Recommended books: Critical Thinking - Tooks for taking cha…

Recommended books: Critical Thinking - Tooks for taking change of your learning and your life
Not all human expressions are reasonings. For example, "be happy" is a command; "air water sand" is a list of items. This stream deals with sound reasoning, which is a method to figure out what's true/truer.
Reasoning is made up of chain(s) of arguments.
Arguments consists of statements.
Statements can be a premise or a conclusion. For example:
"Jesus is real (premise), therefore I should repent (conclusion). (argument 1)"
"The Book of Mormon is real (premise), therefore Jesus is real (conclusion). (argument 2)"
argument 2's premise leads to (->) argument 1's conclusion (reasoning)
Reasoning can be valid if it follows its rules. For example:
If an animal has four legs (premise), then it is a horse (conclusion). (argument 1)
The animal standing at the door has four legs (premise 1), because of argument 1 (premise 2), therefore it is is a horse (conclusion). (argument 2)
Argument 2 is valid, but it is not sound. Soundness require argument 1 to also be true. If horse is the only four legged animal, then argument 2 would be sound.
The examples above are explicated. That is, premises and conclusions are clearly and linearly identified/chained. This is the first step is figuring out others' arguments. For example:
"Bob lied because Sam believes Joel always tells the truth. Joel said Bob did not tell the truth."
We believe what Sam believes. (premise 1)
Sam believes Joel always tells the truth. (premise 2)
We believe Joel always tells the truth. (premise 1 + premise 2 -> conclusion 1)
One can either tell the truth xor lies. (premise 3)
Joel said Bob did not tell the truth. (premise 4)
Bob lied. (conclusion 1 + premise 3 + premise 4 -> conclusion 2)
This reasoning is valid but not be sound. Because Sam's belief could be false, and one can express a command instead of telling a lie.
Reasoning can be either deductive or inductive. The examples above are all deductive, or "hard logic". Inductive reasoning is probablistic. We are not 100% sure, but are only guessing. For example:
The dusk sky is red, tomorrow will definitely rain. (statement 1) (deductive)
The dusk sky is red, it's more likely to rain tomorrow. (statement 2 ) (inductive)
Whether xor not statement 2 is sound depends on how these two events are correlated statistically at this particular location. Another example:
Joseph has always told the truth in the past, therefore he will definitely tell the truth in the future. (deductive)
Joseph has always told the truth in the past, therefore he is more likely to tell the truth in the future. (inductive)
Just like a soccer match. Sound reasoning requires players to stick to the rules. Otherwise it is cheating and chaotic. There are many foul plays in reasoning, such as the following. I suggest players/participants of this stream to be acquainted with them.
=== Logical Fallacies ===
Formal logical fallaies (invalid deductive arguments) and informal logic fallacies (bad content, context and/or mode of delivery).
=== Informal Logic Fallacies ===
I. Fallacies of Distraction
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Force
Straw Man
Red Herring
Personal Attack (abusive, circumstantial, poisoning the well, you too.)
II. Fallacies of Weak Induction
Argument from Ignorance
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
After this, therefore because of this
Sllipery Slope
Hasty Generalization
III. Fallacies of Illicit Presumption
Burden of Proof
Loaded Questions
False Choice
Begging the Question (Circular Argument)
Accident (there are exceptions)
Composition
Division
IV. Fallacies of Linguistic Emphasis
Quoting out of Context
Accent
Manipulative Framing
Equivocation