This document discusses various methods and concepts for distinguishing opinions from facts and truth, including:
1. Activities that analyze statements as either facts or opinions, and determine truth through senses, facts, consensus, or documentation.
2. Key terms like arguments, fallacies, biases that can influence opinions. Logic, fallacies like appeals and biases must be considered when evaluating arguments.
3. Philosophical methods like the Socratic method, scientific method, and historical method can be used to determine truth from opinions in different situations. Understanding the difference between opinions and truth can guide us to wisdom in evaluating varied views and making wise decisions.
This document provides an overview of methods for determining the truth or validity of claims through philosophical analysis. It discusses key concepts like knowledge, facts, opinions, arguments, logic, and fallacies. The document encourages applying systematic doubt to statements to analyze them, using examples like claims about one's identity or abilities. Readers are advised to consider whether a statement is factual, an opinion, belief, argument, or explanation in order to distinguish truth from falsehood. Philosophical tools like logic and identifying logical fallacies can guide determining the truthfulness of different types of statements.
The document discusses various philosophical concepts related to determining truth, including knowledge, facts, claims, arguments, and biases. It provides examples to illustrate these concepts and examines statements to distinguish those that are factual from those that are opinions. The document also discusses logical fallacies and biases that can influence arguments. It emphasizes that understanding the difference between facts and opinions is important for gaining wisdom and forming well-reasoned views. Analyzing different perspectives on issues while being aware of one's own biases can help achieve more objective evaluations.
This document provides an overview of methods for philosophizing and determining truth. It discusses the importance of truth and differentiating between knowledge, facts, claims, opinions and arguments. Systematic doubt is presented as a philosophical method for establishing truth by scrutinizing and analyzing statements. Examples are provided to illustrate applying systematic doubt to determine whether a statement is factual or an opinion. Fallacies in reasoning that can undermine arguments are also defined and exemplified. The document aims to teach philosophical thinking and analysis to discern truth from falsehood.
The document provides an overview of methods for philosophizing and distinguishing truth from opinion. It discusses how philosophers examine knowledge and its basis in reality or facts. Opinions are judgments or perspectives that may be influenced by bias, while arguments try to convince others of a claim using reasoning that could include fallacies. When analyzing statements, philosophy teaches us to apply systematic doubt and consider various biases that could affect perspectives. Understanding the difference between facts and opinions can guide us to wisdom in forming our own views.
This document provides an overview of methods for determining the truth or validity of claims through philosophical inquiry. It discusses how ancient Greek philosophers approached truth by examining the nature of knowledge and how we know what we know. It emphasizes employing systematic doubt to scrutinize all statements and determine truth, rather than taking anything as true without sufficient evidence. The document also differentiates between knowledge, facts, claims, opinions, arguments, beliefs, conclusions, explanations, and fallacies. It stresses that arguments may be based on faulty reasoning and fallacies, misleading the reader, so it is important to consider the characteristics and types of fallacies.
This document discusses key concepts in philosophy, including truth, knowledge, propositions, and methods for determining what is true. It provides definitions and examples of facts, claims, opinions, beliefs, explanations, arguments, and logical fallacies. Common biases are also explained. The overall purpose is to guide the reader in distinguishing truth from opinion and analyzing statements using philosophical methods.
1. Philosophers emphasize determining truth through careful examination and justification rather than just belief. They subject their own knowledge and assumptions to doubt in order to learn.
2. For a statement to be considered true, it must be justified or proven through evidence, agreed upon as factual, and able to be applied and tested in the real world.
3. Philosophers distinguish truth from opinion by examining arguments closely for logical fallacies or biases that could undermine the reasoning. A variety of common fallacies and biases that weaken arguments are discussed.
1. The document discusses various philosophical concepts and methods for determining truth, including the relationship between truth and knowledge, the nature of propositions, and how philosophers establish truth through questioning beliefs and using evidence and reason.
2. It also examines how to distinguish facts from opinions, and the role of logic and fallacies in philosophical arguments. Bias and faulty reasoning can undermine arguments and make it difficult to determine what is true.
3. Philosophers emphasize using doubt, evidence, and rigorous reasoning to separate opinions and beliefs from verifiable facts, in order to gain a clearer understanding of truth and knowledge.
This document provides an overview of methods for determining the truth or validity of claims through philosophical analysis. It discusses key concepts like knowledge, facts, opinions, arguments, logic, and fallacies. The document encourages applying systematic doubt to statements to analyze them, using examples like claims about one's identity or abilities. Readers are advised to consider whether a statement is factual, an opinion, belief, argument, or explanation in order to distinguish truth from falsehood. Philosophical tools like logic and identifying logical fallacies can guide determining the truthfulness of different types of statements.
The document discusses various philosophical concepts related to determining truth, including knowledge, facts, claims, arguments, and biases. It provides examples to illustrate these concepts and examines statements to distinguish those that are factual from those that are opinions. The document also discusses logical fallacies and biases that can influence arguments. It emphasizes that understanding the difference between facts and opinions is important for gaining wisdom and forming well-reasoned views. Analyzing different perspectives on issues while being aware of one's own biases can help achieve more objective evaluations.
This document provides an overview of methods for philosophizing and determining truth. It discusses the importance of truth and differentiating between knowledge, facts, claims, opinions and arguments. Systematic doubt is presented as a philosophical method for establishing truth by scrutinizing and analyzing statements. Examples are provided to illustrate applying systematic doubt to determine whether a statement is factual or an opinion. Fallacies in reasoning that can undermine arguments are also defined and exemplified. The document aims to teach philosophical thinking and analysis to discern truth from falsehood.
The document provides an overview of methods for philosophizing and distinguishing truth from opinion. It discusses how philosophers examine knowledge and its basis in reality or facts. Opinions are judgments or perspectives that may be influenced by bias, while arguments try to convince others of a claim using reasoning that could include fallacies. When analyzing statements, philosophy teaches us to apply systematic doubt and consider various biases that could affect perspectives. Understanding the difference between facts and opinions can guide us to wisdom in forming our own views.
This document provides an overview of methods for determining the truth or validity of claims through philosophical inquiry. It discusses how ancient Greek philosophers approached truth by examining the nature of knowledge and how we know what we know. It emphasizes employing systematic doubt to scrutinize all statements and determine truth, rather than taking anything as true without sufficient evidence. The document also differentiates between knowledge, facts, claims, opinions, arguments, beliefs, conclusions, explanations, and fallacies. It stresses that arguments may be based on faulty reasoning and fallacies, misleading the reader, so it is important to consider the characteristics and types of fallacies.
This document discusses key concepts in philosophy, including truth, knowledge, propositions, and methods for determining what is true. It provides definitions and examples of facts, claims, opinions, beliefs, explanations, arguments, and logical fallacies. Common biases are also explained. The overall purpose is to guide the reader in distinguishing truth from opinion and analyzing statements using philosophical methods.
1. Philosophers emphasize determining truth through careful examination and justification rather than just belief. They subject their own knowledge and assumptions to doubt in order to learn.
2. For a statement to be considered true, it must be justified or proven through evidence, agreed upon as factual, and able to be applied and tested in the real world.
3. Philosophers distinguish truth from opinion by examining arguments closely for logical fallacies or biases that could undermine the reasoning. A variety of common fallacies and biases that weaken arguments are discussed.
1. The document discusses various philosophical concepts and methods for determining truth, including the relationship between truth and knowledge, the nature of propositions, and how philosophers establish truth through questioning beliefs and using evidence and reason.
2. It also examines how to distinguish facts from opinions, and the role of logic and fallacies in philosophical arguments. Bias and faulty reasoning can undermine arguments and make it difficult to determine what is true.
3. Philosophers emphasize using doubt, evidence, and rigorous reasoning to separate opinions and beliefs from verifiable facts, in order to gain a clearer understanding of truth and knowledge.
This document discusses various philosophical theories of truth and methods for determining truth. It defines truth as a core concept in inquiry and knowledge. The document outlines correspondence theory, which holds that something is true if it corresponds to reality, and coherence theory, which says something is true if it makes sense within a given context. It also discusses relativism, constructivism, and consensus theory. The document provides examples and analyzes factors like biases, facts vs opinions, and logical fallacies that can influence determining truth. Activities are included to help students apply these concepts.
The document provides an overview of different philosophical theories for determining truth and discusses concepts like biases, facts vs opinions, and fallacies that are relevant to assessing the truthfulness of statements or ideas. It explains key theories such as the correspondence theory, which views something as true if it corresponds to reality, and the coherence theory, which sees truth as something making sense within a given context. The document also outlines common biases like confirmation bias and cultural bias that can influence perspectives, as well as logical fallacies to watch out for in arguments. It emphasizes that determining truth requires careful consideration of evidence, perspectives, and potential biases or flaws in reasoning.
Critical Thinking & TOK require questioning information and separating facts from unsupported claims. Ultimately, there are no absolute truths - knowledge claims must be scrutinized and supported by evidence while considering alternative viewpoints. We should believe things that are logically coherent and correspond with evidence, avoiding both unwarranted certainty and unfounded skepticism.
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoningdan_maribao
This document discusses philosophical methods of reasoning and fallacies. It defines fallacies as flawed arguments. The document then provides examples of different types of fallacies, including fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. Specific fallacies discussed include appeal to force, pity, popularity, ignorance, and false analogy. The document encourages analyzing arguments to identify fallacious reasoning.
This document discusses the concepts of wisdom and truth. It begins by outlining an activity for students to do in groups. It then provides definitions and explanations of wisdom, truth, and related philosophical concepts. Examples are given of facts versus opinions. The document also discusses how to gain wisdom from God according to the Bible and examines logical fallacies and cognitive biases. At the end, students are given application and assessment questions.
The document outlines three methods of philosophizing: 1) distinguishing opinion from truth by analyzing situations correctly, 2) realizing that philosophical methods lead to wisdom and truth, and 3) evaluating truth and opinion in different situations using the method of philosophizing.
Critical thinking involves systematically evaluating beliefs and statements using rational standards. It examines life through examining one's beliefs, as Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. Critical thinking uses distinct procedures like identifying claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments to rationally assess existing beliefs and form new ones. Common impediments include self-interested, group, and subjective thinking. Deductive arguments aim to conclusively support conclusions while inductive arguments probably support conclusions. Fallacies involve irrelevant or unacceptable premises while various reasoning patterns help strengthen arguments.
The document discusses different types of logic, including deductive and inductive reasoning. It notes that deductive reasoning is more certain but less informative than inductive reasoning. It also discusses what distinguishes good generalizations from bad ones, including considering number and variety of examples, exceptions, coherence, and subject area. The document describes how logic can help get closer to truth when premises are true and arguments are valid, but gives examples of when conclusions could be tentatively accepted. It also discusses common fallacies in reasoning such as post hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, and false dilemmas.
This lesson plan is for a senior high school philosophy class and has the following objectives: for students to distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view, recognize deliberately reflective human activities, and realize the value of philosophy. The lesson will introduce the topic of "Doing Philosophy" through a presentation defining philosophy, distinguishing it from opinions and views. It will discuss the pursuit of wisdom through open-minded critical reasoning and language, using analysis, criticism, and speculation. The presentation will also explain the basic components of arguments like propositions, premises, conclusions, and ways to evaluate validity and soundness.
This document provides an introduction to methods of philosophizing. It discusses various philosophical methods like the Socratic method, dialectic, and historical analysis that philosophers use to address questions. It defines key philosophical concepts like truth and knowledge. It also discusses how to distinguish facts from opinions and gives examples of common logical fallacies to avoid in reasoning. The document aims to help students learn the process of philosophizing in a systematic way and evaluate information critically.
Fallacies 4.1 Fallacies Questions 0 of 5 complete (0) 0 of 1.docxmydrynan
Fallacies / 4.1 Fallacies Questions: 0 of 5 complete (0%) | 0 of 1 correct (0%)
Fallacies
There are many different ways our reasoning can be flawed, but some of these mistakes are so common that they have names. This chapter explores fallacies, inhabitants of the often ridiculous but not always obvious world of flawed reasoning.
A fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, while a fallacious argument is an argument that commits a fallacy. There are two great reasons to study fallacies: to prevent yourself from being fooled by them, and to prevent yourself from committing them unintentionally.
Ground Rules
· Fallacies can be found in both deductive and inductive arguments.
· Fallacies can seem very plausible and, when undetected, are often persuasive.
· The presence of a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the logic is flawed and so the argument isn't compelling.
Tips for Spotting Fallacies
· Become familiar with the common ones.
· Evaluate assumptions in an argument.
· Find the conclusion, and then ask yourself if the premises are relevant to it.
· Look for things in the argument that distract your attention from the main point.
Common Fallacies
For the rest of the chapter we are going to explore 12 of the most common fallacies.
1. Red herring: fallacy in which the arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the opponent or audience from what is really at stake.
I don't know why you're arguing that working a full day on Saturday drains you and makes you less productive in the work week. You should consider yourself lucky... before there were unions, factory laborers would have to work 14 hours a day for six days a week!
Bringing up the conditions of factory workers in pre-union days is mostly irrelevant to the opponent's main point that a full day of work on Saturday reduces productivity for the following week.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy in which the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that "everybody" (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
Diane, getting an iPhone will make your life better. I mean, look around—practically everyone in America has an iPhone by this point!
The fact that millions of people own iPhones is not a logically sound reason to believe that buying one will make Diane's life better.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy in which the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."
In the years after nutrition facts were added to food packaging, obesity rates in the United States rose higher than ever before. Therefore, listing nutrition facts causes people to get fatter.
Just because the rise in obesity rates happened to coincide with the new practice of listing nutrition facts, no logical reason is offered as to why one might have caused the other.
4. ...
The document discusses various logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, false dilemma, special pleading, argument ad ignorantiam, false analogy, and loaded questions. It then discusses reason and certainty, the three laws of thought (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle), and evaluating whether one should always be logical or if emotion has a role. Lateral thinking puzzles are presented and evaluated. In conclusion, an essay question is posed about the extent to which all knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism.
The document discusses different types of thinking such as convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and clear thinking. It also discusses fallacies in common thinking such as ad hominem arguments, false analogies, and overgeneralizing. Additionally, it provides tips for developing clear thinking through analytical, creative, and practical thinking.
This document discusses the importance of conceptual, critical, and creative thinking. It emphasizes that good decision making requires good thinking skills, and outlines various thinking techniques like asking questions, making connections, using analogies, and problem solving. It provides examples of different types of critical thinking and discusses how to develop skills like conceptual thinking, problem solving, and embracing uncertainty.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
This document discusses various philosophical theories of truth and methods for determining truth. It defines truth as a core concept in inquiry and knowledge. The document outlines correspondence theory, which holds that something is true if it corresponds to reality, and coherence theory, which says something is true if it makes sense within a given context. It also discusses relativism, constructivism, and consensus theory. The document provides examples and analyzes factors like biases, facts vs opinions, and logical fallacies that can influence determining truth. Activities are included to help students apply these concepts.
The document provides an overview of different philosophical theories for determining truth and discusses concepts like biases, facts vs opinions, and fallacies that are relevant to assessing the truthfulness of statements or ideas. It explains key theories such as the correspondence theory, which views something as true if it corresponds to reality, and the coherence theory, which sees truth as something making sense within a given context. The document also outlines common biases like confirmation bias and cultural bias that can influence perspectives, as well as logical fallacies to watch out for in arguments. It emphasizes that determining truth requires careful consideration of evidence, perspectives, and potential biases or flaws in reasoning.
Critical Thinking & TOK require questioning information and separating facts from unsupported claims. Ultimately, there are no absolute truths - knowledge claims must be scrutinized and supported by evidence while considering alternative viewpoints. We should believe things that are logically coherent and correspond with evidence, avoiding both unwarranted certainty and unfounded skepticism.
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoningdan_maribao
This document discusses philosophical methods of reasoning and fallacies. It defines fallacies as flawed arguments. The document then provides examples of different types of fallacies, including fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. Specific fallacies discussed include appeal to force, pity, popularity, ignorance, and false analogy. The document encourages analyzing arguments to identify fallacious reasoning.
This document discusses the concepts of wisdom and truth. It begins by outlining an activity for students to do in groups. It then provides definitions and explanations of wisdom, truth, and related philosophical concepts. Examples are given of facts versus opinions. The document also discusses how to gain wisdom from God according to the Bible and examines logical fallacies and cognitive biases. At the end, students are given application and assessment questions.
The document outlines three methods of philosophizing: 1) distinguishing opinion from truth by analyzing situations correctly, 2) realizing that philosophical methods lead to wisdom and truth, and 3) evaluating truth and opinion in different situations using the method of philosophizing.
Critical thinking involves systematically evaluating beliefs and statements using rational standards. It examines life through examining one's beliefs, as Socrates said an unexamined life is not worth living. Critical thinking uses distinct procedures like identifying claims, premises, conclusions, and arguments to rationally assess existing beliefs and form new ones. Common impediments include self-interested, group, and subjective thinking. Deductive arguments aim to conclusively support conclusions while inductive arguments probably support conclusions. Fallacies involve irrelevant or unacceptable premises while various reasoning patterns help strengthen arguments.
The document discusses different types of logic, including deductive and inductive reasoning. It notes that deductive reasoning is more certain but less informative than inductive reasoning. It also discusses what distinguishes good generalizations from bad ones, including considering number and variety of examples, exceptions, coherence, and subject area. The document describes how logic can help get closer to truth when premises are true and arguments are valid, but gives examples of when conclusions could be tentatively accepted. It also discusses common fallacies in reasoning such as post hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, and false dilemmas.
This lesson plan is for a senior high school philosophy class and has the following objectives: for students to distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view, recognize deliberately reflective human activities, and realize the value of philosophy. The lesson will introduce the topic of "Doing Philosophy" through a presentation defining philosophy, distinguishing it from opinions and views. It will discuss the pursuit of wisdom through open-minded critical reasoning and language, using analysis, criticism, and speculation. The presentation will also explain the basic components of arguments like propositions, premises, conclusions, and ways to evaluate validity and soundness.
This document provides an introduction to methods of philosophizing. It discusses various philosophical methods like the Socratic method, dialectic, and historical analysis that philosophers use to address questions. It defines key philosophical concepts like truth and knowledge. It also discusses how to distinguish facts from opinions and gives examples of common logical fallacies to avoid in reasoning. The document aims to help students learn the process of philosophizing in a systematic way and evaluate information critically.
Fallacies 4.1 Fallacies Questions 0 of 5 complete (0) 0 of 1.docxmydrynan
Fallacies / 4.1 Fallacies Questions: 0 of 5 complete (0%) | 0 of 1 correct (0%)
Fallacies
There are many different ways our reasoning can be flawed, but some of these mistakes are so common that they have names. This chapter explores fallacies, inhabitants of the often ridiculous but not always obvious world of flawed reasoning.
A fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, while a fallacious argument is an argument that commits a fallacy. There are two great reasons to study fallacies: to prevent yourself from being fooled by them, and to prevent yourself from committing them unintentionally.
Ground Rules
· Fallacies can be found in both deductive and inductive arguments.
· Fallacies can seem very plausible and, when undetected, are often persuasive.
· The presence of a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the logic is flawed and so the argument isn't compelling.
Tips for Spotting Fallacies
· Become familiar with the common ones.
· Evaluate assumptions in an argument.
· Find the conclusion, and then ask yourself if the premises are relevant to it.
· Look for things in the argument that distract your attention from the main point.
Common Fallacies
For the rest of the chapter we are going to explore 12 of the most common fallacies.
1. Red herring: fallacy in which the arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the opponent or audience from what is really at stake.
I don't know why you're arguing that working a full day on Saturday drains you and makes you less productive in the work week. You should consider yourself lucky... before there were unions, factory laborers would have to work 14 hours a day for six days a week!
Bringing up the conditions of factory workers in pre-union days is mostly irrelevant to the opponent's main point that a full day of work on Saturday reduces productivity for the following week.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy in which the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that "everybody" (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
Diane, getting an iPhone will make your life better. I mean, look around—practically everyone in America has an iPhone by this point!
The fact that millions of people own iPhones is not a logically sound reason to believe that buying one will make Diane's life better.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy in which the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this."
In the years after nutrition facts were added to food packaging, obesity rates in the United States rose higher than ever before. Therefore, listing nutrition facts causes people to get fatter.
Just because the rise in obesity rates happened to coincide with the new practice of listing nutrition facts, no logical reason is offered as to why one might have caused the other.
4. ...
The document discusses various logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominem, circular reasoning, equivocation, false dilemma, special pleading, argument ad ignorantiam, false analogy, and loaded questions. It then discusses reason and certainty, the three laws of thought (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle), and evaluating whether one should always be logical or if emotion has a role. Lateral thinking puzzles are presented and evaluated. In conclusion, an essay question is posed about the extent to which all knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism.
The document discusses different types of thinking such as convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and clear thinking. It also discusses fallacies in common thinking such as ad hominem arguments, false analogies, and overgeneralizing. Additionally, it provides tips for developing clear thinking through analytical, creative, and practical thinking.
This document discusses the importance of conceptual, critical, and creative thinking. It emphasizes that good decision making requires good thinking skills, and outlines various thinking techniques like asking questions, making connections, using analogies, and problem solving. It provides examples of different types of critical thinking and discusses how to develop skills like conceptual thinking, problem solving, and embracing uncertainty.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
Walmart Business+ and Spark Good for Nonprofits.pdfTechSoup
"Learn about all the ways Walmart supports nonprofit organizations.
You will hear from Liz Willett, the Head of Nonprofits, and hear about what Walmart is doing to help nonprofits, including Walmart Business and Spark Good. Walmart Business+ is a new offer for nonprofits that offers discounts and also streamlines nonprofits order and expense tracking, saving time and money.
The webinar may also give some examples on how nonprofits can best leverage Walmart Business+.
The event will cover the following::
Walmart Business + (https://business.walmart.com/plus) is a new shopping experience for nonprofits, schools, and local business customers that connects an exclusive online shopping experience to stores. Benefits include free delivery and shipping, a 'Spend Analytics” feature, special discounts, deals and tax-exempt shopping.
Special TechSoup offer for a free 180 days membership, and up to $150 in discounts on eligible orders.
Spark Good (walmart.com/sparkgood) is a charitable platform that enables nonprofits to receive donations directly from customers and associates.
Answers about how you can do more with Walmart!"
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
48. EVIDENCE
48
especially documents can be forged or
falsified.
A person may be issued
with documents
but it may contain wrong information
or typographical error.
49. if your name is mispelled in your
birthcertificate
DOES YOUR IDENTITY CHANGE?
50. Example:
I can ride a bike/ Can I ride a
bike?
I can fry an egg/ Can I fry an egg?
50
51. ■ The obvious answer would be, is to
actually ride it cook it.--- BUT, some would
argue that the proof is not only in the act but
also in the product.
■ This means that you should not only show
that you can fry an egg but that also you can
make delicious fried eggs.
51
How will you prove that you can really cook an egg?
52. 5.
A BELIEF is true if...
a person can prove a statement through
an action.
52
55. Let usAnalyze…
1. It takes me 30 minutes to walk from my home to
school.
2. Living near the school is better because we
don’t have to spend much for transportation.
3. My sister ate the last piece of pizza.
4. My sister is a selfish person because she ate the
last piece and didn’t share it with me.
5. The police firmly pushed the suspect to his
kneed and placed him in handcuffs.
6. The aggressive manner by which the police
arrested the suspect is an example of brutality
that characterizes our p3
o
6 lice force.
56. Which of the following statements are similar?
Let's rearrange them.
57. It takes me 30 minutes to walk
from my home to school.
Living near the school is
better because we don’t
have to spend much for
transportation.
My sister ate the last piece of
pizza.
My sister is a selfish person
because she ate the last piece
and didn’t share it with me.
The police firmly pushed the
suspect to his kneed and
placed him in handcuffs.
The aggressive manner by
which the police arrested the
suspect is an example of
brutality that characterizes
our police force.
57
Which column has statements that are more factual?
58. It takes me 30 minutes to walk
from my home to school.
Living near the school is
better because we don’t
have to spend much for
transportation.
My sister ate the last piece of
pizza.
My sister is a selfish person
because she ate the last piece
and didn’t share it with me.
The police firmly pushed the
suspect to his kneed and
placed him in handcuffs.
FACTUAL
The aggressive manner by
which the police arrested the
suspect is an example of
brutality that characterizes
our police force.
OPINION
58
Which column has statements that are more factual?
60. OPINION
Comprised of statements which not
only give facts but also provide
conclusions or perspectives regarding
certain situations.
They may advance a belief about
certain things or provide
explanations.
The bases for making arguments
and convincing people that a
certain claim is a fact. They are
often influenced by bias.
62. Beliefs
Statements that express convictions that are not
easily and clearly explained by facts.
T
o judge the truthfulness of a belief, we must also
consider things such as the person’s experiences
and views.
63. Beliefs
Example: “I believe that God put me on this Earth
to spread his message of love.”
64. Explanation
Statements that assume the claim to be true and
provide reasons why the statement is true.
Example: Statement 4: My sister is selfish
because...
65. Arguments
Series of statements that provide reasons to convince
the reader or listener that a claim or opinion is
truthful.
They often take the form of statements that are
either claims of facts and are phrased in such a way
that they seem reasonable.
66. 3rd JOURNAL
OUTPUT
A. Imagine that you are part
of the conversation, how will
you react to the statements?
B. Give a reaction to the
article Describe how you will
determine the truth of the
claims given
PAGE: 28-29
66
67. Arguments
Series of statements that provide reasons to convince
the reader or listener that a claim or opinion is
truthful.
However, a number of arguments may be based on
faulty reasoning.
71. FALLACY CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE
Ad hominem Attacking the person instead
of the argument itself
Of course he believes that the
government is flawed, he is a rebel and
a Communist
Ad baculum
(appeal to force)
Using the threat of force or an
undesirable event to advance an
argument
If you do not agree with my political
opinions, you will receive flat 70 on
your
Ad misericordiam
(appeal to pity)
Using emotions such as pity
and sympathy
Y
ca
or
udc
.ant fire me, I have a wife and 12
kids who will go hungry if I lose this
job.
Ad populum (appeal to
majority or bandwagon)
The idea is presented as
acceptable because a lot
of people accept it
Every boy your age already has a
girlfriend, you should go find one!
Ad antiquitatem
(appeal to tradition)
The idea is acceptable
because it has been true
for a long time
Marriage has traditionally been between
a man and a woman; therefore, gay
marriage should not be allowed.
Ad verecundiam
(appeal to authority)
‘misusing’ an
authority
4 out of 5 dentists agree that brushing your teeth
makes your life meaningful.
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps
the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is
true. Therefore, it's true.
72. FALLACY CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE
Fallacy of
Composition
Assuming that what is true
of a part is true for the
whole
Each brick in that building weighs less
than a pound. Therefore, the building
weighs less than a pound.
Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet.
Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
Fallacy of Division Assuming that what is true
for the whole is true for its
parts
You come from a family of doctors and lawyers! Surely, you can do
better in this course!
I heard that the Catholic Church was involved in a sex scandal
cover-up. Therefore, my 102-year-old Catholic neighbor, who
frequently attends Church, is guilty as well!
Hasty The generalization is You can't speak French. I can’t
Generalization reached too hastily. There speak French. Carla can't speak
are too few instances or French; therefore, nobody in this
evidences to support such a school can speak French.
conclusion.
Post Hoc
(false cause)
Assuming a ‘cause-and-
effect’ relationship
between unrelated events
Every time you wear your red
scarf, you cry. You should
get rid of it.
73. BIAS (PAGKILING)
The personal views of the person presenting it.
They are not necessarily errors in reasoning, but
refer to tendencies or influences which affect
the views of people.
74. BIAS CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE
Correspon
dence bias
(Fundame
ntal
attributio
n error)
Tendency to judge a
person’s personality by
his/her actions without
regard for external
factors or situations
The soldiers who
fought in the
war are all
bloodthirsty
murderers.
Confirmation
bias
the tendency to look for
and accept information
in a way that confirms
one's own beliefs and
reject ideas that go
against it
How can I accept his
view that there is no
God? I am a Christian!
75. BIAS CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE
Conflict of interest A person or group is connected to
or has a vested interest in the
issue
As the daughter of the accused, I believe
that I have the right to express my opinion
on the issue of his alleged corrupt
practices.
Cultural bias Analyzing an event or issue
based on one’s cultural
standards
I do not agree with this Western practice
of placing the elderly in retirement
homes.
We Filipinos take care of our family members.
Framing Focusing on a certain aspect of a
problem while ignoring other
aspects
Preliminary evidences has still not
pointed out the actual cause of the plane
crash, but investigators are currently
focusing on the possibility of pilot error.
Hindsight
(knew-it-all-along
phenomenon)
Is when, after an event occurs, we
feel we already knew what was
going to happen
When you put a glass on the edge of a table
and you start cleaning and bumped the glass
and it fell to the ground and
76. HOW CAN AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
DIFFERNCE BETWEENTRUTHAND
OPINION LEAD USTO WISDOM?
Understanding of opinions and facts and the
means to distinguish one from the other
can further improve our understanding and
appreciation of varied views and ideas. The
ability to determine truth goes hand in
hand with the holistic perspective and
enables us to make wiser decisions,
especially in choosing the ideas and views
which we find acceptable.
76
77. HOW CAN AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
DIFFERNCE BETWEENTRUTHAND
OPINION LEAD USTO WISDOM?
77
An individual cannot live his or her life just
agreeing with everybody he or she meets. A
critical mind aided by philosophy can help us form
our own personal point of view that can guide us
in making decisions and actions when faced with a
problem.
Philosophy can help us determine ideas that are
truthful and acceptable which we can then use
to form our own views regarding certain
matters.
78. Let us imagine several individuals reacting to a
news in television and radio about the recent
killings of drug pushers and addicts throughout the
country
MANGANTONIO ATTY.MACARAIG MRS.LOPEZ
FATHERGOMEZ MR.TOLENTINO MRS.ALONZO
78
79. NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THEIR BACKGROUND
MANGANTONIO
A citizen who lives in a
barangay where the
presence of drugs addicts
is a problem
ATTY.MACARAIG
A lawyer and a
citizen
MRS.LOPEZ
A housewife
whose family
lives in a
community
FATHERGOMEZ
A priest
MR.TOLENTINO
A father whose
daughter was raped
and murdered by drug
addicts.
MRS.ALONZO
A mother whose son
is
a drug addict.
80. Figuring out the backgrounds of the people
who made the statements allows us to
undertand the context by which they formed
their views and opinions on the issue.
86. Which among the opinions is most similar to your
own personal bias regarding the issue of the drug
addicts?
87. PHILOSOPHY CAN HELP US EXAMINE VARIOUS VIEWS
ON RELEVANT ISSUES AND OUR LIVES. AN OBJECTIVE
EVALUATION OF OPINIONS AND AN AWARENESS OF OUR
OWN PERSONAL BIASES CAN HELP US MAKE WISE
CHOICES RAGRDING THE MOST ACCEPTABLE VIEWS TO
ADOPT AND THE RIGHT ACTIONS TO UNDERTAKE.
87
88. How will you determine the truth from an opinion?
89. How do we evaluate truth from opinions in
different situations?