Non Sequitur: A forced conclusion is not really a conclusion

Needing to process a multitude of complex information in a short amount of time can lead to erroneous reasoning. When a conclusion is supported by weak or irrelevant arguments, the reasoning falls into the category called non sequitur—does not follow, or irrelevant argument.

The small sample and the slender majority

In scientific research, sampling is the primary method used when research cannot be conducted on a one-to-one scale. The facts discovered at the level of the sample are presumed to apply in general.

Manipulation: when disinformers believe in us

When we think we are immune to disinformation, we become easy prey for those who manipulate us.

The false analogy: when the apple insists on being a pear

The false analogy or the faulty analogy consists of the incorrect use of the analogy argumentative scheme without first meeting the requirements of a correct comparison.

How to think outside the box

"Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort." (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, US President)

How to make sure we have a rational faith

Fundamentalist movements, extremist and sectarian religious beliefs, manipulations of the mass of believers, conspiracy theories within religious sects, and other such threats, emphasise the need for critical thinking.

Two false oppositions: reason vs. faith and science vs. religion

"Intelligent, scientifically trained people no longer believe (or can no longer believe) in God."

The applications and pitfalls of critical thinking

Critical thinking is not a cure-all, but it proves very useful in dealing with, clarifying, and solving some decision-making problems, as well as the thought and belief disputes which occupy our minds.

What is critical thinking and how can one encourage the disposition to use it?

As Christians we are interested in a perpetual spiritual, moral, general human perfecting. But can we really succeed without perfecting our way of thinking, our capacity to understand, and thus without increasing our intellectual capital?

Argumentum Ad Hominem or how you attack yourself when attacking others

In an argumentative discussion each party involved must be able to express their point of view without constraints, discrimination or other interferences. This is, in fact, an important prerequisite for the effort to overcome differences of opinion. In practice however, often things are far from this ideal. Not only do interlocutors not respect each other’s right to free speech, but they also resort...

Erosion of trust | The ultimate effect of conspiracy theories

From television stories to personal experiences, we live in a world where honesty seems to be an increasingly rare commodity and suspicion and scepticism become protective shields.

How to critically evaluate a text

Almost a century ago, writer Virginia Woolf noticed people’s tendency to approach books “with clouded and divided minds, asking fiction to be true, poetry to be false, biographies to be flattering and history to chime with prejudices.”

How to build valid arguments

Arguments must be convincing and, in order to convince, they must be valid—the minimum requirement of persuasion.

The most arrogant of all sophisms: the false accusation of logical error

In practice, people often accuse each other of making logical errors, but sometimes the accusation is false. Such an accusation is made by someone who does not understand what logical fallacies are and how they work, or by a manipulative person who takes advantage of the ignorance of those in the first category.

Equivocation: Playing hide-and-seek in communication

When what someone says can be interpreted in multiple ways, we are in danger of coming to an understanding which is different to their intended message.