analytical assignment by Sir Dr Suhail Ansari

Assignment for the Departments of English & Media Studies by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari

October 30, 2018

Assignment: Learn How to Exist.

When articles  appropriately becomes a tutorial or starting point for interesting debates, rather than the definitive reference to be assimilated uncritically, you start to exist as you have learnt  to use the analysis of yours to orientate yourself.

The analysis cannot be yours unless you have clear thinking. Clear thinking is the power to recognize and analyze questions and statements or in other words reasoning that is logically fallacious.

 A perception that harnesses the power of clear thinking is not dictated by reasoning proceeds from the contested assertion or from undisputed truth to an unguaranteed conclusion.

Be best equipped for an assignment.

You are tasked with following analysis so to live up to exercise.

Study some of the best critical thinkers on the planet. From looking at what people like Carl Sagan, Charlie Munger, Richard Feynman, Ray Dalio and many more create a map called “The Art of Decision-Making” that captures the core principles of clear thinking.

Study two methods of reasoning: deductive, inductive to understand reasoning as the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations in order to develop the power to recognize reasoning clouded by uncritically accepted assumptions, facts, hopes, fears, biases and prejudices.

 Study abductive reasoning that is characterized by lack of completeness to learn how to make the best guess based on what you know hence be creative, intuitive, even revolutionary for a creative leap of imagination and visualization that scarcely seemed warranted by the mere observation.

Analyze examples self-defeating statements such as "God told me He doesn't exist’’ or the title ‘I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ for the violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Analyze examples of self-refuting nature of statements such as ‘There is no truth’ or meaning that one cannot deny truth without affirming it

Analyze examples of how to reject one for one: because of ‘Internal Contradiction’ or a “self-contradiction,” occurring when conclusion is opposite the conclusion that is best supported by the given premises. In other words, provided evidence literally contradicts the very conclusion arguments then draw.

Analyze examples the inconsistency that is contained within the statement itself; and doesn’t require any other premises or arguments thus it is both an internal inconsistency and a logical inconsistency.  

 Analyze examples of quotes such as from Yogi Berra "I never said most of the things I said."  Or" Nobody goes there anymore.  It's too crowded."

Exercise below functions as a litmus test; testing your ability for clear thinking.

Create the “map” for crystal clear thinking

Read the summary of Hadith Rejecters' Claims to know when expressions of misplaced confidence in one’s own knowledge, misguided emotions, prejudices and deliberate untruths are masked as impartially balanced opinions should serve as a warning to clear-thinking

The maintenance of bond between the prophet (P.B.U.H) and Muslims throughout the lifespan of Ummah is critical to the survival of Islam. Analyze all notions of contemporary assaults as the extensions of undercuts. Choose any passage or articles aim at breaking out the bonds and permanently alter and place them in flux

 De-conflate the issue with the person to keep things in perspective or lend a fresh perspective to the subject.

Analyze an article authored by an Indian or Israeli analyzing the underlying reasons for unrest in Kashmir or Philistine. De-conflate the issue with an author to understand the biases those prejudice an author against or in favor of something.

Analyze an article authored by any prominent secular writer about Pakistan as a secular state for deliberate untruths masked as impartially balanced opinions

Analyze any article clouded by uncritically accepted assumptions, facts, hopes, fears, biases and prejudices to underline the difference if reasoning were unclouded. 

Read any passage or any article to recognize reasoning clouded by uncritically accepted assumptions, facts, hopes, fears, biases and prejudices.

Read any passage or any article to recognize reasoning that begins with an incomplete set of observations and does not proceed to the likeliest possible explanation. Reasoning that does not yield decision-making because it fails to realize the existence of unadmitted additional evidence.