METHODS-OF-PHILOSOPHIZING IN PHILOSOPHY.pptx

Philosophy

1. Methods of Philosophizing

2. Pre Activity. What is an Infographics ? An infographic example is  a visual representation of information . Infographics examples include a variety of elements, such as images, icons, text, charts, and diagrams to convey messages at a glance

3. Activity Proper. Infographics for Truth Instructions: You will be divided into five groups. Each group will be given a topic that deals on different methods of philosophizing. Brainstorm on the contents of each method. Focus on how it deals with knowledge and search for truth. Know also the different philosophers on each method and their contributions to philosophy. Make an inforgraphics that will show your understanding of each method. Make sure that all the questions on instruction 3 are answered. Be creative enough. It should be informative and easy to understand. Discuss it with your class.

4. Methods of Philosophizing The Dialectic method The Pragmatic Method The Phenomonological Method The Primary and Secondary Reflections The Analytic Method

5. Post Activity. Reflection What have you learned from the activity? With these methods can we easily distinguish truth from not? From the five methods, which is most suitable in todays era? I learned that Truth is _____________________________________. I feel that Truth is important because ________________________. I commit to uphold the truth by _____________________________.

6. ACTIVITY: Comic Strip (Critical Thinking, Communication, Character) Directions: Analyze the comic strip and answer the following questions.

7. Journal Entry no 5 LET’S APPLY Directions: Fill in the table below with the main proponents of methods of philosophizing. For each method, answer the questions: “ How can you find truth using this method?” and “On what real-life situation can you apply this method?” Methods of Philosophizing Main Proponent(s) How can you find truth using this method? On what real-life situation can you apply this method? The Dialectic Method 2. The Pragmatic Method 3. The Phenomonological Method 4. The Primary and Secondary Reflection 5. The Analyctuc Method

8. Different Fallacies are arguments that are erroneous or based from faulty reasoning FALLACY Short Description Examples 1.Argumentum ad Hominem “Attacking the Person” Hominem came from Latin word “homo” which means man. This fallacy literally means hitting the person below the belt instead of focusing on the issue at hand. “ How can we believe him when he talks about social distancing, he is a lawyer who is a liar.” 2. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force) Baculum is a Latin word which means scepter or stick. A scepter is a symbol of authority. Normally it is the Pope who carries it in his hands. This is committed when a person uses threat or force to advance an argument. “ TV Patrol is the best news program on TV. If you don’t believe me, I won’t let you watch the TV.

9. Different Fallacies FALLACY Short Description Examples 3. Argumentum ad Misercordiam (Appeal to Pity) Misercordiam came from Latin word Misericordia which means pity or compassion. A person uses emotion such as pity to convince someone “Forgive me officer, there are lot of boarders in this apartment including myself. Only the owner was issued a quarantine pass. We don’t have food, we can’t give our ATM to the owner. That’s why I went out. So I did not violate the Bayanihan Act Heal as One.” 4. Argumentum ad Populum “Appeal to people”/ Bandwagon fallacy Populum is the Latin word for people. Most of TV commercials are guilty of this argument which exploit people’s vanity, desires, etc. “I’m sure you want to have an i phone. Almost 80% of your schoolmates are using it.”

10. Different Fallacies FALLACY Short Description Examples 5. Argumentum ad Tradition “Appeal to Tradition” Traditio means tradition. Advancing an idea since it has been practice for a long time. All of us in the family, from our ancestors up to now, are devout Catholics, so it is only right that you will be baptized as a Catholic. 6. Argumentum and Ignorantiam “Appeal to Ignorance” I gnorantiam a Latin word for ignorance. Whatever has been proven false must be true and vice versa According to Zecharia Sitchin , the author of the book “Cosmic Code, “Adam was the first test tube baby. Since nobody proves otherwise, therefore it is true.” 7. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, it is a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises. Also called-“circular argument.” “God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore we know that God Exists.”

11. Different Fallacies FALLACY Short Description Examples 8. Hasty Generalization This fallacy is committed when one reaches a generalization based on insufficient evidence Our neighbor who is a police officer was convicted of being a drug dealer, therefore, all police officers are drug dealers. 9. Cause and Effect Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because both events occur one after the other. “My teacher didn’t collect the homework two weeks in a row when my friend was absent. Therefore, my friend being absent is the reason why my teacher doesn’t collect the homework.”

12. Different Fallacies FALLACY Short Description Examples 10. Fallacy of Composition Infers that something is true of a part, is true of a whole “You are a doctor, therefore you came from a family of doctors.” 11. Fallacy of Division Infers that something is true of the whole, must also be true on its parts “Your family is smart, therefore you are smart.” 12. Fallacy of Equivocation Using the same term in a different situation with different meaning. “Humans walk by their legs. The table has legs. Therefore the table walks by its legs.”

13. A. IDENTIFYING THE FACTORS OF A QUALITY WEBSITE Michigan State University reference librarian Terry Link suggests examining the following factors when evaluating the quality of a Web site:  Authority: Who is the author and what are his or her qualifications? Who is the publisher and what is the purpose of the site?  Verifiability: Are sources provided?  Timeliness: Is the information current? When was it posted and/or last updated?  Relevance: Does the material contain unsubstantiated generalizations?  Bias: Is the language emotional or inflammatory? Does the information represent a single opinion or a range of opinions?  Orderliness: Is the page arranged in an order that makes sense? Are underlying assumptions identifiable? Is the information consistent?  Clarity: Is the information clearly stated? Does the author define important terms?  Validity: Do the facts presented support the conclusions?

14. Likewise, when we critique sources, we must first understand the difference between fact and opinion. FACT Opinion A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. Is objective Is discovered States reality Can be verified An opinion is a statement of belief which may or may not be backed up by facts, but cannot be proven true or false. Is subjective Is created Interprets reality Cannot be verified

15. B. THE EVALUATION PROCESS Harris recommends selecting sites that include as many of the following as possible:  the author's name, title, and/or position.  the site's organizational affiliation, if any.  the date the page was created or updated.  contact information, such as an email or snail-mail address.

16. CARS The four components of the CARS checklist are:  C redibility: What about this source makes it believable?  A ccuracy: Is the information provided up-to-date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive?  R easonableness: Is the information fair, objective, moderate, and consistent?  S upport: Can the information be corroborated?

17. C. HOW DO I KNOW? Harris suggests that, when evaluating those four components, students examine the sites based on the following: Type -- determine whether the URL includes . gov (government), . edu or .ac (educational/academic), .com (commercial), .org (nonprofit organization), or. ~ (personal page). Publisher -- determine whether the organization, agency, school, business, or individual maintaining the site is likely to have a particular agenda or bias. Author -- determine the author's education, training, and background to find out whether he or she is a trained expert, an experienced enthusiast, or an uninformed observer. Structure -- determine whether the format is clear, logical, and easily navigable. Language -- determine whether the text contains emotional, inflammatory, profane, or confusing language. Count the number of spelling, grammatical, and typographical errors. Too many mistakes can indicate carelessness and suggest informational errors as well. Dates -- determine when the information was published and/or updated. If possible, check the publication dates of supporting data. Graphics -- determine whether images and animations take up a disproportionate amount of space in relation to their informational value. Decide whether the graphics convey information, add interest, provide interactivity, or simply distract. Links -- determine whether the site's bibliography and/or lins contain both supportive and contradictory information.

18. JOURNAL ENTRY NO 6: COMIC CON Directions : Draw a comic strip that portrays ONE type of fallacy. Explain your work. EXPLANATION: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________