Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip to 0 minutes and 14 secondsSo we've covered a lot of ground. We hope we've given you some tools that will be useful no matter what you do. We're all called upon to use our logical and critical thinking skills all the time. But it turns out that we're actually surprisingly bad at it. No matter how clever we are or what we do, we're all rather easily fooled or led into error. We've shown you some of the common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Some of those obstacles arise because of fairly deep seated psychological propensities. Those ones like the common reasoning heuristics of biases might be pretty hard to counteract on our own.

Skip to 0 minutes and 53 secondsWe might need to make use of external checks of the kind we see in science or in more everyday practises such as talking to one another and checking our assumptions and judgements. Others, the common fallacies, look a bit more straightforward. Common reasoning errors, like attacking the person rather then their argument or trying to distract people with red herrings, are a bit closer to the surface. We should be able to watch out for those for ourselves. And we've shown you some basic logical moves, starting with how to take arguments as we encounter them in the wild and put them in what we call standard form. We then talked about how to evaluate arguments.

Skip to 1 minute and 31 secondsThat led us to draw the important distinction between deductive and non-deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are good when they are sound. That's when they are valid and have true premises. And non-deductive arguments are good when they are strong and have true premises. We then say that they are cogent. Remember the importance of the principle of charity, where that's about making sure that we are responding to the actual argument of our opponent, not a straw version. And then we turned to some applications.

Skip to 2 minutes and 2 secondsIn science, we looked at the scientific method and theories, and inference to the best explanation and an inference to any old explanation, and the important distinction between verification and falsification, and that allowed us to notice that it's important to avoid affirming the consequent. We also looked at the distinction between science and pseudoscience, and the importance of making sure we weren't influencing the things we were meant to be merely observing. Our discussion of law introduced us to reasoning by analogy to the idea of the burden of proof and how it might be allocated, and to circumstances in which an appeal to authority might not be fallacious after all.

Skip to 2 minutes and 43 secondsThose three features of legal reasoning allowed us to see how good logical and critical thinking played out in the law and also introduced some new ideas and issues. And in the week on morality, we saw the need to avoid arguing directly from facts to moral conclusions. We raised some of the challenges to the idea that morality might be relative to places or periods or individuals. And we saw in the interview with Glen Pettigrove that moral reasoning might also face the common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. And then we applied what we'd learned by looking at a pretty wild argument from the wild.

Skip to 3 minutes and 23 secondsWe stressed that the tools and skills we've shown you won't do you any good unless you're committed to using them. You've got to come to arguments and decisions about whether or not to adopt beliefs with an open mind. Prepare to test the arguments and follow the good ones where they lead. And those tools go rusty pretty quickly if we don't use them. An important part of being a good logical and critical thinker is having the tools and using them regularly. So, so long. We hope this has been useful and interesting. And now I'm going to get this stupid t-shirt off once and for all.

Let's recap Logical and Critical Thinking

We’ve finally come to the end of our journey. We hope that the skills you learnt in this course will be useful to you, and will help you becoming a better person.

You can check your progress on the course so far. Don’t forget that if you complete the majority of the course you have the opportunity to purchase a Statement of Participation.

Please take the time to fill in FutureLearn’s post-course survey..

Share this video:

This video is from the free online course:

Logical and Critical Thinking

The University of Auckland

Get a taste of this course

Find out what this course is like by previewing some of the course steps before you join:

  • Pohutukawa tree case study
    Pohutukawa tree case study
    video

    When is it best to express your views by providing reasons? Are there cases in which other ways of expressing yourself might be better suited?

  • Arguments for and against the existence of God
    Arguments for and against the existence of God
    video

    John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and against the existence of God.

  • Irrelevant premises
    Irrelevant premises
    video

    When is a premise irrelevant in an argument? Watch Patrick Girard explaining how to identify irrelevant premises in arguments.

  • Random controlled trials
    Random controlled trials
    video

    Scientific processes guard against common obstacles to good logical and critical thinking. Perhaps the most powerful is the random controlled trial.

  • Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    Clever Hans: cuing and the observer effect
    article

    Hans seemed to have the maths skills of 14yr old, but O. Pfungst noticed that the horse’s handlers were inadvertently cueing him when to stop tapping.

  • Analogical reasoning in the law
    Analogical reasoning in the law
    video

    Judges egal cases use analogical reasoning to decide which similarities between cases are important.

  • Being a good ethical reasoner
    Being a good ethical reasoner
    article

    What does good ethical reasoning about such matters involve? Mainly, just good logical and critical thinking skills focussed on ethical issues.

  • Going Vegan
    Going Vegan
    video

    A pretty wild exchange for and against becoming vegan. We'll use it to see how the skills you've learned during the course can be put into action.

Contact FutureLearn for Support