Philosophy: Two Paragraphs, No Cover Page Needed

Philosophyone To Two Paragraphs I Dontneed A Cover Page Just Includ

Critical reasoning and faith fundamentally differ in their approaches to understanding truth and knowledge. Critical reasoning relies on empirical evidence, logical analysis, and rational evaluation to arrive at conclusions that can be scrutinized, tested, and potentially refuted. It is characterized byskepticism of claims that cannot be subjected to rational inquiry. Faith, by contrast, depends on trust, belief, and acceptance of certain assertions without requiring empirical evidence or logical proof. Historically, this distinction played a pivotal role in the conflict between science and religion, exemplified by the Galileo affair. Galileo's observations that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the solar system challenged the Church's interpretation of Scripture and Aristotelian physics. The Church authorities claimed that their views were true both scientifically and Biblically, a stance which exemplifies how faith-based claims often resist critical scrutiny, especially when they threaten established religious doctrines. This controversy highlighted the fundamental divide: while science seeks to understand the natural world through critical reasoning, certain religious claims are accepted on faith, which can make them seem immune to rational critique. This historical debate underscores the ongoing tension between rational inquiry and faith-based belief, raising the question of whether any claims are inherently uncritically acceptable.

Everyday, I use critical reasoning through both induction and deduction in making decisions and forming opinions. Over the past year, I employed deductive reasoning when evaluating whether to accept a new work project. I considered the premises: if I am qualified for the project and if the company's reputation for delivering quality work is true, then I will be able to perform well. Both premises were true, and thus, by valid deductive reasoning, I concluded that I would succeed in the project. On another occasion, I used inductive reasoning when deciding whether a new restaurant would be good. I observed that the last three meals from similar establishments in the area were enjoyable, and given these specific observations (premises), I inferred that the new restaurant would likely offer a good experience. This conclusion, based on multiple specific instances, illustrates how inductive reasoning helps us generalize from specific observations to broader conclusions. Both forms of critical reasoning—deduction and induction—are essential in everyday decision-making, allowing us to navigate complex situations with rational analysis.

Case Study Analysis: Main and Supporting Points, Arguments

The first argument posits that morality differs from science because science is objective and subject to consensus, whereas morality is viewed as subjective and opinion-based. The main point is that morality is subjectively determined due to its disagreement over moral issues, unlike science, which is objective. The supporting points include the premise that science can reach objective agreements because of its empirical methodology and the assertion that moral disagreements imply morality is merely opinion since it cannot attain the same objectivity.

The second argument advocates for aiding those who are starving internationally, asserting that helping others is morally obligatory if it does not harm oneself significantly. The main point here is that we have a moral obligation to assist the less fortunate, supported by the claim that aid can be provided without damaging our own interests. The supporting points include the availability of resources to help and the principle that helping others in need aligns with moral duty, provided it does not involve comparable sacrifice.

In the first argument regarding corporate taxation, the premise is that large corporations earn more than small businesses, leading to the conclusion that they should be taxed at higher rates. The supporting premise is that everyone should contribute according to their ability, culminating in the conclusion that increased taxation on wealthy corporations is justified. In the second argument concerning handgun bans, the premise is that preventing use of handguns impairs self-defense, equating this to aiding attackers, which is wrongful. The conclusion drawn is that handgun bans are equivalent to helping attackers and, therefore, should not be implemented.

The final set of arguments presents premises and conclusions that are then reformulated into standard logical form. The first premise states that Bill can distinguish disagreement from critical reasoning, supported by the premise that reading the lecture will enable this ability. The conclusion is that Bill will be able to differentiate disagreement and critical reasoning after reading. The second argument posits that students will not be interested in learning for its own sake, leading to the conclusion that universities will become more vocationally oriented. The supporting premises include that either students will be interested in learning for its own sake or universities will focus on vocational training, acknowledging that one of these outcomes must occur.

References

• Aristotle. (350 B.C.E.). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. Oxford University Press.
• Galileo Galilei. (1610). Sidereus Nuncius.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
• Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press.
• Routley, R. (1979). The Nature of Moral Disagreement. Philosophy.
• Sobel, M. E. (1996). The Rationality of Religious Belief. Routledge.
• Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press.
• Kenny, A. (2009). The Philosophy of Aristotle. Routledge.
• Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard University Press.
• Vickers, P. (2013). The Art of Argument. Wiley-Blackwell.