What is the difference between critical reasoning and faith?

(1)What is the difference between critical reasoning and faith?   Please look at the issues surrounding Galileo and his observations that the sun circles the earth and the earth does not move. Church authority claimed that both of these observations were true and their truth was established not only by the Bible but also by the science of Aristotle.

It is this discussion that created what we now understand as the crisis between religion and science. Please do some research on this discussion and issue.  This is the fundamental issue that created our division between science and religion.

 

Are there claims about which it is impossible to reason critically?

 

(2)How do you use arguments every day? Provide at least two examples in the last year in which you have used critical reasoning in an argument.  Please look at both induction and deduction. Work on providing an example from each.

In deduction, if the premises are true, this is called soundness, and the form is valid, the conclusion must be true.  Validity applies only to the form of the deductive argument and not whether the premises are true or false.  Thus, one can have a valid argument that is not sound.

In induction, one can have true premises and a false conclusion. This is because one is making a general conclusion based on specific observations.

Please look at both induction and deduction and I look forward to your examples.

 

(3) Case study:

Identify the main point and the supporting points of each argument:

  1. Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues.  This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements.  If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective.  Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion.

Main point:

Supporting points:

  1. We should help people that are starving in other countries.  We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving.

Main point:

Supporting points:

Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments:

  1. Since large corporations make more money than small businesses, we should tax them at a higher rate than we tax small businesses.  This is because everyone should contribute to society according to his ability.

Premises:

Conclusion:

  1. Some people use handguns in self-defense.  Preventing someone from defending herself by taking away her weapon is the same as helping the attacker.  Bans on handguns are therefore the same as giving aid to the attackers.  Since giving aid to the attackers is wrong, we should not ban handguns.

Premises:

Conclusion:

Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments.  Then put the arguments into standard form.

  1. Bill is going to be able to tell the difference between disagreement and critical reasoning.  He is going to read the lecture, and anyone who reads the lecture is going to be able to tell the difference between disagreement and critical reasoning.
  2. Students will not become interested in learning for its own sake.  Universities will become more vocationally oriented.  Either students will become more interested in learning for its own sake or universities will become more vocationally oriented
Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: