Saturday, April 14, 2012
Zen Quotes: Top ten essential love quotes every lover must kno...
Zen Quotes: Top ten essential love quotes every lover must kno...: I thought a lot of people would be interested in love quotes so I went around and found love some quotes that I think you would like so ...
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
THINKING
*Thinking is a series of ideas that is directed, however vaguely, toward the solution of a problem.
*When what goes on in our minds is initiated by some question we want to answer, then it takes on purpose and direction: it has something to aim at, and its course is under the control of the question that it started it off.
*What thinking is after is simply the truth. When it results in truth the thinker acquires new knowledge. That is the measure of its success. That is what makes thinking good thinking.
*Thinking has two fundamentally different aspects : a creative aspect and a critical aspect.
*Creative Thinking gives us new ideas.
*Creative thinking is an exercise of imagination..
*If you are interested in good thinking, the task is to discover how we can make thinking more creative.
*Psychologists have studied creative thinking, and can say something about the personality factors and environment factors that seem to favour it or hinder it.
*There is no handy set of rules to make our thinking more creative..Perhaps there is even something a little paradoxical in the very notion of rules for creative thinking- since this thinking that leaps out in new directions to unexplored territory, and moves in sudden, unexpected, and unpredictable ways.
*Critical Thinking comes in to play after we have an idea to try out, a theory to test, a proposition that someone wants to prove or to refute.
*Whenever a claim is made to knowledge, there is an occasion for critical thinking- that is for a careful and serious effort to test that claim, as far as possible.
*There are many different kinds of thing in the world to think about, and there are different ways of thinking about them.
*What makes good critical thinking in economics, is not exactly what makes good critical thinking in engineering or literary criticism or psychology or store-keeping. But there are some general principles of critical thinking that apply in every field. These are principles of logic.
It is the business of the logician to discover what conditions must be satisfied by any critical thinking if it is to be considered a success.
*Thinking has two fundamentally different aspects : a creative aspect and a critical aspect.
*Creative Thinking gives us new ideas.
*Creative thinking is an exercise of imagination..
*If you are interested in good thinking, the task is to discover how we can make thinking more creative.
*Psychologists have studied creative thinking, and can say something about the personality factors and environment factors that seem to favour it or hinder it.
*There is no handy set of rules to make our thinking more creative..Perhaps there is even something a little paradoxical in the very notion of rules for creative thinking- since this thinking that leaps out in new directions to unexplored territory, and moves in sudden, unexpected, and unpredictable ways.
*Critical Thinking comes in to play after we have an idea to try out, a theory to test, a proposition that someone wants to prove or to refute.
*Whenever a claim is made to knowledge, there is an occasion for critical thinking- that is for a careful and serious effort to test that claim, as far as possible.
*There are many different kinds of thing in the world to think about, and there are different ways of thinking about them.
*What makes good critical thinking in economics, is not exactly what makes good critical thinking in engineering or literary criticism or psychology or store-keeping. But there are some general principles of critical thinking that apply in every field. These are principles of logic.
It is the business of the logician to discover what conditions must be satisfied by any critical thinking if it is to be considered a success.
Friday, March 9, 2012
FAMILY
A cosmopolitan family, like a cosmopolite, looks toward people,activities, and intersts that range far beyond the confines of their neighbourhood or town. Their friends, jobs, and schools are scattered; they may move fr equently for work or other reasons.
Locals on the other hand, are rooted. Their family history in the same place may go back generations. Their friends, schools, and jobs are near at hand. Often their work life is not only near home but also dependent on a local network of acquaintances. Locals develop specific, traditional routines and routs for shopping, visiting, recreation. Cosmopolitan families have less well-fixed, more exploratory habits.
*Each pattern, local and cosmopolitan, has its characteristic blind spots and highlights.
*In Dr.Reiss's theory, families share a group self, which in turn shapes their lives. Shared family experiences Reiss says, 'guide and shape the way families approach specific problems."This shared construing is typically in the background, a buried structure which guide family life.
*The family, when it works as an integral group,is a sort of consensual mind. In this respect it takes on the same tasks as we have seen in the individual mind: it gathers information, interprets it, distributes it.
*The families seem to have an important shared illusion about themselves.
Locals on the other hand, are rooted. Their family history in the same place may go back generations. Their friends, schools, and jobs are near at hand. Often their work life is not only near home but also dependent on a local network of acquaintances. Locals develop specific, traditional routines and routs for shopping, visiting, recreation. Cosmopolitan families have less well-fixed, more exploratory habits.
*Each pattern, local and cosmopolitan, has its characteristic blind spots and highlights.
*In Dr.Reiss's theory, families share a group self, which in turn shapes their lives. Shared family experiences Reiss says, 'guide and shape the way families approach specific problems."This shared construing is typically in the background, a buried structure which guide family life.
*The family, when it works as an integral group,is a sort of consensual mind. In this respect it takes on the same tasks as we have seen in the individual mind: it gathers information, interprets it, distributes it.
*The families seem to have an important shared illusion about themselves.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
SOLVE IT IF YOU CAN
On a certain train, the crew consists of three men, the break man, the fireman and the engineer. Their names listed alphabetically are Jones, Robinson and Smith. On the train also three passengers with corresponding names, Mr. Jones, Mr. Robinson, and Mr.Smith. The following facts are known.
a. Mr. Robinson lives in Detroit.
b. The brakeman lives halfway between Detroit and Chicago.
c. Mr. Jones earns exactly $20000 a year.
d. Smith once beat the fireman at chess.
e. The brakeman's next door neighbour, one of the three passengers mentioned, earns exactly three times as much as the brakeman.
f. The passenger living in Chicago has the same name as the brakeman.
WHAT IS THE ENGINEER'S NAME ?
a. Mr. Robinson lives in Detroit.
b. The brakeman lives halfway between Detroit and Chicago.
c. Mr. Jones earns exactly $20000 a year.
d. Smith once beat the fireman at chess.
e. The brakeman's next door neighbour, one of the three passengers mentioned, earns exactly three times as much as the brakeman.
f. The passenger living in Chicago has the same name as the brakeman.
WHAT IS THE ENGINEER'S NAME ?
LANGUAGE IN LOGIC
Whether the actual process of thinking or reasoning requires language or not is an open question. It may be that thinking requires the use of symbols of some sort, words or images or what not.We all feel a certain sympathy with the girl who was told to think before she spoke, and replied," But how can I know what I think until I hear what I say?". Perhaps all thinking does require words or some other kind of symbols, but that is not a question that concerns us here. It is obvious that the communication of any proposition or any argument requires symbols, and involves language.
The use of language, however, complicates our problems. Certain accidental or misleading features of their formulations in language may make more difficult the task of investing the logical relations between prepositions. It is part of the task of the logician therefore, to examine language itself, primarily from the point of view of discovering and describing those aspects of which tend to obscure the difference between correct and incorrect argument. .
The use of language, however, complicates our problems. Certain accidental or misleading features of their formulations in language may make more difficult the task of investing the logical relations between prepositions. It is part of the task of the logician therefore, to examine language itself, primarily from the point of view of discovering and describing those aspects of which tend to obscure the difference between correct and incorrect argument. .
Monday, February 27, 2012
DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types, Deductive and Inductive. Although every argument involves the claim that its premisses provide some ground for the truth of its conclusion, only a Deductive Argument involves the claim that its premisses provide conclusive grounds.When premisses and conclusions are related that it is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the conclusion is true also. Every Deductive argument is either valid or invalid ; the task of deductive logic is to clarify the nature of the relation between premisses and conclusion in valid arguments and thus to allow us to discriminate valid from invalid arguments.
On the other hand, an inductive argument involves the claim, not that its premisses give conclusive grounds for truth of its conclusion but only that they provide some grounds for it. Inductive Arguments are neither "valid" nor "invalid" in the sense in which those terms are applied to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments may, of course, be evaluated as better or worse, according to the degree of likelyhood or probablity which their premises confer upon their conclusion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"If Sylvester Stallone owened all the gold in Fort Knox, then Sylvester Stallone will be wealthy.
Sylvester Stellone does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Threfore Sylvester Stallone is not wealthy."
The premisses of this argument are true, and its concusion is false. Such an argument cannot be valid, because it is impossible for the premisses of a valid argument to be true while its conclusion is false.
Determining the correctness of arguments falls frequently within the province of logic. The logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premisses might be wrong.
On the other hand, an inductive argument involves the claim, not that its premisses give conclusive grounds for truth of its conclusion but only that they provide some grounds for it. Inductive Arguments are neither "valid" nor "invalid" in the sense in which those terms are applied to deductive arguments. Inductive arguments may, of course, be evaluated as better or worse, according to the degree of likelyhood or probablity which their premises confer upon their conclusion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"If Sylvester Stallone owened all the gold in Fort Knox, then Sylvester Stallone will be wealthy.
Sylvester Stellone does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Threfore Sylvester Stallone is not wealthy."
The premisses of this argument are true, and its concusion is false. Such an argument cannot be valid, because it is impossible for the premisses of a valid argument to be true while its conclusion is false.
Determining the correctness of arguments falls frequently within the province of logic. The logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premisses might be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
