Philosophy 1100

1. Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Hand Back: Editorial Analysis #1 & Discuss Tonight: Class Presentations & Discussion on Chapter 5.

2. Next Week – 10/12/2015 No class on-site Midterm Exam (Take-home) Portfolio #4 • The Midterm Exam will be posted on Quia by Wednesday noon, 10/7. Most questions are multiple choice. Complete the exam by composing a Microsoft Word file providing YOUR answers. You may consult your notes, the laminated card, or textbook while taking the exam, but NOT OTHER STUDENTS. Your answer sheet does not need to have the questions themselves copied to it. • On your exam, please discuss which 3 (at least, more if you like) questions did you find the most difficult and what other answers did you find “plausible.” This will help me to evaluate the exam. Your exam will not be considered complete without this feedback. • After you have finished taking the exam, email your exam (with feedback) to me at pdickey2@mccneb.edu. E-mail with exam attached must be received by me no later than 6:00 P.M. on Monday, 10/12. Then take the evening off and do something nice for yourself. Please Note: For every 8 hours (or partial) the exam is late, a full grade will be reduced. NO EXCEPTIONS.

3. Student Portfolios: Assignment #4 What is Clarity and why is it important? When is vagueness and ambiguity a problem?   Collect 2-3 “artifacts” that illustrate either you or someone else not being clear “enough.” For each, write a description or explanation of the occasion and how things could have been made more clear. What problem did it cause? What was done, if anything, to resolve it?

4. Assignments for 10/19/2015 Read Chapters Six & Seven That week you will teach the class how to identify a particular logical fallacy. Study Editorial Analysis Workshop Powerpoint posted on Quia. Second Editorial Analysis Due. --- Instant Democracy is Never Doable

5. Chapters Six & Seven: Logical Fallacies Presenters: Estelle: Argumentum Ad Hominem Cindy: The Straw Man / False Dilemma Rachael: Misplacing Burden of Proof / Begging the Question Ari: Appeal to Emotion James: Irrelevant Conclusions / Slippery Slope Michele: Generalizations Maria: Weak Analogy Instructor: Fallacious Appeals to Authority, Popularity, Cause & Effect; Untestable Explanations In your presentation, you must define your fallacy type, give examples, and distinguish it from other logical fallacies that are similar. I encourage you to use powerpoint slides in your presentation if possible, but it is not necessary.

6. Chapter Five: Persuasion Through Rhetoric

7. Rhetoric tries to persuade through use of the emotional power of language and is an art in itself. • Though it can be psychologically influential, rhetoric has no logical strength. • Rhetoric does not make your argument any better, even if it convinces everyone. • Can you recognize rhetoric?

8. Never drive in a storm without wiper blades.

9. & Never go into the fierce storms of an argument without your WIPER SHIELD to protect you from the evil forms of rhetoric devices: W easeling, I nnuendo, P roof Surrogates E xplanations, Analogies & Definitions (Rhetorical) R idicule/Sarcasm S tereotypes H yperbole I mage Rhetoric E uphemisms/Dysphemisms L oaded Questions, and D ownplaying/Minimizing

10. Chapter Five: Persuasion Through Rhetoric Presenters: Estelle: Euphemisms and Dysphemisms Cindy: Rhetorical Analogies, Definitions, and Explanations Rachael: Stereotypes & Image Rhetoric Ari: Innuendos James: Loaded Questions & Rhetorical Questions Michele: Weaseling & Minimizing Maria: Proof Surrogates Instructor: Ridicule / Sarcasm & Hyperbole In your presentation, you must define your rhetoric type, give examples, and distinguish it from other types of rhetoric that are similar. I encourage you to use powerpoint slides in your presentation if possible, but it is not necessary.

11. Euphemisms and Dysphemisms • A euphemism attempts to mute the disagreeable aspects of something. • If I say a car is “pre-owned,” does that sound better and a person would be more likely to buy it than if I said the car was “used?” There is no logical difference. it is the same car. • Would you be more willing to support a “revenue enhancement” or a “tax increase”?

12. Euphemisms and Dysphemisms • Fox news put out an internal memo to its staff to refer to U.S. servicemen in Iraq as “sharpshooters” not “snipers.” • Often, we try to make something “politically correct” by using euphemisms. • I would suggest perhaps a better strategy might be to identify clearly and logically analyze biases and thus we would likely discard them.

13. Oppositely, a dysphemism attempts to produce a negative association through rhetoric. • How do you feel about “freedom fighters?” How do you feel about terrorists? Often, the difference is only based upon which side you are on. • Please note that it is NOT a dysphemism to state an objective report that just sounds horrible, e.g. “Lizzy killed her father with an ax.”

14. Innuendo • An innuendo is a deceptive and veiled suggestion or a slanting device applying negatively to an opponent’s character or reputation or to insert a claim though which a direct statement of the claim is avoided (perhaps because there is no evidence). • e.g. “Ladies and gentlemen, I am proof that there is at least one candidate in this race who does not have a drinking problem.” • Please note that in an innuendo the statement given will typically be absolutely true.

15. Innuendo • The innuendo is based on the expectation that the reader will “read into” the statement something more than what is actually said, possibly thus making unwarranted assumptions about why the speaker may have said it. In this case, the speaker wants the listener to believe without giving evidence that there is some reason to believe that one or more of his opponents has a drinking problem.

16. Innuendo • Did President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union make the claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack? • Or did he only “say” that Saddam in general sponsored terrorists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgwqCdv3YQo&feature=related

17. Stereotypes • A stereotype is used when a speaker groups multiple individuals together with a name or description, suggesting that all members of the group are the same in some basic way. • e.g. women are emotional, men are insensitive, gays are effeminate, lesbians hate men, Black men are good at sports. • Stereotypes are generalizations that are not supported by adequate evidence and ignore the psychological principle of individual differences.

18. Stereotypes are often manipulated as propaganda to incite a nation to support a war or actions during time of an emergency crisis. • Hitler’s use in WWII of ethnic propaganda not only was against Jews, but also Blacks, gypsies, but certain other religious groups. • In the United States, we re-located Japanese families on the West Coast. • Some people believe today that the tea-party protests against the health care bill are manipulations for racist agendas (based on stereotypes). But careful, do you have GOOD PREMISES to believe either that they are or they are not?

19. Analogies – Are they Rhetorical or Not? • An analogy is a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. • An argument from analogy involves the drawing of a conclusion about one object or event because the same can obviously be said about a similar object or event. • An argument from analogy can be a good inductive argument that supports its conclusion. • The strength of any argument from analogy largely depends on the strength and relevance of the employed analogy.

20. Rhetorical Deceptions & Dirty Tricks • But a rhetorical analogy attempts to persuade by use of a comparison (often clever and humorous) without giving us an argument. Hilary’s eyes are bulgy like a Chihuahua. Dick Cheney has steel in his backbone. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Video

21. Rhetorical Definitions • An honest definition attempts to clarify meaning. A rhetorical definition uses emotionally tinged words to elicit an attitude that is vague (often intentionally) and pre-judges the issue. Bill Maher’s defined a conservative as “one who thinks all problems can be solved either by more guns or more Jesus.” Abortion is the murder of innocent, unborn children.

22. Rhetorical Explanations • A rhetoric explanation is similarly deceptive and attempts to trash a person or idea under a mask or pretense of giving an explanation. • The War in Vietnam was lost because the American people lost their nerve.” • Students who drop my classes do so because they are idiots. • Liberals who criticize the U.S. Army’s actions in Iraq do so only because they are disloyal to their country.

23. Weaseling • Weaseling protects you from criticism by watering down your claim. • e.g. What if I would have previously said, “Probably most individuals of the early 20th century who harbored biases against Native Americans and African-Americans knew very few personally?” • If so, would have my statement been a good premise? No, not much. If you questioned it, I have a “way out.” Thus, it seems to lack much meaning.

24. Weaseling • Weaseling is a method of hedging a bet. You can sometimes spot weaseling by an inappropriate and frequent use of qualifiers, such as “perhaps,” “possibly,” maybe,” etc. • Be careful. qualifiers also are used often to carefully say what can legitimately be said about an issue and are not weasel words. You need to assess the context carefully.

25. Weaseling • Three years later, does President Bush “weasel” on his earlier justification for the Iraq war or does he “clarify?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKd71JxEYzE

26. Minimizing or Downplaying • Words and devices that add no argument but only suggest that a source or a claim is less significant than what the claim or premises suggest is called downplaying or minimizing, e.g. Are you going to vote for a “hockey mom?” Or “just another liberal?” • You can sometimes spot this by a use of words or phrases like “so-called,” “merely,” “mere,” or “just another.” • Downplayers often also make use of stereotypes. “That’s just Dick Cheney”

27. Ridicule / Sarcasm • Ridicule and sarcasm is a powerful rhetorical device (often called The Old Horse Laugh Fallacy). • Keep in mind that it adds absolutely nothing to the logical force of an argument. • Questioning the “intelligence” of the person that makes a claim is logically irrelevant to whether the claim itself is true or false. Video

28. Ridicule / Sarcasm • It is interesting after watching a spirited debate (for example, one of political candidates) to analyze whether the person who came off more “humorous” or “entertaining” and the one whom we might have thought “won” the debate actually took advantage of his opponent unfairly through this method. • If so, we should re-examine ourselves whether we were thinking critically during the debate. Video

29. Hyperbole • Hyperbole basically means exaggeration or an extravagant overstatement. • e.g. “My boss is a fascist dictator. He won’t let anybody do things their own way. It is always his way or the highway.” • This kind of statement, considered for exactly what it says, is silly and lacks credibility.

30. Hyperbole • Interestingly, hyperbole often works even when no one believes it. In this example, we probably don’t believe the statement is actually true, but we would probably be reluctant to take a job working for this guy thinking something like “where there’s smoke, there must be fire.” • Be careful: As critical thinkers, we have no more reason to believe the claim that the boss is a problematic one to work for than we do to believe the hyperbole. • BREAKING NEWS!

31. Proof Surrogates • A proof surrogate is an expression that suggests that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence of authority. • e.g. “informed sources say,” ”it is obvious that” or “studies show” are typical proof surrogates. • Proof surrogates are not substitutes for evidence or authority.

32. Proof Surrogates • The introduction of a proof surrogate does not support an argument. • They may suggest sloppy research or even propaganda. • The use of proof surrogates, on the other hand, should not be interpreted that evidence does not exist or could not be given. You just don’t know.

33. The Loaded Question • A loaded question is a question that suggests strongly an unwarranted and unjustified assumption. • e.g. Do you still hang around with petty criminals? Have you stopped beating your wife? Why have you not renounced your earlier crimes? When are you going to stop lying to us? • This technique is often used quite intentionally in police interrogations to get a suspect to confess to acts that the police have insufficient evidence for. “David, how did Joyce help you to escape?”

34. The Rhetorical Question A question asked solely to produce an effect or response. Not intended primarily to elicit an answer to the question. • "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who would want to live in an institution?“ • "If practice makes perfect, and no one's perfect, then why practice?“ • "Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do 'practice'?“ • Do you know how fast you were going?” • “Mr. Sweat, wasn’t it pretty bad out there in the woods? Did you really think it was going to be picnic out there?”