Nature of Logic and Perception

Chenista Rae Straubel

Phil251 – Critical Thinking

Arlene Hiss, Ph.D., Instructor

September 13, 2004

Abstract

It was my senior year in high school and I had just moved into this large

school district that had 984 students in the graduating class. I had come

from a small community where everyone knew everyone else and my

graduating class was more like 39. Nann had just moved into this school

district as well although she had come from a fairly large community. We

became immediate (and lasting) friends. We shared many classes together

one of which was Composition.

Our instructor’s name was Billie. Billie was a wonderful, young, pudgy

woman with a delightful personality and a different mode of instructing that

was refreshing to the seniors. Everyone in the classroom knew that Nann

and I were best of friends and we were the class “clowns” as well (although I

was the more intellectual of the two of us – we balanced each other well).

Prior to one of our classes, Billie took me aside and asked that I start a

fight with Nann in class. She didn’t care what it was about or what I said, she

only cared that I start the fight and that I do not end the fight until Billie asks

me to leave the room. Billie told me that after she asked me to leave she
wanted me to remain outside the door out of sight of the students until she

came to get me. I explained to Billie that Nann and I never argue or fight

and she explained that this is why she chose me and us for this assignment.

When class started and all the students were seated, Billie cued me when

she wanted me to begin. Having nothing to fight about I told Nann she had

very ugly socks on and that they reminded me of Pippie Longstockings. The

insults flew from my mouth and it was all I could do to keep my composure.

Nann was totally taken back by my behavior and tried to minimize it until

class was over and we could discuss the fashion of socks. I didn’t let it go as

Billie had requested and finally Billie asked me to leave the room to calm

down. I waited outside the door, out of sight, as she had instructed until she

came to get me.

After being welcomed back into the fold, I received many evil glances as I

entered the room but I took my seat in silence wondering what would

become of my actions toward Nann and if we could ever really be friends

again.

Our assignment was to write our perception of the fight, what we believed

happened step-by-step, the exchange, the attitudes, and anything that we

thought would help someone [not present] gain an insight of the argument

and circumstances. After we were done writing, we had to exchange papers

with our neighbors who read them aloud to the classroom.

Not one of the papers was alike nor did any of them totally agree on the

episode as it unfolded. Some of the papers were so far outside of the actual
events that we wondered if those classmates may actually need

rehabilitation for a drug problem or something and we all laughed as we

discussed what truly did unfold.

We learned about how we individuals perceive reality and how our

attitudes, life experiences, etc., affect what we see and how we interpret it.

Our next assignment was to write about how we believe our attitudes and

experiences indeed affect our perception of reality. This is where I

developed my understanding and belief of individual “perceived realities”.

This paper discusses the concepts of logic and perception with a focus on

critical thinking. I will present the reader with brief overture’s of: The

Nature of Logic versus Critical Thinking including skepticism, fallacy,

argument, and reasoning; Perceptual Processes covering obstacle illusions

(perceptual blocks) and outside influences; and finally conclude with

Perceived Reality and the manipulative processes of perception.

The Nature of Logic versus Critical Thinking

Questioning, reasoning, assessing, and rational are the cornerstones of

the critical thinking process. Logic follows reason. Critical thinking moves

reason “outside the box” or “between the lines” and allows the participant a

fresh approach to a set of “givens”.

Skepticism

Just because information is delivered to you in what appears to be a

solid presentation, does not mean that the information is either true or

sound. You have to consider the credentials of the presenter and the nature
of the materials. Skepticism is actually a building block for critical thinking

and is very necessary when evaluating the content, identifying flaws in the

structure, and finally concluding what the content may actually mean, and

the intent of the presenter.

Fallacy

Fallacies are logical defects in an argument based upon premises that

may or may not be false however, falsely relating premises render the

argument invalid. A flaw in the structure identifies formal fallacies while

informal fallacies are identified through actual content analysis.

Formal fallacies refer to flaws in actual logic and reason. These are

often flaws of word usage. In formal fallacies we apply what appears to be a

valid conclusion to an entire category or class unreasonably, such as ALL

rocks are grey stone.

Informal fallacies are often strategically placed distractions that

produce vagueness in order and causes confusion – appealing to the

emotions of the reader or participant. These fallacies are very apparent in a

courtroom of law when council presents their opening or closing arguments

directly to a jury. At this point in a trial, council hopes to “win” the support

of jury members based upon “emotions” rather than logic or reasoning.

Jurors most often perceive the logic of arguments presented in such a way

that it will validate the impression they have already formed.

Argument

Valid arguments are based upon a series of related statements

presented as an attempt to support a belief through a sound reasoning

processes. There are three components to the nature of argument: premises

(assumptions), inferences (reasoning), and conclusions (final correlation

based upon premises and relationship reasoning).

Individuals must test arguments for validity. Valid arguments assume

the integrity of the presenter as well as concrete premises. Valid arguments

assume practical and ethical reasoning participation. Conclusions of valid

arguments are based upon valid reasoning and logic rather than emotion.

Arguments become invalid when they fail the tests of valid arguments.

Reasoning

Reasoning is the conclusion that can be drawn or has been drawn that

identifies the authors position on the issue or otherwise provides support for

that position. Arguments contain two kinds of statements: conclusion and

reason. Argument = position + supporting propositions OR argument = the

main claim + evidence. In critical reasoning, argument = conclusion +

reasons.

Perceptual Processes

The perceptual process selects information (or stimuli) gathered from

our senses and organizes and interprets it, stores it for retrieval when

needed, and helps us to respond to the stimuli.

Obstacle Illusions (Perceptual Blocks)

 Many factors as well as personal and aesthetic characteristics affect or

influence the perceptual process. Personal characteristics affecting

perception include experiences, needs or motives of the perceiver,

personality, and values and attitudes.

Outside Influences

Aesthetics that may affect our perception include how we personally

feel about the presenter, how the content is presented, and the physical

surroundings or context of the room (even the temperature of the room can

be an outside influence). Aesthetics can include an emotional appeal based

upon the intensity of the material or the presenter, repetitiveness, and/or

motion or notions.

Conclusion

Perceived Reality

People are not their actions. We simply believe what want to

believe about a given set circumstances and others do the same. In the

spirit of a perceived reality we tend bend the logic of arguments presented in

such a way that it will validate the impression they have already formed.

This is safe for us, we don’t have to think and we can remain complacent

with our beliefs.

If through our awareness we can develop a system that respects how

others perceive reality, we are better able to connect in real ways with other

individuals, actual circumstances, and the nature and reality of events rather

than how we perceive those events. This helps foster forgiveness,

understanding, mature conflict resolution, and it can help us to grow as

individuals because we gain a deeper insight into the very nature of reality

and how it affects others (compassion).

Manipulative Processes of Perception

Behaviors or thoughts may tend to mask the perception process

distorting or otherwise affecting our ability to fully engage the entire

perception process including organization, interpretation, retrieval, and

response (thoughts, feelings, or actions).

Stereotypes and prototypes (biases), halo effects (personal influence

or persuasiveness), selective perception (we tend to pay attention to that

which validates our preconceived notions or justifies a common belief),

projection (controlled through self-awareness and empathy, projection

occurs when we assign personal traits or attributes to other individuals

independent of whether or not the traits are present within other

individuals), contrast effects (comparing ourselves to individuals or groups of

individuals with similar or desired characteristics), self-fulfilling prophecy (we

tend to place expectations on a given set of circumstance and then create

the reality to support who we are within that situation).

References

Elder, Dr., Frank (1997-2002). Identifying the Argument of an Essay: A

Tutorial on Critical Reasoning. Metropolitan Community College,

Omaha, Nebraska.

http://commhum.mccneb.edu/argument/summary.htm
Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn. Organizational Behavior, 8e. John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.