособие / А. В. Тягло. – Х., 2001. – 210 с.
TRANSLATION 16
Шкатов Д. П. Логика на пороге нового тысячелетия : к итогам второй Международной
конференции «Смирновские чтения» / Д. П. Шкатов, С. Н. Коняев // Вопр. философии. –
2000. – № 1. – С. 168–173. 12. Харт-Дэвис А. Удивительные математические
головоломки. - М. : Астрель, 2003. – 93 с. 13. Харшман Э.Д. Хитрые задачи на
нестандартное мышление. М. : Астрель, 2006. – 92 с. 14. Lee Siu-Fan Logic: A Complete
Introduction (Complete Introductions) Teach Yourself; 1 edition (April 25, 2017) 208 p/ - 192
p.
Rumfitt, I. [2015], The Boundary Stones of Thought: An Essay in the Philosophy of Logic,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 16. Shapiro, S. [1991], Foundations without Foundationalism,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bergmann, M., J. Moor and J. Nelson [2013], The logic book, sixth edition, New York: McGraw-
Hill. Elementary and intermediate level.
Cohnitz D. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic (Cambridge Introductions to
Philosophy) Cambridge University Press 2019 274 p.
[Link] P. Logic: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) Oxford University
Press 2017 152 p.