The Doors -- A Benefit Concert for Critical Thinking @ Metro Community College, September, 2012

1. The Doors -- A Benefit Concert for Critical Thinking @ Metro Community College, September, 2012 People Are Strange Light My Fire The End

2. Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm Reading Assignment for Next Week Chapter Six of your text. (Be sure you have read Chapter Five if you have not already done so.) Editorial Essay #1 Due.

3. 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.)

4. 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?

5. 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.

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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 not critical thinkers) may call these “opinions.”

9. 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?

10. 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 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.

11. Now, Critical Thinking is Absolutely Relevant to Both Sets of Claims • As we shall see in this class, it is necessary that we identify very clearly which kind of a claim we have before we can properly evaluate any argument for it! • Thus, please note we are taking a position against the subjectivist and saying that even moral judgments can be analyzed by the principles of critical thinking.

12. 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.

13. 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?

14. 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.

15. 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?

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 Two): • (P1) When it rains outside, the grass near the house always gets wet when the wind is blowing strongly from the North. • (P2) In Omaha, the wind usually blows from the South. • (P3) Today the wind is blowing from the North. • ________________________ • The grass near the house is wet.

22. 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!

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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?

26. 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?

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. How to Decipher a Complex or Confused Argument Consider the following rant from Helen: That Dickey’s critical thinking class is stupid. It is very hard, so if Hank takes it, he will probably flunk it. I took his Ethics class and it was so, so boring. Just having to think about the class will make him so depressed that he will probably do poorly in all of his classes and just ignore me all the time. Hank better not to take Critical Thinking next term. I want him to take me to New York for a vacation. Can’t you tell I need one? Is this an argument? If so, how many claims are there? What is the issue and conclusion? What is the premise or premises for the conclusion Are there multiple arguments here? (Caveat: There may be no right or wrong answer!)

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. Chapter Three: Vagueness & Ambiguity

33. Vagueness • A vague statement is one whose meaning is imprecise or lacks appropriate or relevant detail. • “Your instructor wants everyone to be successful in this class.” • “Your instructor is bald.” • Vagueness is often evident when there are borderline cases. Problem is not so much what the concept is but what is the scope of the concept. (e.g. baldness) • Some assertions may be so vague that they are essentially meaningless (e.g. “This country is morally bankrupt,” but most concepts though vague can still be useful.

34. Vagueness • A critical thinker will first want to clarify what is being asserted, even before asking about what are the reasons to believe or what is the evidence. • The more precise or less vague a statement is the more relevant information it gives us. • a. Rooney served the church his entire life. • b. Rooney has taught Sunday School in the church for thirty years. • a. The glass is half full with soda pop. • b. I poured half of a 12 oz can of soda pop into the empty glass.

35. Vagueness • What detail is appropriate depends on audience or the issue. It can be difficult to determine. • Compare your friend calling you after reading an article in the paper about mortgage rates and telling you that you should expect to pay higher rates vs. your bank calling you and telling you that your mortgage rate is going up. • You are at your neighbor’s for a BBQ and you ask him, “So how big is your yard? How far does the property line go to? “ He says “Oh, right behind the trees.” This is probably a good answer. But now you are thinking about buying his home and you ask the real estate agent the same question. You will not be satisfied with his “vague” answer.

36. Vagueness • Vagueness at times is intentional and useful. • 1) Precise information is unavailable and any information is valuable. • “This word just in. There has been a shooting at the Westroads Mall and there may be fatalities. More information will be forthcoming as soon as available.” • 2) Precise information will serve no useful function in the context (yes, even in a logical argument!) • Rarely, if ever, at a funeral, does a minister remind the grieving family that their father only attended church infrequently and showed no interest in his family attending. Ministers who would do such a thing would probably be considered jerks.

37. Vagueness in a Logical Argument • The bottom line in the context of analyzing or proposing a logical argument, a claim is vague when additional information is required to determine whether or not a premise is relevant. • Such vagueness is always a weakness and effort must be taken to avoid it. It is generally considered to be “hiding the evidence” when it is done intentionally. • You remove vagueness by adding the relevant detail.

38. Ambiguity • A statement which can have multiple interpretations or meanings is ambiguous. • Examples: • “Lindsay Lohan is not pleased with our textbook.” • “The average student at Metro is under 35.” • “Jessica rents her house.” • “Alice cashed the check.” • “The boys chased the girls. They were giggling.”

39. Ambiguity • Of course, ambiguities can be obvious (and perhaps rather silly) • “The Raider tackle threw a block at the Giants linebacker.” • “Charles drew his gun.” • In these cases, we are not likely to be confused. The context tells us more or less what is meant. However, it should be understood that it is often not good to assume our audience will always have the same knowledge, orientation, and background that we do.

40. Ambiguity Carmen's Swimsuit Switcheroo • Frequently a logical argument is sabotaged by a person switching meanings in the middle of an argument. This is known as equivocation. • We all know what we mean by “subjective” in this class, but we need to be sure that the term is used consistently and not switch to one of the other meanings in the middle of a a discussion.

41. Ambiguity • Ambiguities can also be quite subtle, e.g. “We heard that he informed you of what he said in his letter.” • One ambiguity here is whether the person (the “you” in question) received a letter at all. Did “he” inform “you” of what he said but only we saw a letter to that affect, thus “we heard in his letter (to us),” or did “we hear” that within a letter “you” were informed and we heard that you were informed by means of a letter to “you”? • Such a point might seem tedious, but could in fact legally be very significant. • Actually, Bill Clinton had a point when he said “It depends on what the meaning of is is.” e.g. Are you having a fight with your husband?

42. Ambiguity • Keep in mind that ambiguity, like vagueness, is at times intentional and often is useful. • 1) Clever uses of “double meaning” can catch our attention and entertain us or provoke us to consider the claim more carefully. • “Tuxedos cut ridiculously.” • “You can’t pick a better juice than Tropicana.”’ • “Don’t freeze your can at the game.” • “We promise nothing.”

43. Ambiguity in a Logical Argument • The bottom line is that in the context of analyzing or proposing a logical argument, ambiguity is always a weakness and effort should be taken to avoid it. • If you use it for “effect,” you should be absolutely sure that the claim and your premises are clear to your audience.

44. Ambiguity • Please note that while with the case of vagueness, we resolved it by adding information that clarified meaning, with the case of ambiguity what we are interested in is to eliminate the suggestion of the potential alternate meaning that we do not desire. • “The Raider tackle threw a block at the Giants linebacker.” • We want to eliminate the possibility that one could think that one is “throwing a block (of wood?)” Thus, we can say “ The Raider tackle blocked the Giant’s linebacker.”

45. Ambiguity • Let’s discuss three kinds of ambiguity. • 1. Semantic ambiguity is where there is an ambiguous word or phrase, e.g. “average” price. • -- When Barry Goldwater ran for president, his slogan was, "In your heart, you know he's right." In what way is this ambiguous? • 2. Syntactic ambiguity is where there is ambiguity • because of grammar or sentence structure, e.g. • --“Players with beginners’ skills only may use Court #1.” • 3. Grouping ambiguity is ambiguous in that the • claim could be about an individual in the group or • the group entirely, • -- Baseball players make more money that computer programmers.” (fallacy of division)

46. Defining Your Terms • Defining terms helps one avoid vagueness and ambiguity. • Sometimes you need to use a stipulating definition if perhaps you are using a word in an argument in a different way than it is usually understood or it is a word in which there is itself some controversy. • It is frequently quite reasonable in a logical argument to accept a stipulating definition that you would not yourself have chosen, but does not pre-judge the issue and allows the discussion to precede without distractions. Video 46

47. Defining Your Terms • Most definitions are one of three kinds: • Definition by example. • Definition by synonym. • Analytical definition. • Any of these might be appropriate. • Be careful of “rhetorical” definitions that use emotionally tinged words to pre-judge an issue. • Do not allow someone in an argument to use a “rhetorical definition” as a stipulative definition. If you do, the argument will likely be pointless and subjective. 47