Philosophy 1100

1. Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm Quia Class Website www.quia.com Reading Assignment for Next week Chapters 3 & 5 of your text. Editorial Essay #1 Due.

2. If I listened long enough to youI’d find a way to believe that it’s all trueKnowing that you lied straight-faced while I criedStill I look to find a reason to believeSomeone like you makes it hard to live withoutSomebody elseSomeone like you makes it easy to giveNever think about myselfIf I gave you time to change my mindI’d try to leave all the past behindKnowing that you lied straight-faced while I criedStill I look to find a reason to believe. Someone like you makes it hard to live withoutSomebody elseSomeone like you makes it easy to giveNever think about myself Rod Stewart, Reason to Believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrjePH49Aq0

3. Chapter One What is Critical Thinking, Anyway?

4. Arguments & Persuasion In particular, we are often influenced by rhetorical devices. Rhetoric is language that is psychologically persuasive but does not have any relevant logical strength. For example: “Our brave, young soldiers in Iraq have sacrificed greatly in their valiant efforts.” But is this really a premise for a claim that we we should stay in Iraq? Or leave Iraq? Notice of course that most of us would agree that the above statement is true, but that being true does not necessary assure us that the statement is not being used rhetorically.

5. Arguments & Cognitive Bias Psychologists are interested in why people think the way they do, that is, they are interested in explanations for the human behavior of thinking and reasoning. This is very different than laying out guidelines FOR critical thinking as we are trying to to, but their results are very interesting on the scientific issue.

6. Arguments & Cognitive Bias Consequently, your text discusses several “cognitive biases” that have been proposed by psychologists as explanations for why people act as they do (which is often counter to the principles of critical thinking that we will discuss.) Please observe that psychologists are primarily interested in “factual” or objective claims and issues and we as philosophers are interested in “normative” (but NOT “subjective” ones).

7. The Fundamental Principle of Critical Thinking is The Nature of an Argument • Making a claim is stating a belief or opinion -- the conclusion • An argument is presented when you give a reason or reasons that the claim is true. -- the premise(s) • Thus, an argument consists of two parts, and one part (the premise or premises) is/are the reason(s) for thinking that the conclusion is true.

8. What is aFactual Claim? • A claim is sometimes called an assertion, an opinion, a belief, a “view”, a thought, a conviction, or perhaps, an idea. • A claim must be expressed as a statement or a complete, declarative sentence. It cannot be a question. • In its clearest form, a claim asserts that something is true or false. That is, it asserts a fact. This kind of claim is known as a “factual claim” or a “descriptive claim.”

9. What is aNormative Claim? • Value statements can also be claims though. In such claims, a fact is not asserted in the same sense that it was in factual claims. • For example, the claim “You should come to class” is not true or false (at least in the same way that the claim “P1100 class is held in Room 218” is). • Thus, some claims are “normative claims” or “prescriptive claims.” They express values and how one should act based on values. A value statement is a claim that asserts something is good or bad.

10. Arguments & Subjectivism • The view that “one opinion is as good as another,” “it’s true for me though it might not be true for you” or “whatever is true is only what you think is true” is known as subjectivism. • For some things, this makes sense, e.g. • Miller taste great. • My grandson is cute. • The waiter at the restaurant was nice. • Your text refers to these as “subjective claims” and says that “some people” (but presumably not critical thinkers may call these “opinions.”)

11. Subjectivism • To tell if something is subjective, ask yourself: “If Susan says “A” is true and Tiffany says “A” is not true, is it reasonable to say that they both are right? • One cannot give an argument either for or against a subjective position. • But be careful. Is it reasonable to argue that the most significant beliefs in our lives are subjective – whether God exists, whether you are living your life morally, or whom you should love?

12. Subjectivism • The critical thinker always prefers objectivity to subjectivism whenever it is appropriate and necessary. • A critical thinker is not subjective about issues that can be evaluated by objective standards and evidence. • However, few issues or ideas if any have no subjective component. • Even different heart specialists may prefer different techniques for no accepted medical reason. • Simon Cowell dresses well.

13. Chapter Two Two Kinds of Reasoning

14. Two Kinds of Good Arguments • A good deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily (that is, has to be) true. • Such an argument is called “valid” and “proves” the conclusion. • For example – Lebron James lives in the United States because he lives in Nebraska. • All men are mortal. • Socrates is a man. • ____ • Socrates is mortal. • A sound argument is a valid, deductive argument in which the premises are in fact true.

15. Two Kinds of Good Arguments • A good inductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true, but not always. The truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. • Such an argument is called “strong” and supports the conclusion. • For example: Dan lives in Nebraska and he loves football, so he is a Nebraska Cornhusker fan. • If offered to me before class tonight, I would • have made a bet with my wife that each of you would • sit in the same seat in class that you did last week. • If she would have taken the bet, would I • have won more money than I would have lost?

16. What is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” vs “Proof? • Although standard English usage is often lax about this, technically speaking, PROOF requires a valid deductive argument. • “Beyond a reasonable doubt” requires a level of evidence in an inductive argument such that if someone were to believe it were not true, they might still possibly be right, but that probability is so remote that reasonable, critical thinking, people will be satisfied to act and claim to knowwithout a proof.

17. But also remember: • Premises can themselves be questioned and raise issues, and thus in a different argument serve as claims for which “reasons to believe” or premises are required. • Oftentimes, claims & premises are unstated in real life arguments. Perhaps the proponent of the argument is making assumptions which are not clear.

18. Consider this “argument” • Premise: No one can check out books from the MCC library without either a student or a faculty I.D.. • Claim/Conclusion: My wife cannot check out a book at the MCC library. • Does this seem like a good argument? Why or why not?

19. Consider this “argument” • The party that collects the most money from wealthy donors will win the presidency and the Republican party will collect much more money that will the Democrats. • Does this seem like a good • argument? Why or why not?

20. What is “Balance of Considerations?” But many arguments do not appear to be simply either Deductive or Inductive. They appear to be some kind of a hybrid form. Take the Jamela example in the text. Perhaps many arguments have elements of both? Or is there a third kind of argument? Also, when we considered an argument per se, we considered only premises for the conclusion. What about premises against the conclusion? Aren’t they also just as relevant? Didn’t we say that critical thinking involved being fair-minded and considering all points of view? So, what gives here?

21. What is “Balance of Considerations Reasoning?” Textbook seems to raise this issue but then fails to address it satisfactorily. So can we help our authors out here? Your instructor’s view is: 1. No, there is no third kind of reasoning. 2. What often appears to be “one argument” is frequently a combination of arguments. Critical thinking must first deconstruct a “buffet” of arguments into individual arguments and analyze them one at a time. 3. And then finally, we must make a judgment not only on individual arguments but on a “complex theory” or “web of belief” comprising our best analysis of many individual arguments, perhaps in a hierarchy of arguments.

22. How Do Premises Support Conclusions? • For an Deductive argument, premises prove or demonstrate a conclusion based on if the premises make the conclusion certainly true. • Consider the argument: • (P1) If it’s raining outside, the grass near the house gets wet. • (P2) It’s raining outside. • _________________________ • The grass near the house is wet. • In a Deductive argument, premises prove a conclusion based on the logical form of the statement or based on definitions. It would be a contradiction to suggest that the conclusion is false but the premises are true.

23. What is Logical Form? Consider the following argument: A good God cannot exist. There is evil in the world and any God who is good would not permit evil to exist. This argument can be stated as follows: (Premise 1) There is evil in the world. (P2) A God who is good would not permit evil to exist. ____ (Conclusion) A God who is good does not exist.

24. What is Logical Form? • Note that we can symbolize this argument with variables. In this case, say for example, this argument could be represented as: • G = A good God exists, E= There is no evil in the world. • This argument is of the form: • If G  E • ~ E • _____ • ~G • Thus, it is a valid deductive argument. This is the deductive rule of Modus Tollens. EVERY argument that can be represented in this form is valid, regardless what G and E represent.

25. How Do Premises Support Conclusions? • For an Inductive argument, premises support (never prove) a conclusion based on how strongly the premises provide evidence for the conclusion. • Consider the argument (Variation One): • (P1) When it rains outside, the grass near the house only gets wet when the wind is blowing strongly from the North. • (P2) The wind usually blows from the South in Omaha. • ________________________ • Even though it is raining, the grass near the house is not wet.

26. How Do Premises Support Factual vs. Normative Conclusions? In regard to evaluating Inductive support for Factual vs. Normative Conclusions, I would suggest the following two tips to keep in mind 1) Only Factual Premises support Factual Conclusions. That is, if the conclusion is factual (or descriptive), ALL premises must be factual. 2) A Normative Premise is always needed to support a Normative Conclusion. That is, if the conclusion is normative (or prescriptive), there must be at least one normative premise. Of course, there may or may not be factual premises!

27. How Do We Evaluate an Argument? There are generally two requirements (and only two) logically to evaluate a claim – 1) Do the premises support or prove the conclusion? Or is the argument valid (if deductive) or strong (if inductive)? 2) Are the premises true? -- It would be nonsense for you to object with, for example, “I don’t want to believe that” or “You shouldn’t say that”, or “Where did you come up with that?” “That’s not what my girl friend says,” “You didn’t explain why it is true,” etc, etc.

28. What is the Structure of the Argument? We have already noted that arguments may have an unstated conclusion and/or even unstated premises. For example, consider the following argument: Why should Tiger not play in the Masters? He is the best golfer in the world and everybody has sinned, haven’t they? The good book says “He who is without sin should cast the first stone.” --This argument has an unstated conclusion, namely that Tiger should play in the Masters.It also seems to have many unstated premises, for example, one seems to be that the best golfer in the world should play in the Masters regardless of any personal matters.

29. A Problem with Unstated Premises Note that when there are unstated premises, it often makes it unclear whether the argument is intended to be deductive or inductive. For example, the unstated premise that we asserted in the Tiger argument made the argument deductive. But was that really the premise intended or was it only that usually the best golfer in the world should play in the Masters. If so, then the argument would have been inductive. Sometimes context can make it clear. Sometimes not so much. Bottom line, you may want to give the argument its “best shot.” There’s no point in being negative just to shoot somebody down. You may wish to state the unstated premise in “the best possible light” and see if the person proposing the argument agrees. If so, your discussion can be productive.

30. What is the Structure of the Argument? So it is clear that the structure of an argument is sometimes not obvious and may need careful clarification. Particular clarification is often needed in regards to two different (but related) situations: 1. “Double-edged” arguments which have multiple conclusions. Perhaps one conclusion immediately serves as a premise for a “second wind” conclusion. (Example in book) (also frequently found in news editorials where an argument is given that there is “something wrong” and this is immediately followed up with “we should do something about it.” 2. “Embedded”arguments where the premises themselves are raised as issues and thus we need to provide premises to support them. In this case, what we have is one argument “within” another.

31. How to Decipher a Complex or Confused Argument: A Recipe 1. Find the conclusion! Only by doing so, do you have any chance at all to identify premises appropriately. If you can’t identify a conclusion, you might ask if this is an argument at all. Sometimes it helps to ask: what is the issue? Determine if the claim is factual or normative. 2. Identify secondary claims which may serve as reasons (premises) for the conclusion. Ask yourself THE BASIC QUESTION – If these claims are true, do they make the conclusion more likely or certain to be true or do they not? Determine if argument is deductive or inductive. 3. Sort out the “window dressing” which does not provide support and eliminate it. Put all this aside. 4. Identify premises themselves that need to have their own “reasons to believe.” Repeat steps #2 and #3 until “your cake is baked properly.”

32. Editorial Analysis Paper • 1) Two editorial analyses papers will be 15% of your total grade. Each paper will count 7.5% of your total grade. The paper should be 2 to 3 pages. • 2) I recommend that you select your editorials or “articles” carefully from one of these sources. • http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/ • http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html • 3) There are five steps to the required analysis. Each step must be discussed appropriately. (Divide your paper into five separate paragraphs, if you choose.) 32

33. 5 Steps to the Editorial Analysis • 1) Summarize the article as it is written. • Identify the logical argument, including all its parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Are the claim and premises clear and unambiguous? (Hint: A claim can always be stated in a single sentence.) Do there seem to be multiple conclusions? • Is the argument deductive or inductive? If inductive, what is the evidence given for the primary claim? If deductive, is the argument valid? Is evidence given for the premises or are they just asserted? Is it factual or normative? Are there unstated premises? • Identify any rhetorical devices, analogies, irony, etc. Identify any subjectivity. Is this unresolvable subjectivity or can it be clarified to reduce the subjectivity? • 5) Is the argument strong? How could the argument have been made stronger? 33