Искусство правильно мыслить | Александр Ивин

Originally published at: Искусство правильно мыслить | Александр Ивин – Рустам Агамалиев

Искусство правильно мыслить | Александр Ивин

🚀 The Book in 3 Sentences

Nice intro to [[Argumentation Theory]]

🎨 Impressions

The most interesting chapters are: 7,10 and 12

How I Discovered It

[[Максим Дорофеев]] sent the book during one of our research interaction on the topic of logic and joint preparation to [[Logical thinking tools in Jedi]]

Who Should Read It?

☘️ How the Book Changed Me

How my life / behaviour / thoughts / ideas have changed as a result of reading the book.

✍️ My Top 3 Quotes

📒 Ideas

About premises

  • Valid premises do not guarantee the validity of the whole argument. [[Critical thinking#^0e9d67]]
    • They only increase chances for the validity of the argument.
    • The more unexpected consequences a proved to be true, the stronger argument they provide for the topic of the argument.

Proof of conditions

  • Situations where proving is in not appliable must be avoided.
    • Thought sometime they cannot be proved only at the current level of technology or knowledge.
    • It doesn’t mean that they won’t be proved sometime in the future.
  • Theoretical validation could be done by applying the theory to the wide range of objects.
    • Ok, we say that PKM is great, by whose standards?
    • If so, then PKM great not only in personal context but in wide range of domains.
      • Education.
      • Business.
      • Science.
      • What else?
    • Proving validity of an initial statement in other domains, we can substantially increase the significance of a new theory or idea.
  • An isolated theory or approach stand out as something exceptional rather than innovative and worth trying.

Simplicity rule

  • No need for too complex explanation and theoretical justification.
    • The simpler, the better. [[Critical thinking#Occam’s razor principle]]
    • New condition must be aligned with existing condition, that has been proved scientifically
      • Though it is preferably, but not compulsory.
  • The same could be said about our [[Logical thinking tools in Jedi]], the simpler, the better.
    • The same with because part of logical reasoning we are teaching.

Practical knowledge

  • Or the knowledge of a man who practices what he preaches, is seen differently.
    • It’s a special type of knowledge, self-sufficient.
    • It’s aimed at a specific situation and requires attention to the context and condition in all it’s numerous variations.
    • Life is built not from theoretical knowledge, but from a devised solution, applied to a specific problem, that has arisen under certain conditions in a unique context.
    • Practical knowledge is a permanent correction of beliefs to new conditions.
      • It is an adaptability work of truly new principles.

Habituality rule

  • Stick to the old guns.
    • Avoid innovation where it could be avoided.
    • But not all innovation, only unsupported ones.
    • The ideal object in logical thinking, we should explain the phenomenon with existing tools and not invent new ones.
      • Although, invention absolutely justified if there is no other way around the problem.
      • [[a tool for conflict resolution Evaporating cloud]] is in a sense the same.
      • Bryzgalova said exactly this when she was looking at my EC
        • Evaporating Cloud Rustam
      • The best solution is the one where we don’t need to resolve the conflict.
      • Conflict is avoided with different approach to the problem.

[!NOTE] Explanation and Understanding

  • To explain something is to infer from existing truths.
  • To understand something is to infer from accepted evaluations.

What does it mean to explain

  • To align something with already existing.
    • Theory to the rule, it can use as a basis for further inquiries.
    • But in that case, what could be said about things that so innovative that have to create a set of rules for them?
    • I can agree that it happens quite rarely, but nonetheless it might happen.
  • Ok, if we step aside from rules, theories, and science and dive into the domain of ordinary life.
    • What happens on the level of in-between human interactions.
    • Or on the level of self explanation.
    • Like we do in our course [[Logical thinking tools in Jedi]]
    • At the core, through question if…, then…, in order to do …, we must…, I want this… because.
    • And next sequence questions: because, and what else, and how else. We are looking for an explanation.
    • The depth of explanation correlates with the depth and complexity of the theory, rule, and problem.
    • [[Critical thinking#The core of good explanation]]
  • Lots of great ideas are covered by Deustsch in [[The Fabric of Reality – David Deutsch]]
  • To explain something is to infer from existing truths.

Understanding is not what it is

  • But what it has to be.
    • When we explain some phenomenon, even to ourselves, usually we are describing the things the way they are, instead of looking in a different direction.
    • As some said, look not the way the arrow points.
      • [[The Fabric of Reality – David Deutsch#Solidness demands understanding]]
      • Feynman also wrote a lot about understanding [[Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman Adventures of a Curious Character]] look there through search of the word understand
    • Understanding is the process of matching certain phenomenon or theory or a problem to an explanation.
      • Common caveat is that we tend to fall to description, but it’s not understanding.
    • Understanding happens when, through what it is, we know what it must be.
  • There are two types of understanding.
    • Strong.
      • Deductive inference. Where one of the premises is:
        • A common evaluation: Tragedy must invoke a catharsis.
        • Another one is a statement about initial condition: Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” is a tragedy.
        • In a conclusion common evaluation spread over a special case, thus reaching an understanding why certain object must have certain qualities.
    • Weak.
      • Plausible inference.
        • The first premise speaks about means that are needed to get a result: If we start a fire in the hearth of the house, then it will be warm.
        • The second premise is an opinion statement, that presents the result as a goal and in the process changing cause and effect into goal – mean: A home must be warm.
        • In a conclusion, this type of understanding describes the action which is required to achieve the goal.
        • Weak understanding is a goal-oriented understanding.
          • Goal-oriented understanding presents in details connection between goals, values, and actions.
          • In this case, to know a person is to know the goal the hoped to achieve through specific action he has taken.
    • Beware of weak understanding because it doesn’t have long-standing resilience to changing conditions and different environments.
      • Common mistake in habits verbalization is the same, we tend to set a goal, which is good in a short run, but bad for lifelong habits.
      • The same could be stated for a goal in [[Logical thinking tools in Jedi]], it mustn’t be a weak understanding, but to be fulfilled it has to be a strong one.
  • To understand something is to infer from accepted evaluations.
  • There are three layers of understanding.
    • Understanding actions of human being (agent of change), the origin of his behaviour.
    • Understanding of nature.
    • Understanding of language representation, plain text.

Theory of Argumentation

  • Logical next step logical thinking has made in the course of it’s evolution.
    • I think that it is what we really are looking with Maxim for our [[Logical thinking tools in Jedi]]
    • According to Ivin the argumentation theory is the key to the problem of justification the reasoning behind the logic. [[Argumentation Theory]]
      • It’s not in a sense appliable logic because it speaks about things that are not directly related to logic.
      • I think it speaks primarily about linguistics.
  • To understand the source, read Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”

Argumentation theory based on smart inquiries

📚Related Books

  • [[Искусство правильно мыслить – А Ивин.canvas]]