Easier to read instructions in the attached PDF. “Mystical Experience vs. Knowle

Easier to read instructions in the attached PDF.
“Mystical Experience vs. Knowledge”
Purpose
Discuss the limitations of the key alleged sources of knowledge: faith, intuition, perception, introspection, memory, and reason.
Describe the differences among some key alleged sources of knowledge: faith, intuition, perception, introspection, memory, and reason.
Overview
In one important sense, science, as a (supposedly) consistent body of knowledge about the natural or physical world, is about coherent laws that describe the natural order of things. These physical principles define reality for us; they define what is known using reason and the five senses of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch.
In contrast, mystical experience is about a direct experience with reality that is beyond the intellect and sensory perception. Seeking a “deeper” insight into the nature of reality, mystical experience may contradict the natural order of things. And if something contradicts the natural order of things, then it presents conflicts with a great deal of what we know about reality. But if something does not cohere with what is known, then it is not a good source of (factual) knowledge.
Action Items
Part 1: Using the following deductive argument, substitute some mystical experience (that you, a
family member, or a friend has lived) for the variable x and
Part 2: analyze and evaluate the resulting argument (i.e., use Critical Thinking). This part will include identification and references to Inductive and Deductive arguments, in addition to labeling and justifying the item(s) from this list:
Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens Hypothetical Syllogism Disjunctive Syllogism Dilemma
Enumerative Induction Analogical Induction Hypothetical Induction
Produced work must be able to pass a TURNitIN and ChaptGPT check for originality and human authorship from multiple vendors.
Looking for This Part, below, Just As It Appears, Replacing The “X” And “An Area . . .”
(1) If x conflicts with a great deal of what we know about (an area or field of) science, then x is not a good source of (factual) knowledge.
(2) x conflicts with a great deal of what we know about (an area or field of) science. ____________________________________________________________________ (3) Thus, x is not a good source of (factual) knowledge.
=================================================
Complete this in a Microsoft Word document. Your detailed response must include the following core ideas of Critical Thinking:
ANALYSIS: Examine the structure of the argument in detail and symbolize this structure or component parts.
EVALUATION: Is the deductive argument valid? Is it sound (= valid + true premises)? If sound, tell why the premises are true.
For this part, use the heading. Symbolize and identify the name of the argument form (from module one) – might add a sentence or two about that form (maybe 100 words?)
ANALYSIS: Examine the structure of the argument in detail and symbolize this structure or component parts.
USE THE HEADING AGAIN. ANSWER THE VALID AND SOUND QUESTIONS WITH A BRIEF DEFENSE (MAYBE 100 WORDS?)
EVALUATION: Is the deductive argument valid? Is it sound (= valid + true premises)? If sound, tell why the premises are true.
While not specifically called for, if needed to reference or review, this is the applicable text: Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2014). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age. (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9780078038365.