READ THE ENTIRE POST FOR FULL HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT
Mrs. Wumi needs more of our help, but in order to make sure our advice is of the best quality possible, we're going to need to increase our analytical tool kit. The more tools we have and the better the quality of those tools, the more we increase the quality of our evaluations and advice (based on those evaluations).
With that in mind, before we apply our skills to Mrs. Wumi Abdul's next request for advice, lets improve our ability to diagram arguments. Why does diagraming matter? Diagraming allows us to see the structure of an argument which in turn allows us to see the support relationship between evidence/reasons and conclusions/subconclusions.
We can't even begin to evaluate relevance and sufficiency if we don't know the relationship between two assertions in an argument. Is one premise support for the other? Or are 2 premises working together to support a conclusion? Presenting the argument visually gives us a very powerful evaluative tool because the logical relationships between the argument's parts are made explicit and obvious.
Because Mrs. Wumi is a very visual learner, she'd like you to diagram arguments in your evaluations. Here are a couple of exercises to do for homework to help you improve:
EX. 5B All (except what we already did in class)
EX. 5C (a), (b), (c)
Keep reading...there's more!
Mrs. Wumi Abdul wishes to express her gratitude to all of you for your valuable advice regarding whether she should grant Chipotle a business license. It seems most of you argued that she should; and so, you will be happy to know that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the residents of Wutduland will be able to enjoy a delicious Chipotle burrito. (There was much cheering in the streets).
A popular reason for which many of you advocated granting the license was that Chipotle is working to eliminate GMOs from their products. Mrs. Wumi Abdul begs your forgiveness for her ignorance, but she doesn't know why this should count as a reason if favor of considering Chipotle to be a good company.
She's done a little preliminary research on the intertubes but she's found conflicting claims. Some people say that GMOs present a health hazard while others say GMOs are a health hazard. What should she believe? and why?
Here are two of the articles she read. Her request is that you read both these
(A) http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitness/allergy-to-genetically-modified-corn
(B) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/08/can_gmo_corn_cause_allergies_don_t_believe_elle_s_scary_story.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_share_toolbar
1. Summarize (in premise/conclusion form) the main argument in (A) then summarize 3 of the counter arguments in (B); (you don't need to go into the minutia of the arguments--stick with the main points supporting the respective conclusions).
2. Diagram the arguments;
3. Evaluate them for premise acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency--justify your evaluations!!!!;
4. Identify whether the argument is deductive or inductive;
5. Identify who bears the burden of proof;
6. Decide if there are any logical fallacies or cognitive biases;
7. Taking into account your evaluations of each of the criteria for good arguments, decide the degree to which each argument is weak or strong.
8. Based on the information from the articles and any of your own relevant knowledge (or knowledge gained from reading the comments sections) formulate an argument whether Mrs. Wumi Abdul should be worried about the health consequences of GMOs.
Mrs. Wumi Abdul thanks you in advance for your valuable insight.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
HW 5B
Mrs. Wumi Abdul has requested that her crack team of critical thinkers undertake the following task on her behalf: She's thinking about limiting restaurant licenses only to businesses that practice "food integrity." Chipotle has applied for a license. She needs to know if she should grant them a license.
Follow the these steps:
(a) Go to this link
(b) Watch the video
(c) What is the implied argument the video makes? Construct the argument using premises and conclusion as we have in class. Evaluate for premise acceptability, relevance, and logical force. On whom does the burden of proof lie? Assess the overall strength of the argument. Have they committed any fallacies? What's the audience? Who are the opponents?
(d) Look at the first comment in the comments section (by Redshirt): What are his argument(s) against Chipotle's conclusion that they serve "food with integrity"? Outline the argument(s) in premise-conclusion form. Evaluate them for premise acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Has he committed any fallacies? On whom lies the burden of proof?
(e) Look at LetMeSeeyourPride's comment to HubcapJenny: What is the argument (in premise and conclusion form) and how does it respond to Redshit's argument? Evaluate it as you have for the other arguments.
(f) Look at Redshit to LetMeSeeyourPride: What is it addressing in LetMeSeeyourPride's first argument? What is the argument? (in premise and conclusion form.) Evaluate the argument and how well it responds to Redshirt's initial claims against Chipotle.
(g) Taking into account the arguments offered by Chipotle, Redshirt, and LetMeSeeyouPride, construct an argument for whether Chipotle is food with integrity and, based on that, whether Mrs. Wumi Abdul should grant them a business license.
Follow the these steps:
(a) Go to this link
(b) Watch the video
(c) What is the implied argument the video makes? Construct the argument using premises and conclusion as we have in class. Evaluate for premise acceptability, relevance, and logical force. On whom does the burden of proof lie? Assess the overall strength of the argument. Have they committed any fallacies? What's the audience? Who are the opponents?
(d) Look at the first comment in the comments section (by Redshirt): What are his argument(s) against Chipotle's conclusion that they serve "food with integrity"? Outline the argument(s) in premise-conclusion form. Evaluate them for premise acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Has he committed any fallacies? On whom lies the burden of proof?
(e) Look at LetMeSeeyourPride's comment to HubcapJenny: What is the argument (in premise and conclusion form) and how does it respond to Redshit's argument? Evaluate it as you have for the other arguments.
(f) Look at Redshit to LetMeSeeyourPride: What is it addressing in LetMeSeeyourPride's first argument? What is the argument? (in premise and conclusion form.) Evaluate the argument and how well it responds to Redshirt's initial claims against Chipotle.
(g) Taking into account the arguments offered by Chipotle, Redshirt, and LetMeSeeyouPride, construct an argument for whether Chipotle is food with integrity and, based on that, whether Mrs. Wumi Abdul should grant them a business license.
Subject: Dear Respected Ones,
Dear Respected Ones,
GREETINGS,
Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you. I got your contact from the International web site directory. I prayed over it and selected your name among other names due to it's esteeming nature and the recommendations given to me as a reputable and trust worthy person I can do business with and by the recommendations I must not hesitate to confide in you for this simple and sincere business.
I am Wumi Abdul; the only Daughter of late Mr and Mrs George Abdul. My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan,the economic capital of Ivory Coast before he was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their outing to discus on a business deal. When my mother died on the 21st October 1984, my father took me and my younger brother HASSAN special because we are motherless. Before the death of my father on 30th June 2002 in a private hospital here in Abidjan. He secretly called me on his bedside and told me that he has a sum of $12.500.000 (Twelve Million, five hundred thousand dollars) left in a suspense account in a local Bank here in Abidjan, that he used my name as his first Daughter for the next of kin in deposit of the fund.
Dear Respected Ones,
GREETINGS,
Permit me to inform you of my desire of going into business relationship with you. I got your contact from the International web site directory. I prayed over it and selected your name among other names due to it's esteeming nature and the recommendations given to me as a reputable and trust worthy person I can do business with and by the recommendations I must not hesitate to confide in you for this simple and sincere business.
I am Wumi Abdul; the only Daughter of late Mr and Mrs George Abdul. My father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan,the economic capital of Ivory Coast before he was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their outing to discus on a business deal. When my mother died on the 21st October 1984, my father took me and my younger brother HASSAN special because we are motherless. Before the death of my father on 30th June 2002 in a private hospital here in Abidjan. He secretly called me on his bedside and told me that he has a sum of $12.500.000 (Twelve Million, five hundred thousand dollars) left in a suspense account in a local Bank here in Abidjan, that he used my name as his first Daughter for the next of kin in deposit of the fund.
He also explained to me that it was because of this wealth and some huge amount of money his business associates supposed to balance his from the deal they had that he was poisoned by his business associates, that I should seek for a God fearing foreign partner in a country of my choice where I will transfer this money and use it for investment purpose, (such as real estate management).
On his death bed my father also revealed one more secret to me: He told me that he had purchased the small island nation of Wutduland and beginning Jan. 1, 2014 I am to become the ruler!
The truth is, the cocao business has been booming and so money is not a problem for me. But I do have one very big problem: I will have to rule a small country in just a few months and I've never ruled a country before. I am have no idea what types of policies I should put in place.
Should I have privatized healthcare or not? What kinds of medicine work and which don't? Should I make everyone get vaccinated? Should I allow GMO crops? If I do, should I require labels? Should I impose restrictions of greenhouse gas emissions? Or is global warming a conspiracy? What kind of gun control policies should I have, if any? Which god should I choose? Do I have to choose just one? Is Chipotle as committed to animal welfare and the environment as they say they are? Should I even worry about animal welfare or is factory farming morally permissible? There's too much to decide for just one person.
I did some research on the interwebs on these issues but I find what appear to be good arguments for contradictory positions on all these issues. Maybe if I were a good critical thinker, I could figure out what to believe and why, but unfortunately our university doesn't have a critical thinking class.
This is where you come in. I have heard that the students in Critical Thinking 102 sec. 1007 are some of the best critical thinkers in the world--even better than my uncle Thomos Dah. I also read on the interwebs that his lordship, Ami Palmer, is most proficient at making good critical thinkers even better. If you and his lordship can form a special committee on these issues and others to tell me which position I should take on the aforementioned policy problems, I will be happy to share with you most of my inheritance. Specifically, here is what I'd like you to do:
1) Each week, I will send you information about a controversial issue and in groups I want you to do some critical thinking and research to figure out what position I should take. This way, when I rule my country, my citizens will have the best country in the world (except 'Merika, of course).
2) After completing your research, you should present your findings to me in the following form:
(a) Clearly outline what one side argues;
(b) Decide if their premises are true;
(c) Decide if their premises have a strong logical connection to the conclusion (relevance, sufficiency)
(d) Identify any logical fallacies
(e) Evaluate some of the counter-arguments and their replies to the counter-arguments
(f) Construct an argument for which side has the stronger case and why.
For each successful policy recommendation I will reward you with GOLD!!
To show you that I am sincere and that this is for real, I have already sent to his lordship, Ami Palmer, a small taste of what you can expect for doing good work.
please feel free to contact ,me via this email address
wumi1000abdul@yahoo.com
Anticipating to hear from you soon.
Thanks and God Bless.
Best regards.
Miss Wumi Abdul
PLEASE FOR PRIVATE AND SECURITY REASONS,REPLY ME VIA EMAIL:
wumi1000abdul@yahoo.com
please feel free to contact ,me via this email address
wumi1000abdul@yahoo.com
Anticipating to hear from you soon.
Thanks and God Bless.
Best regards.
Miss Wumi Abdul
PLEASE FOR PRIVATE AND SECURITY REASONS,REPLY ME VIA EMAIL:
wumi1000abdul@yahoo.com
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Extended Arguments and Inference Indicators: Lecture Notes
Introduction
Up until now we've been applying our analytical skills to relatively simple arguments. Now we will begin to apply those skills to extended arguments. What's an extended argument? Well, I'm glad you asked: An extended argument is one that has a main conclusion supported by premises which themselves are in turn supported by sub-premises.
When a major premise is supported by sub-premises we can consider the major premise to be sub-conclusion. Extended arguments are often more difficult to break down into premises and conclusion because there's a lot more information involved. Also, sometimes it can be difficult to disentangle the sub-premises from the premises and the final conclusion from the sub-conclusion(s).
Some General Strategies As a general heuristic, work backwards from conclusion to premises to sub-premises. First, try to identify the main conclusion. A good way to go about it is to ask yourself, "what is the argument trying to convince me of?" If all else fails, look at the title of the article...
Once you answer that question ask yourself "why does the arguer think I should believe this?" This will help you identify the main premises. What's left will often be sub-premises.
In some extended arguments, once we've identified the main components it can still be difficult to distinguish what is supporting what--especially between a sub-conclusion and the main conclusion. Here's a little trick to help make the distinction.
Suppose you have 2 statements and you're not sure which is the main conclusion and which is a sub-conclusion. Read one statement followed by "therefore" then read the next. If it sounds awkward, try it the other way around. Often, this can help sort things out.
Extended Arguments: Argument Extend-a-Mix
So, why should we care about extended arguments? There are a couple of reasons. First, most arguments we encounter "in the wild" as articles, essays, and books come to us as extended arguments. Second, as you may have noticed, the premises of simple arguments don't always withstand scrutiny.
This implies that if an arguer wishes to maintain her position against criticism, she will have to provide further sub-premises (i.e., reasons and evidence) to support the premises which are being criticized. A good arguer will anticipate criticism and so will include the sub-premises as a pre-emptive defensive strike.
Lets look at an example to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Sample Simple Argument:
P1 Mugatu invented the piano key necktie.
P2 The piano key necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
C Therefore, Mugatu is a fashion genius.
Suppose someone takes issue with the premise acceptability of P2. (Of course, they'd be wrong, but just suppose....) The person making this argument would then have to give further premises (reasons or evidence) to support P2. For example, they might say "all the cool kids owned one." The fact that all the cool kids owned a pianokey necktie further supports the premise that the pianokey necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
The extended version of the argument would look like this:
P1 Mugatu invented the pianokey necktie.
P2 All the cool kids owned pianokey neckties.
P3 Given that P2, the pianokey necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
C Therefore, Mugatu is a fashion genius.
Analyzing Extended Arguments Using Inference Indicators
As I mentioned earlier, a problem with analyzing extended arguments is trying to distinguish between premises, sub-premises, and conclusion. But do not dispair fair child. There are yet more tricks to help us.
Paying attention to inference indicators will often help us to disentangle argument components. An inference indicator is a word that gives us a sign as to whether the sentence is a premise or a conclusion.
Here are some common indicators for premises: Since, because, for, as can be deduced from, given that, and the reasons are.
Here are some common indicators for conclusions: Consequentially, so it follows, thus, hence, therefore, and we conclude that.
Now go forth and analyze.
Up until now we've been applying our analytical skills to relatively simple arguments. Now we will begin to apply those skills to extended arguments. What's an extended argument? Well, I'm glad you asked: An extended argument is one that has a main conclusion supported by premises which themselves are in turn supported by sub-premises.
When a major premise is supported by sub-premises we can consider the major premise to be sub-conclusion. Extended arguments are often more difficult to break down into premises and conclusion because there's a lot more information involved. Also, sometimes it can be difficult to disentangle the sub-premises from the premises and the final conclusion from the sub-conclusion(s).
Some General Strategies As a general heuristic, work backwards from conclusion to premises to sub-premises. First, try to identify the main conclusion. A good way to go about it is to ask yourself, "what is the argument trying to convince me of?" If all else fails, look at the title of the article...
Once you answer that question ask yourself "why does the arguer think I should believe this?" This will help you identify the main premises. What's left will often be sub-premises.
In some extended arguments, once we've identified the main components it can still be difficult to distinguish what is supporting what--especially between a sub-conclusion and the main conclusion. Here's a little trick to help make the distinction.
Suppose you have 2 statements and you're not sure which is the main conclusion and which is a sub-conclusion. Read one statement followed by "therefore" then read the next. If it sounds awkward, try it the other way around. Often, this can help sort things out.
Extended Arguments: Argument Extend-a-Mix
So, why should we care about extended arguments? There are a couple of reasons. First, most arguments we encounter "in the wild" as articles, essays, and books come to us as extended arguments. Second, as you may have noticed, the premises of simple arguments don't always withstand scrutiny.
This implies that if an arguer wishes to maintain her position against criticism, she will have to provide further sub-premises (i.e., reasons and evidence) to support the premises which are being criticized. A good arguer will anticipate criticism and so will include the sub-premises as a pre-emptive defensive strike.
Lets look at an example to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Sample Simple Argument:
P1 Mugatu invented the piano key necktie.
P2 The piano key necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
C Therefore, Mugatu is a fashion genius.
Suppose someone takes issue with the premise acceptability of P2. (Of course, they'd be wrong, but just suppose....) The person making this argument would then have to give further premises (reasons or evidence) to support P2. For example, they might say "all the cool kids owned one." The fact that all the cool kids owned a pianokey necktie further supports the premise that the pianokey necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
The extended version of the argument would look like this:
P1 Mugatu invented the pianokey necktie.
P2 All the cool kids owned pianokey neckties.
P3 Given that P2, the pianokey necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
C Therefore, Mugatu is a fashion genius.
Analyzing Extended Arguments Using Inference Indicators
As I mentioned earlier, a problem with analyzing extended arguments is trying to distinguish between premises, sub-premises, and conclusion. But do not dispair fair child. There are yet more tricks to help us.
Paying attention to inference indicators will often help us to disentangle argument components. An inference indicator is a word that gives us a sign as to whether the sentence is a premise or a conclusion.
Here are some common indicators for premises: Since, because, for, as can be deduced from, given that, and the reasons are.
Here are some common indicators for conclusions: Consequentially, so it follows, thus, hence, therefore, and we conclude that.
Now go forth and analyze.
Red Herring and Strawman: Lecture Notes
Introduction
In the last post we looked at the properties of a strong argument: (a) premise acceptability and (b) logical force (i.e., validity). The concept of validity can be further sub-divided into two components: (i) premise relevance and (ii) premise sufficiency. Now we're going to look at the dark side of arguments: fallacies. Fallacies are intentional or unintentional (common) mistakes in argument.
There are many different types of fallacies but the two that we will look at here have to do with how premises relate to the context of an argument. They are the red herring and the straw man. Both fallacies can be either intentional or unintentional.
Red Herring
A red herring is "an attempt to shift debate away from the issue that is the topic of an argument" (Groarke & Tindale; p. 66). Basically, a red herring is an objection to a position that doesn't address the actual issue being debated. Its premises are irrelevant to the conclusion it seeks to negate/oppose.
Lets look at an example from Plato's Republic:
Socrates: Rebecca Black is such a great singer. Her voice is a combination of Jesus and Fergie.
Glaucon: Whatev, her voice is auto-tuned. If it weren't or if she were singing live you'd hear that she's out of tune. Therefore, she is not a great singer.
Socrates: Why do you hate her? OMG, you're so mean!
Glaucon's argument is that Rebecca Black's voice isn't very good, and he provides reasons. Instead of replying to Glaucon's argument by addressing his premises or reasoning, Socrates brings up an issue irrelevant to the argument. In short, Socrates' premises are not relevant to the conclusion he's trying to support, that Rebecca Black is a great singer. That is to say, Glaucon's opinion of Rebecca as a person has no bearing on whether she's a good singer or not--regardless of what day of the week it is.
The red herring fallacy has many cousins and sub-species which we'll examine later in the course. Some of them you may have heard of: non-sequitur, ad hominem, and tu quoque. When you use the Latin names you can really impress your friends...yay!
Straw Man
The straw man argument is similar to the red herring in that it doesn't address the actual argument. It differs in that a straw man doesn't address the opposing argument because it misrepresents or distorts it. A straw man argument often contains a grain of truth, but the opposing position is so blown out of proportion it is hardly recognizable. The general purpose of a straw man argument is to present an opponents position in a way that makes it seems ridiculous, weak, and obviously wrong.
A great source for straw man arguments is any heavily biased news source. Sentiments like "Obama's going to take all our guns" is a straw man argument against proposed gun control legislation. While there may be some truth in that the proposed legislation seeks to ban assault weapons, there is no part of the bill that requires all gun owners to turn in every type of gun they own. Conversely, proponents of gun-control legislation might make a straw man out of the legislation's opponents by arguing that pro-gun people don't want any restrictions at all on gun ownership and types of ownership.
From the point of view of critical thinking there are a few important points to notice: (a) The straw man gun control arguments on both sides distorts the opponent's position such that its actual content isn't being addressed, (b) because the opposing argument is distorted it seems ridiculous and easy to refute, and (c) because the actual content isn't being addressed, the topic of the argument gets shifted away from the actual premises rendering difficult meaningful dialogue.
Hotly debated topics are fertile ground for straw man arguments. For good examples read the comments section for any article on GMO, nuclear power, natural gas, gun control, health care (in the US), immigration policy, and public policy regarding religion.
Fallacy Fest! (It's not what you Think....)
It's my lucky day. This just popped into my newsfeed. Can you find the red herring and the straw man arguments? (Both are conveniently contained in one meme!) Note that pointing out the logical fallacies has nothing to do with whether you agree or not with the conclusion/point of view. It is only an evaluation of how an arguer arrived at a particular point of view.
As I'm mentioned before, it is perfectly possible to give terrible arguments for a true conclusion. As critical thinkers we seek to separate our analysis of the argument from our approval/disproval and truth/falsity of the conclusion.
Ok, I can't help myself. The people who made this meme are so scientifically illiterate that they list creatine as an artificial sweetener. Good lord... (Bonus, what logical fallacy did I just commit?)
In the last post we looked at the properties of a strong argument: (a) premise acceptability and (b) logical force (i.e., validity). The concept of validity can be further sub-divided into two components: (i) premise relevance and (ii) premise sufficiency. Now we're going to look at the dark side of arguments: fallacies. Fallacies are intentional or unintentional (common) mistakes in argument.
There are many different types of fallacies but the two that we will look at here have to do with how premises relate to the context of an argument. They are the red herring and the straw man. Both fallacies can be either intentional or unintentional.
Red Herring
A red herring is "an attempt to shift debate away from the issue that is the topic of an argument" (Groarke & Tindale; p. 66). Basically, a red herring is an objection to a position that doesn't address the actual issue being debated. Its premises are irrelevant to the conclusion it seeks to negate/oppose.
Lets look at an example from Plato's Republic:
Socrates: Rebecca Black is such a great singer. Her voice is a combination of Jesus and Fergie.
Glaucon: Whatev, her voice is auto-tuned. If it weren't or if she were singing live you'd hear that she's out of tune. Therefore, she is not a great singer.
Socrates: Why do you hate her? OMG, you're so mean!
Glaucon's argument is that Rebecca Black's voice isn't very good, and he provides reasons. Instead of replying to Glaucon's argument by addressing his premises or reasoning, Socrates brings up an issue irrelevant to the argument. In short, Socrates' premises are not relevant to the conclusion he's trying to support, that Rebecca Black is a great singer. That is to say, Glaucon's opinion of Rebecca as a person has no bearing on whether she's a good singer or not--regardless of what day of the week it is.
The red herring fallacy has many cousins and sub-species which we'll examine later in the course. Some of them you may have heard of: non-sequitur, ad hominem, and tu quoque. When you use the Latin names you can really impress your friends...yay!
Straw Man
The straw man argument is similar to the red herring in that it doesn't address the actual argument. It differs in that a straw man doesn't address the opposing argument because it misrepresents or distorts it. A straw man argument often contains a grain of truth, but the opposing position is so blown out of proportion it is hardly recognizable. The general purpose of a straw man argument is to present an opponents position in a way that makes it seems ridiculous, weak, and obviously wrong.
A great source for straw man arguments is any heavily biased news source. Sentiments like "Obama's going to take all our guns" is a straw man argument against proposed gun control legislation. While there may be some truth in that the proposed legislation seeks to ban assault weapons, there is no part of the bill that requires all gun owners to turn in every type of gun they own. Conversely, proponents of gun-control legislation might make a straw man out of the legislation's opponents by arguing that pro-gun people don't want any restrictions at all on gun ownership and types of ownership.
From the point of view of critical thinking there are a few important points to notice: (a) The straw man gun control arguments on both sides distorts the opponent's position such that its actual content isn't being addressed, (b) because the opposing argument is distorted it seems ridiculous and easy to refute, and (c) because the actual content isn't being addressed, the topic of the argument gets shifted away from the actual premises rendering difficult meaningful dialogue.
Hotly debated topics are fertile ground for straw man arguments. For good examples read the comments section for any article on GMO, nuclear power, natural gas, gun control, health care (in the US), immigration policy, and public policy regarding religion.
Fallacy Fest! (It's not what you Think....)
It's my lucky day. This just popped into my newsfeed. Can you find the red herring and the straw man arguments? (Both are conveniently contained in one meme!) Note that pointing out the logical fallacies has nothing to do with whether you agree or not with the conclusion/point of view. It is only an evaluation of how an arguer arrived at a particular point of view.
As I'm mentioned before, it is perfectly possible to give terrible arguments for a true conclusion. As critical thinkers we seek to separate our analysis of the argument from our approval/disproval and truth/falsity of the conclusion.
Ok, I can't help myself. The people who made this meme are so scientifically illiterate that they list creatine as an artificial sweetener. Good lord... (Bonus, what logical fallacy did I just commit?)
HW 5A
1. (A) Construct an argument for why it is morally permissible to eat factory farmed meat.
OR
(B) If you are a vegetarian, construct an argument for why it is morally impermissible to eat any meat.
2. P. 77 Question 5 (a), (b), (d), (f).
3. P. 72 (d), (e).
OR
(B) If you are a vegetarian, construct an argument for why it is morally impermissible to eat any meat.
2. P. 77 Question 5 (a), (b), (d), (f).
3. P. 72 (d), (e).
Monday, September 16, 2013
Logical Consequence, Deductive & Inductive Arguments, Relevance, and Sufficiency
Introduction
In the previous post we talked about logical force or logical consequence (they are interchangeable). These terms refer to the degree to which we must accept the conclusion if we've assumed the premises to be true. When an argument has maximum logical force we say it is valid. Generally, there are two types of logical force: deductive and inductive.
Deductive Validity
Deductive validity means that if we accept all the premises as true, we must accept the conclusion as true. Otherwise stated, in a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Think of deductive arguments as something akin to math. If you are told x=2 and y=3 and you are adding, then you must accept 5 as the answer. Here are a couple very simple examples to illustrate the principle:
Sample A
P1. Bob is a man.
P2. Bob likes turtles.
C. /.: Bob is a man that likes turtles.
Sample B
P1. If it's raining, there are clouds.
P2. It's raining.
C /.: There are clouds.
Sample C
P1. Either all dogs are pink or dogs are blue.
P2. Dogs are not pink.
C /.: Dogs are blue
These examples may seem trivial but I want them to be simple in order to illustrate a point about how to evaluate an argument for deductive validity. Here's what you do: you suppose that all the premises are true--even if they aren't--and then you assess logical force; in other words, whether you are now forced to accept the conclusion.
Take Sample B. P2 says "It's raining". But suppose it isn't raining and you are asked to evaluate the logical force of the argument. What would you say? The correct answer is that it is deductively valid. Why? Because it don't make no gosh darn difference if the premises are true or not when we evaluate logical force. All we care about is if we'd have to accept the conclusion if the premises were all true.
Lets do one more. Look at Sample C. All of the premises are empirically false. Now suppose you are asked to evaluate the validity of the argument. What would you say? Valid or invalid? Your answer should be that the answer is valid. Again, when assessing validity we don't care a hoot about whether the premises are true or false or ridiculous. All we care about evaluating is whether we are logically forced to accept the conclusion if all the premises are true.
Now lets look and inductive validity
Inductive Validity
An inductively valid argument is one in which the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises, but the premises make the truth of conclusion likely. Inductive validity has to do with probability of truth, not certainty. Inductive arguments can take several forms and are most commonly (but not exclusively) found in science. Here are a couple samples to illustrate:
P1. I've seen one raven in my life and it was black.
P2. I've seen two ravens in my life and it was also black.
.
.
.
.
Pn. I'm on my death bed and every got-tam raven I've ever seen is black.
C /.: All ravens are black.
Notice that regardless of how many premises I have, I'm not forced to conclude that all ravens are black. Maybe the day after I die, a white raven flys by my room. Or maybe in some remote part of the world someone saw a white raven but didn't tell anyone else about it. White ravens might be possible which would negate the conclusion despite all the premises being true. The point is this: with an inductive argument it's possible that the conclusion is false even though all the premises are true.
Notice however that given the premises, our conclusion in this example is extremely probable, so we'd say the argument is inductively valid.
Lets do one more example:
P1. A significant portion of the US population feel strongly about maintaining the right to bare arms and are politically active.
C. /.: If the government proposes legislation banning short-sleeved shirts, this portion of the population will react strongly and challenge the law's legality.
This is an inductive argument because the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. It might be the case that the bare-arm rights group doesn't challenge the law. However, given the supporting information in P1 we can say that the conclusion is highly probable. In this this case, we would say that the argument is inductively valid because the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion is strong.
Relevance and Sufficiency
Inductive and deductive validity are lots of fun, but there's more to the logic party than that! When we evaluate validity we are essentially evaluation the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. In the previous post we talked about assessing the premises in terms of acceptability; i.e., how reasonable or plausible they are. But when we are assessing validity we also need to look at the premises from another point of view.
Can you guess what it is? Did you guess "if they are true or not?" I hope you didn't cuz that would be wrong. Recall (and I will repeat this as often as necessary) validity has nothing to do with evaluating the truth or acceptability of premises; when we evaluate validity we automatically assume the premises are true...remember? Good.
Relevance
Ok, back to our discussion of other ways to evaluate logical force. We can decompose logical force into two separate elements: relevance and sufficiency. Logical relevance is the degree to which the premises increase the likelihood of the conclusion being true. For example,
Sample D (Inductive Arg)
P1 Bob likes cheese
P2 Bob likes ice cream
P3 Bob likes milk
P4 Bob likes sour cream
P5 Bob likes turtles
C /.: Bob likes dairy products
We can ask of each of the premises in Sample D if the premises support the conclusion (or the degree to which they support it). In other words, we can ask how relevant each of the premises are to the conclusion. Our aggregate evaluation of each will bear on our assessment of the argument's overall logical force.
In Sample D we can say that P1-P4 are relevant to the conclusion but P5 is not. However, in this case, P5 doesn't diminish the strength of the argument. The logical force doesn't change whether P5 is there or not. In some arguments, however, the (ir)relevance of the premises will bear on the logical force of the conclusion.
Consider another argument:
Sample Argument E
P1 I like turtles
P2 My shoes are black
C The chemical composition of water is H2O.
What is the logical force of this argument? In Sample E the premises are not relevant to the conclusion yet the conclusion is true. What should we say? Here's what: it doesn't matter one fig that the conclusion is true when we are evaluating an argument for logical validity. Recall that in this phase of evaluation, we assume all premises to be true. So, lets do that. Now, to assess logical validity we next look at the relevance of the premises to the conclusion. Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? I.e., do they increase the likelihood that the conclusion is true? Nope. Therefore this argument is logically invalid.
But, you cry (tears streaming down your face), the conclusion is true! Yeah, I know, but as you should well know by now, when assessing validity (logical force) we don't care two hoots about truth. Alz we care about is the logical relationship between premises and conclusion--in this case, relevance.
Final note on relevance: When you evaluate an argument for relevance you have to evaluate each premise individually. Why? Because some of the premises might be relevant while others aren't. You can't treat them as all relevant or all irrelevant until you've looked at each one.
Sufficiency
Unlike relevance, we don't evaluate the sufficiency of each premise, we evaluate the sufficiency of the combined force of the premises. Sufficiency refers to the degree to which the stated premises give us enough information to accept the conclusion as true or highly likely. In other words, since we can't know every relevant fact in the world (past, present, and future), are the facts contained in the premises enough on their own without any further reasons or evidence for us to reasonably accept the conclusion? Think of sufficiency as the "enough-ness" of the total evidence presented for the conclusion.
As you might expect, because sufficiency is about the logical relationship between premises and conclusion when we evaluate sufficiency we are assuming the premises are true. We ask, given that all these premises are true, is this enough information on its own to force us to accept the conclusion? I.e., is there a way for the premises to all be true, yet the conclusion false?
Lets look at an example:
P1 Children are generally diagnosed with autism 6 months to a year after they get the vaccination for MMR.
C /.: Therefore, the MMR vaccine causes autism.
Is P1 sufficient to accept C? How do we evaluate this? We can approach this problem a couple of ways. In all of them, begin by assuming P1 is true.
Heuristic 1: Ask yourself, does P1, on its own, guarantee the truth of C?
Heuristic 2: Counter-examples: A counter example is a case where all the stated premises are true but the conclusion turns out to be false. To construct a counter-example you try to find additional facts, reasons or evidence that would make it so the stated premises stay true but the conclusion is false or unlikely. So... ask yourself if there any facts that would allow us to continue accepting P1 as true yet would led us to a conclusion that implies C is false.
Consider this: The time in at which children are diagnosed with autism is the same time which important developmental changes take place in children's brains. Due to genetic and environmental factors, these changes can manifest as autism--regardless of vaccine administration. That is, the symptoms of autism become most easily diagnosable at the same time vaccines are typically administered--regardless of whether you actually do administer the vaccines.
This information allows us to continue to accept P1 as true, yet conclude something different (I.e., autism naturally manifests or become easily diagnosable at the same time children get MMR shots). So, P1 on its own is not sufficient for accepting C. So, we'd say the premises are not sufficient to accept the conclusion and therefore, the logical force of the (inductive) argument is weak.
Consider one more example:
P1 There are clouds
C /.: It's raining
Is P1, if true, sufficient to accept C? No, because it's possible for P1 to be true and for C to be false. That is, it can be cloudy without raining. Again, we'd say the premises are not sufficient to accept the conclusion and therefore, the logical force of the (inductive) argument is weak.
Summary:
We can evaluate validity (i.e., logical force) from a couple of points of view, however in all of them we assume the premises to be true. These points of view, when combined, contribute to our total assessment of the logical force of a particular argument.
One way to distinguish types of validity is according to whether the argument is deductive or inductive. In a deductive argument, if the premises are assumed to be true you must also accept the conclusion as true (no matter how outrageous it is and even if the premises are actually false).
With an inductive argument, validity is a matter of degree. We evaluate the degree of logical strength by assuming the premises to be true and deciding whether this is compatible with the conclusion being false. If it is unlikely that the conclusion is false then the logical strength is strong. If there are many other likely conclusions to the argument that we could accept without questioning the truth of the premises, then the logical strength is weak.
We can further decompose the notion of logical strength (i.e., validity) into two sub-elements: premise relevance and sufficiency. When we evaluate relevance we assume the premises are true and assess how whether they impact the likelihood of the conclusion being true. In other words, we look at how well each particular premise supports the conclusion.
Sufficiency refers to whether the premises, when taken in toto are enough on their own to guarantee the truth of the conclusion (if we assume the premises to be true). One way to test for sufficiency is to try to come up with counter examples, that is, cases that bring in additional premises, but preserve the truth of the existing premises, and show that a different conclusion could follow from all the new premises. A counter example shows that there's other relevant information out there that might allow us to accept the premises as true, yet reject the conclusion.
Finally, when you are asked to assess logical force/validity/strength/consequence understand that this evaluation is made up of two separate criteria (i.e., to be evaluated independently of each other): relevance and sufficiency.
When you give your final assessment of an argument's strength, refer to both aspects (as well as premise acceptability).
In the previous post we talked about logical force or logical consequence (they are interchangeable). These terms refer to the degree to which we must accept the conclusion if we've assumed the premises to be true. When an argument has maximum logical force we say it is valid. Generally, there are two types of logical force: deductive and inductive.
Deductive Validity
Deductive validity means that if we accept all the premises as true, we must accept the conclusion as true. Otherwise stated, in a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Think of deductive arguments as something akin to math. If you are told x=2 and y=3 and you are adding, then you must accept 5 as the answer. Here are a couple very simple examples to illustrate the principle:
Sample A
P1. Bob is a man.
P2. Bob likes turtles.
C. /.: Bob is a man that likes turtles.
Sample B
P1. If it's raining, there are clouds.
P2. It's raining.
C /.: There are clouds.
Sample C
P1. Either all dogs are pink or dogs are blue.
P2. Dogs are not pink.
C /.: Dogs are blue
These examples may seem trivial but I want them to be simple in order to illustrate a point about how to evaluate an argument for deductive validity. Here's what you do: you suppose that all the premises are true--even if they aren't--and then you assess logical force; in other words, whether you are now forced to accept the conclusion.
Take Sample B. P2 says "It's raining". But suppose it isn't raining and you are asked to evaluate the logical force of the argument. What would you say? The correct answer is that it is deductively valid. Why? Because it don't make no gosh darn difference if the premises are true or not when we evaluate logical force. All we care about is if we'd have to accept the conclusion if the premises were all true.
Lets do one more. Look at Sample C. All of the premises are empirically false. Now suppose you are asked to evaluate the validity of the argument. What would you say? Valid or invalid? Your answer should be that the answer is valid. Again, when assessing validity we don't care a hoot about whether the premises are true or false or ridiculous. All we care about evaluating is whether we are logically forced to accept the conclusion if all the premises are true.
Now lets look and inductive validity
Inductive Validity
An inductively valid argument is one in which the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premises, but the premises make the truth of conclusion likely. Inductive validity has to do with probability of truth, not certainty. Inductive arguments can take several forms and are most commonly (but not exclusively) found in science. Here are a couple samples to illustrate:
P1. I've seen one raven in my life and it was black.
P2. I've seen two ravens in my life and it was also black.
.
.
.
.
Pn. I'm on my death bed and every got-tam raven I've ever seen is black.
C /.: All ravens are black.
Notice that regardless of how many premises I have, I'm not forced to conclude that all ravens are black. Maybe the day after I die, a white raven flys by my room. Or maybe in some remote part of the world someone saw a white raven but didn't tell anyone else about it. White ravens might be possible which would negate the conclusion despite all the premises being true. The point is this: with an inductive argument it's possible that the conclusion is false even though all the premises are true.
Notice however that given the premises, our conclusion in this example is extremely probable, so we'd say the argument is inductively valid.
Lets do one more example:
P1. A significant portion of the US population feel strongly about maintaining the right to bare arms and are politically active.
C. /.: If the government proposes legislation banning short-sleeved shirts, this portion of the population will react strongly and challenge the law's legality.
This is an inductive argument because the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. It might be the case that the bare-arm rights group doesn't challenge the law. However, given the supporting information in P1 we can say that the conclusion is highly probable. In this this case, we would say that the argument is inductively valid because the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion is strong.
Relevance and Sufficiency
Inductive and deductive validity are lots of fun, but there's more to the logic party than that! When we evaluate validity we are essentially evaluation the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. In the previous post we talked about assessing the premises in terms of acceptability; i.e., how reasonable or plausible they are. But when we are assessing validity we also need to look at the premises from another point of view.
Can you guess what it is? Did you guess "if they are true or not?" I hope you didn't cuz that would be wrong. Recall (and I will repeat this as often as necessary) validity has nothing to do with evaluating the truth or acceptability of premises; when we evaluate validity we automatically assume the premises are true...remember? Good.
Relevance
Ok, back to our discussion of other ways to evaluate logical force. We can decompose logical force into two separate elements: relevance and sufficiency. Logical relevance is the degree to which the premises increase the likelihood of the conclusion being true. For example,
Sample D (Inductive Arg)
P1 Bob likes cheese
P2 Bob likes ice cream
P3 Bob likes milk
P4 Bob likes sour cream
P5 Bob likes turtles
C /.: Bob likes dairy products
We can ask of each of the premises in Sample D if the premises support the conclusion (or the degree to which they support it). In other words, we can ask how relevant each of the premises are to the conclusion. Our aggregate evaluation of each will bear on our assessment of the argument's overall logical force.
In Sample D we can say that P1-P4 are relevant to the conclusion but P5 is not. However, in this case, P5 doesn't diminish the strength of the argument. The logical force doesn't change whether P5 is there or not. In some arguments, however, the (ir)relevance of the premises will bear on the logical force of the conclusion.
Consider another argument:
Sample Argument E
P1 I like turtles
P2 My shoes are black
C The chemical composition of water is H2O.
What is the logical force of this argument? In Sample E the premises are not relevant to the conclusion yet the conclusion is true. What should we say? Here's what: it doesn't matter one fig that the conclusion is true when we are evaluating an argument for logical validity. Recall that in this phase of evaluation, we assume all premises to be true. So, lets do that. Now, to assess logical validity we next look at the relevance of the premises to the conclusion. Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? I.e., do they increase the likelihood that the conclusion is true? Nope. Therefore this argument is logically invalid.
But, you cry (tears streaming down your face), the conclusion is true! Yeah, I know, but as you should well know by now, when assessing validity (logical force) we don't care two hoots about truth. Alz we care about is the logical relationship between premises and conclusion--in this case, relevance.
Final note on relevance: When you evaluate an argument for relevance you have to evaluate each premise individually. Why? Because some of the premises might be relevant while others aren't. You can't treat them as all relevant or all irrelevant until you've looked at each one.
Sufficiency
Unlike relevance, we don't evaluate the sufficiency of each premise, we evaluate the sufficiency of the combined force of the premises. Sufficiency refers to the degree to which the stated premises give us enough information to accept the conclusion as true or highly likely. In other words, since we can't know every relevant fact in the world (past, present, and future), are the facts contained in the premises enough on their own without any further reasons or evidence for us to reasonably accept the conclusion? Think of sufficiency as the "enough-ness" of the total evidence presented for the conclusion.
As you might expect, because sufficiency is about the logical relationship between premises and conclusion when we evaluate sufficiency we are assuming the premises are true. We ask, given that all these premises are true, is this enough information on its own to force us to accept the conclusion? I.e., is there a way for the premises to all be true, yet the conclusion false?
Lets look at an example:
P1 Children are generally diagnosed with autism 6 months to a year after they get the vaccination for MMR.
C /.: Therefore, the MMR vaccine causes autism.
Is P1 sufficient to accept C? How do we evaluate this? We can approach this problem a couple of ways. In all of them, begin by assuming P1 is true.
Heuristic 1: Ask yourself, does P1, on its own, guarantee the truth of C?
Heuristic 2: Counter-examples: A counter example is a case where all the stated premises are true but the conclusion turns out to be false. To construct a counter-example you try to find additional facts, reasons or evidence that would make it so the stated premises stay true but the conclusion is false or unlikely. So... ask yourself if there any facts that would allow us to continue accepting P1 as true yet would led us to a conclusion that implies C is false.
Consider this: The time in at which children are diagnosed with autism is the same time which important developmental changes take place in children's brains. Due to genetic and environmental factors, these changes can manifest as autism--regardless of vaccine administration. That is, the symptoms of autism become most easily diagnosable at the same time vaccines are typically administered--regardless of whether you actually do administer the vaccines.
This information allows us to continue to accept P1 as true, yet conclude something different (I.e., autism naturally manifests or become easily diagnosable at the same time children get MMR shots). So, P1 on its own is not sufficient for accepting C. So, we'd say the premises are not sufficient to accept the conclusion and therefore, the logical force of the (inductive) argument is weak.
Consider one more example:
P1 There are clouds
C /.: It's raining
Is P1, if true, sufficient to accept C? No, because it's possible for P1 to be true and for C to be false. That is, it can be cloudy without raining. Again, we'd say the premises are not sufficient to accept the conclusion and therefore, the logical force of the (inductive) argument is weak.
Summary:
We can evaluate validity (i.e., logical force) from a couple of points of view, however in all of them we assume the premises to be true. These points of view, when combined, contribute to our total assessment of the logical force of a particular argument.
One way to distinguish types of validity is according to whether the argument is deductive or inductive. In a deductive argument, if the premises are assumed to be true you must also accept the conclusion as true (no matter how outrageous it is and even if the premises are actually false).
With an inductive argument, validity is a matter of degree. We evaluate the degree of logical strength by assuming the premises to be true and deciding whether this is compatible with the conclusion being false. If it is unlikely that the conclusion is false then the logical strength is strong. If there are many other likely conclusions to the argument that we could accept without questioning the truth of the premises, then the logical strength is weak.
We can further decompose the notion of logical strength (i.e., validity) into two sub-elements: premise relevance and sufficiency. When we evaluate relevance we assume the premises are true and assess how whether they impact the likelihood of the conclusion being true. In other words, we look at how well each particular premise supports the conclusion.
Sufficiency refers to whether the premises, when taken in toto are enough on their own to guarantee the truth of the conclusion (if we assume the premises to be true). One way to test for sufficiency is to try to come up with counter examples, that is, cases that bring in additional premises, but preserve the truth of the existing premises, and show that a different conclusion could follow from all the new premises. A counter example shows that there's other relevant information out there that might allow us to accept the premises as true, yet reject the conclusion.
Finally, when you are asked to assess logical force/validity/strength/consequence understand that this evaluation is made up of two separate criteria (i.e., to be evaluated independently of each other): relevance and sufficiency.
When you give your final assessment of an argument's strength, refer to both aspects (as well as premise acceptability).
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
HW Assignment 4A
Some of my sample answers:
P. 59 Ex 3B
1 (a)
Structure:
(P1) You may not hear a car or person behind you.
(P2) You may not hear thunder in the distance.
(P3) In many races, it makes you oblivious of other runners and you can't hear the directions given by officials.
(C) Running while listening to music also removes you from the environment you're in, which can be unsafe
Premise acceptability: Each premise is acceptable because a reasonable person would accept them as they are without further support.
Logical consequence: The connection between the premises (P1), (P3) are strong. (P2) is questionable in that you'd have to have your music very loud and not be paying attention at all to anything except your music for the music to remove you from the environment to a degree that is unsafe.
Overall strength: Since all of the premises are acceptable and mostly have a strong logical connection to (C), (and the argument doesn't depend too heavily on (P2)) the argument is strong.
(b)
Structure:
(P1) The ability to be at peace and be calm is something we've lost in our culture in favor of multi-tasking.
(P2) Peace can be recovered by with running but not while listening to music etc...because this is a form of multi-tasking.
(C) Find yourself by running without music.
Premise acceptability: (P1) This is moderately acceptable. It certainly applies to some segments of our culture, but may not apply universally; (P2) Not very acceptable without further argument. There's been no evidence provided to show that some types of multi-taking (like listening to music while exercising) might help us find peace.
Logical Consequence: Very weak. Even if we accept (P1) and (P2) as true, the conclusion still doesn't follow because the conclusion is about "finding yourself" by running and the premises are about "the ability to be at peace." In other words, the premises do not support the conclusion.
Overall strength: Weak. Given the evaluations of PA and LC, the overall argument is weak.
2.
(c)
Structure:
(P1) It's free in Australia.
(P2) It's free in many European countries that don't have the resources USA has.
(C) University education should be free in the USA.
Premise acceptability: These are easily verifiable claims and there's no reason to doubt the author, so, they are acceptable.
Logical Consequence: Moderate. From the fact that some countries have educational policies different from our own, it doesn't follow that we ought to adopt those same policies.
Overall Strength: Moderate: For this argument to be strong, we'd need to establish that these policies are in fact beneficial to those countries and if so, that those policies could be anticipated to have the same beneficial effects with the particular framework of American culture and economics. We'd also need to show why we ought to follow the example of others as opposed to charting our own course or as opposed to them adopting our policies.
(d)
Structure:
(P1) It was once rare to find a professional with an MBA.
(P2) Now they are a dime a dozen.
(P3) Value reflects scarcity
(C) Given (P2) and (P3), an MBA isn't worth what it once was.
Premise acceptability: (P1) and (P2) are relative claims and so their acceptability is contingent on how we interpret them. While the overall claims are intelligible it's not clear how to evaluate them: are these claims in regards to absolute numbers or percentages? If the former then the premises are certainly true. If latter, some further support might be required. (P3) this is generally true of economic value (which, given the context of the argument, seems to be the type the arguer intends), so it's acceptable.
Logical consequence: Strong. If we accept all the premises as true, then the conclusion follows strongly from the premises (if we interpret "value" as "economic value"). In other words, if professionals with MBAs are much more abundant than they were, then they are no longer scare, and hence, do not possess as much value as they once did.
Overall strength: Except for a few possible interpretive problems in PA, given the strong LC, overall, this is a strong argument. You could also counter-argue that although there are many more MBAs, the demand has also increased proportionally. Since scarcity is relative to demand, in such a case, MBAs will still be worth the same.
3.
Structure:
Arg. 1:
(P1) CFLs use 2/3 less energy than standard bulbs to provide the same amount of light.
(P2) CFLs also last 10x longer than standard bulbs.
(C) Therefore, we should convert to CFLs.
Arg 2:
(P1) CFLs contain mercury.
(P2) CFLs are made in China where there are poor environmental standards for production.
(P3) Light bulbs are used at night which means that replacing all household lights will do little to reduce peak demand and mitigate the need for power.
(C1) In addition to advantages, there are disadvantages to CFLs.
(C2) The pros and cons of CFLs are not so simple.
Evaluation of Arg 2
Premise Acceptability: (P1) Acceptable: Easily verifiable fact, no reason to doubt the arguer. (P2) same as (P1). (P3) Questionable/need further support: if CFLs use 2/3 less energy, then it seems to follow that there will be 2/3 decrease of peak demand attributable to light production if CFCs are adopted. This premise is acceptable if light production isn't a significant portion of peak demand. To show either would require further argument.
Logical Consequence: Strong.
P. 59 Ex 3B
1 (a)
Structure:
(P1) You may not hear a car or person behind you.
(P2) You may not hear thunder in the distance.
(P3) In many races, it makes you oblivious of other runners and you can't hear the directions given by officials.
(C) Running while listening to music also removes you from the environment you're in, which can be unsafe
Premise acceptability: Each premise is acceptable because a reasonable person would accept them as they are without further support.
Logical consequence: The connection between the premises (P1), (P3) are strong. (P2) is questionable in that you'd have to have your music very loud and not be paying attention at all to anything except your music for the music to remove you from the environment to a degree that is unsafe.
Overall strength: Since all of the premises are acceptable and mostly have a strong logical connection to (C), (and the argument doesn't depend too heavily on (P2)) the argument is strong.
(b)
Structure:
(P1) The ability to be at peace and be calm is something we've lost in our culture in favor of multi-tasking.
(P2) Peace can be recovered by with running but not while listening to music etc...because this is a form of multi-tasking.
(C) Find yourself by running without music.
Premise acceptability: (P1) This is moderately acceptable. It certainly applies to some segments of our culture, but may not apply universally; (P2) Not very acceptable without further argument. There's been no evidence provided to show that some types of multi-taking (like listening to music while exercising) might help us find peace.
Logical Consequence: Very weak. Even if we accept (P1) and (P2) as true, the conclusion still doesn't follow because the conclusion is about "finding yourself" by running and the premises are about "the ability to be at peace." In other words, the premises do not support the conclusion.
Overall strength: Weak. Given the evaluations of PA and LC, the overall argument is weak.
2.
(c)
Structure:
(P1) It's free in Australia.
(P2) It's free in many European countries that don't have the resources USA has.
(C) University education should be free in the USA.
Premise acceptability: These are easily verifiable claims and there's no reason to doubt the author, so, they are acceptable.
Logical Consequence: Moderate. From the fact that some countries have educational policies different from our own, it doesn't follow that we ought to adopt those same policies.
Overall Strength: Moderate: For this argument to be strong, we'd need to establish that these policies are in fact beneficial to those countries and if so, that those policies could be anticipated to have the same beneficial effects with the particular framework of American culture and economics. We'd also need to show why we ought to follow the example of others as opposed to charting our own course or as opposed to them adopting our policies.
(d)
Structure:
(P1) It was once rare to find a professional with an MBA.
(P2) Now they are a dime a dozen.
(P3) Value reflects scarcity
(C) Given (P2) and (P3), an MBA isn't worth what it once was.
Premise acceptability: (P1) and (P2) are relative claims and so their acceptability is contingent on how we interpret them. While the overall claims are intelligible it's not clear how to evaluate them: are these claims in regards to absolute numbers or percentages? If the former then the premises are certainly true. If latter, some further support might be required. (P3) this is generally true of economic value (which, given the context of the argument, seems to be the type the arguer intends), so it's acceptable.
Logical consequence: Strong. If we accept all the premises as true, then the conclusion follows strongly from the premises (if we interpret "value" as "economic value"). In other words, if professionals with MBAs are much more abundant than they were, then they are no longer scare, and hence, do not possess as much value as they once did.
Overall strength: Except for a few possible interpretive problems in PA, given the strong LC, overall, this is a strong argument. You could also counter-argue that although there are many more MBAs, the demand has also increased proportionally. Since scarcity is relative to demand, in such a case, MBAs will still be worth the same.
3.
Structure:
Arg. 1:
(P1) CFLs use 2/3 less energy than standard bulbs to provide the same amount of light.
(P2) CFLs also last 10x longer than standard bulbs.
(C) Therefore, we should convert to CFLs.
Arg 2:
(P1) CFLs contain mercury.
(P2) CFLs are made in China where there are poor environmental standards for production.
(P3) Light bulbs are used at night which means that replacing all household lights will do little to reduce peak demand and mitigate the need for power.
(C1) In addition to advantages, there are disadvantages to CFLs.
(C2) The pros and cons of CFLs are not so simple.
Evaluation of Arg 2
Premise Acceptability: (P1) Acceptable: Easily verifiable fact, no reason to doubt the arguer. (P2) same as (P1). (P3) Questionable/need further support: if CFLs use 2/3 less energy, then it seems to follow that there will be 2/3 decrease of peak demand attributable to light production if CFCs are adopted. This premise is acceptable if light production isn't a significant portion of peak demand. To show either would require further argument.
Logical Consequence: Strong.
Burden of Proof, Premise Acceptability, Logical Consequence: Lecture Notes
Introduction
Up until now we've spent quite a bit of time looking at the role of biases in argument. Understanding how they influence arguers and our perception of arguments is important; however we're now going to move beyond the psychological aspects of analysis (tell me about your mother...) and start to hone our technical skills.
The first part of our technical analysis involves evaluating whether an argument is strong or weak. A strong argument is one that is convincing for its audience and tough to criticize for its opponents. A weak argument is, well, one that isn't very convincing and easy to criticize. Of course, most arguments are not 100% one or the other, but inhabit a space in the continuum between the two types.
Hopefully, as we learn to recognize the elements of a strong argument, we will learn to incorporate them into our own arguments.
How Do We Evaluate An Argument's Strength?
One thing we can look at to evaluate an argument's strength is who should bear the burden of proof. In simple terms, burden of proof refers to the person an intended audience thinks has to provide an argument for their claim. Before I formally define this term, lets take a step back. Recall that arguments can be decomposed into premises and conclusion(s). A burden of proof can concern the premises or the conclusion, however, lets first focus on the concept as it applies to conclusions.
When we evaluate an argument for burden of proof we are essentially asking if its conclusion is something a reasonable person would accept (i.e., universal audience). That is to say, is it something that most reasonable people (in the intended audience) would accept as true? If the assertion is reasonable, then the opponent bears the burden of proof to show that we should not accept the assertion. If the assertion is unreasonable, then the arguer bears the burden of proof to show (with further supporting premises) why we ought to accept the particular assertion.
When the arguer's conclusion isn't reasonable (i.e., when the burden of proof falls upon the arguer's conclusion), an argument must be made! That is, he's now going to have to back up his conclusion with premises (i.e., reasons and evidence). If, in turn, any of the premises are considered unreasonable, then they too will have to be backed up with further premises. That is, he will also bear the burden of proof to support those premises.
Now we can give a formal definition: A burden of proof refers to which party (arguer or challenger) has the obligation to defend their position. It speaks to reasonableness of an assertion (be it a conclusion or a premise); the person who opposes whatever is considered reasonable bears the burden of proof--that is, it's up to them to convince us (through argument) that the default position is unreasonable or incorrect. Without a supporting argument, we have no good reason to take their point of view seriously.
It's important to note that simply because a position bears the burden of proof it doesn't follow that they are wrong. Burden of proof just tells us who has to provide evidence for their position.
Lets look at a few examples to illustrate:
When people deny that the moon landing happened, the burden of proof is on them. They are taking a position against all experts and mountains of testimonial and physical evidence. The burden falls upon them to show why we should reject the reasonable position of thinking people landed on the moon. The reasonable position is that people landed on the moon; to assume otherwise would require further argument.
When people say that the earth is only 6 000 years old, the burden of proof falls upon them. It's up to them to show why multiple converging lines of evidence are mistaken in their implications and why the theory upon which modern geology and biology are founded is incorrect. It's reasonable to think that virtually all geologists are well qualified to determine what theories and evidence do or do not apply to to the age of the earth. To assume a claim that implies that virtually all geologists are wrong requires further argument than mere assertion.
One last note on burdens of proof (laaaaaaaa!):
Historically, burdens of proof can shift. So, what was a reasonable assumption a few hundred years ago might be unreasonable today. We see this with social assumptions. For example, it wasn't too long ago that it was reasonable (for men) to assume that women weren't capable of math and science. Someone (back then) assuming the opposite would bear the burden of proof. Today, that burden of proof has shifted.
Economics is one area where the burden of proof is shifting. It used to be the common assumption that humans are (classically) rational--always seeking to maximize personal interest along the lines of classical mathematical rules. Behavioural economics, interdisciplinary psycho-economics, and socio-economic theory are starting to show these assumptions are wrong. Giving this mounting empirical evidence, the burden of proof is shifting concerning economic models built upon the assumption of (classically) rational agents.
Notice that when burdens of proof shift, it often has to do with accumulation of evidence (and reasons). So, maybe in the future we will discover mountains of evidence that the moon landing was a hoax and that the earth is 6000 years old. If this happens the burden of proof will shift.
Argument Jiu Jitsu
When constructing a strong argument, whenever possible, try keep the burden of proof on your opponent. Hai-ya!
Premise Acceptability
Premise acceptability is closely related to issues discussed in burden of proof. Premise acceptability is the degree to which the intended audience for the argument will accept the premises as reasonable. In other words, it's an evaluation of how acceptable the premises will be to a particular audience.
As I've mentioned a few times already, no matter how air-tight your logical progression from premises to conclusion, if your audience doesn't accept your premises at the start, they'll never accept your conclusion. This is a problem because your conclusion is dependent upon your audience accepting your premises.
Think of it this way: A strong argument merrily leads your audience down the garden path to your conclusion. But if they never take your hand in the beginning, they'll never skip along the garden path with you to your glorious conclusion!
The lesson here? (1) When constructing an argument, do your best to make sure the premises are acceptable to your audience. (2) As a critical thinker examining another's argument, ask yourself of each premise if it will be considered reasonable by the standards of your audience.
Logical Consequence (or Logical Force)
Logical consequence or force is the degree to which we are "forced" to accept the conclusion if we've accepted the premises. When we evaluate an argument for logical force, as much as we can, we want to separate this evaluation from the acceptability of the premises.
To do this we can ask, "assuming all the premises are true, am I forced to accept the conclusion." Asking this question helps to disentangle the two criteria. It's important to keep these two elements separate when conducting an evaluation.
A strong logical argument would be something like this:
(P1) All cats have 4 legs.
(P2) Bob is a cat.
(C) Bob has 4 legs.
If I accept (P1) and (P2), I'm logically forced to accept (C).
A weaker logical argument would be something like this:
(P3) Every time I eat fish, I don't get sick.
(C2) Fish causes me to be healthy.
This logic in this argument is a little weaker for a bunch possible reasons--here are a few: (a) Perhaps I don't eat fish by itself, so maybe it's something else that keeps me healthy--like the tartar sauce I always eat with my fish; (b) maybe it's just dumb luck that the few days following eating fish I haven't happened to get sick; or (c) maybe I only eat fish when I'm already feeling good. For anyone keeping track, this is called the "post hoc, ergo proptor hoc" fallacy. It means, "after, therefore, because of." Or colloquially, "confusing correlation with causation."
It's not a logical impossibility, but the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion is weak. (P3) doesn't compel me to accept (C2). I can accept (P3) without accepting (C2). However, in the first example, if I accept (P1) and (P2), I must also accept (C) or I risk being arrested by the logic police.
Conclusion
As always we can apply this new information in two ways: (1) As critical thinkers criticizing an argument or (2) as clever scholars constructing our own arguments. In both cases we need to be cognizant of the following:
(A) When the arguer's conclusion is unreasonable, he bears the burden of proof to give an argument for why the audience should accept it. (Same goes for the conclusion's critic)
(B) A strong argument will have premises that are accepted as reasonably true by the audience.
(C) A strong argument will compel us through logical force to accept its conclusion if we have accepted its premises.
As critical thinker we should ask of all arguments:
(D) Who bears the burden of proof?
(E) How acceptable (i.e., reasonably true) are the premises?
Up until now we've spent quite a bit of time looking at the role of biases in argument. Understanding how they influence arguers and our perception of arguments is important; however we're now going to move beyond the psychological aspects of analysis (tell me about your mother...) and start to hone our technical skills.
The first part of our technical analysis involves evaluating whether an argument is strong or weak. A strong argument is one that is convincing for its audience and tough to criticize for its opponents. A weak argument is, well, one that isn't very convincing and easy to criticize. Of course, most arguments are not 100% one or the other, but inhabit a space in the continuum between the two types.
Hopefully, as we learn to recognize the elements of a strong argument, we will learn to incorporate them into our own arguments.
How Do We Evaluate An Argument's Strength?
One thing we can look at to evaluate an argument's strength is who should bear the burden of proof. In simple terms, burden of proof refers to the person an intended audience thinks has to provide an argument for their claim. Before I formally define this term, lets take a step back. Recall that arguments can be decomposed into premises and conclusion(s). A burden of proof can concern the premises or the conclusion, however, lets first focus on the concept as it applies to conclusions.
When we evaluate an argument for burden of proof we are essentially asking if its conclusion is something a reasonable person would accept (i.e., universal audience). That is to say, is it something that most reasonable people (in the intended audience) would accept as true? If the assertion is reasonable, then the opponent bears the burden of proof to show that we should not accept the assertion. If the assertion is unreasonable, then the arguer bears the burden of proof to show (with further supporting premises) why we ought to accept the particular assertion.
When the arguer's conclusion isn't reasonable (i.e., when the burden of proof falls upon the arguer's conclusion), an argument must be made! That is, he's now going to have to back up his conclusion with premises (i.e., reasons and evidence). If, in turn, any of the premises are considered unreasonable, then they too will have to be backed up with further premises. That is, he will also bear the burden of proof to support those premises.
Now we can give a formal definition: A burden of proof refers to which party (arguer or challenger) has the obligation to defend their position. It speaks to reasonableness of an assertion (be it a conclusion or a premise); the person who opposes whatever is considered reasonable bears the burden of proof--that is, it's up to them to convince us (through argument) that the default position is unreasonable or incorrect. Without a supporting argument, we have no good reason to take their point of view seriously.
It's important to note that simply because a position bears the burden of proof it doesn't follow that they are wrong. Burden of proof just tells us who has to provide evidence for their position.
Lets look at a few examples to illustrate:
When people deny that the moon landing happened, the burden of proof is on them. They are taking a position against all experts and mountains of testimonial and physical evidence. The burden falls upon them to show why we should reject the reasonable position of thinking people landed on the moon. The reasonable position is that people landed on the moon; to assume otherwise would require further argument.
When people say that the earth is only 6 000 years old, the burden of proof falls upon them. It's up to them to show why multiple converging lines of evidence are mistaken in their implications and why the theory upon which modern geology and biology are founded is incorrect. It's reasonable to think that virtually all geologists are well qualified to determine what theories and evidence do or do not apply to to the age of the earth. To assume a claim that implies that virtually all geologists are wrong requires further argument than mere assertion.
One last note on burdens of proof (laaaaaaaa!):
Historically, burdens of proof can shift. So, what was a reasonable assumption a few hundred years ago might be unreasonable today. We see this with social assumptions. For example, it wasn't too long ago that it was reasonable (for men) to assume that women weren't capable of math and science. Someone (back then) assuming the opposite would bear the burden of proof. Today, that burden of proof has shifted.
Economics is one area where the burden of proof is shifting. It used to be the common assumption that humans are (classically) rational--always seeking to maximize personal interest along the lines of classical mathematical rules. Behavioural economics, interdisciplinary psycho-economics, and socio-economic theory are starting to show these assumptions are wrong. Giving this mounting empirical evidence, the burden of proof is shifting concerning economic models built upon the assumption of (classically) rational agents.
Notice that when burdens of proof shift, it often has to do with accumulation of evidence (and reasons). So, maybe in the future we will discover mountains of evidence that the moon landing was a hoax and that the earth is 6000 years old. If this happens the burden of proof will shift.
Argument Jiu Jitsu
When constructing a strong argument, whenever possible, try keep the burden of proof on your opponent. Hai-ya!
Premise Acceptability
Premise acceptability is closely related to issues discussed in burden of proof. Premise acceptability is the degree to which the intended audience for the argument will accept the premises as reasonable. In other words, it's an evaluation of how acceptable the premises will be to a particular audience.
As I've mentioned a few times already, no matter how air-tight your logical progression from premises to conclusion, if your audience doesn't accept your premises at the start, they'll never accept your conclusion. This is a problem because your conclusion is dependent upon your audience accepting your premises.
Think of it this way: A strong argument merrily leads your audience down the garden path to your conclusion. But if they never take your hand in the beginning, they'll never skip along the garden path with you to your glorious conclusion!
The lesson here? (1) When constructing an argument, do your best to make sure the premises are acceptable to your audience. (2) As a critical thinker examining another's argument, ask yourself of each premise if it will be considered reasonable by the standards of your audience.
Logical Consequence (or Logical Force)
Logical consequence or force is the degree to which we are "forced" to accept the conclusion if we've accepted the premises. When we evaluate an argument for logical force, as much as we can, we want to separate this evaluation from the acceptability of the premises.
To do this we can ask, "assuming all the premises are true, am I forced to accept the conclusion." Asking this question helps to disentangle the two criteria. It's important to keep these two elements separate when conducting an evaluation.
A strong logical argument would be something like this:
(P1) All cats have 4 legs.
(P2) Bob is a cat.
(C) Bob has 4 legs.
If I accept (P1) and (P2), I'm logically forced to accept (C).
A weaker logical argument would be something like this:
(P3) Every time I eat fish, I don't get sick.
(C2) Fish causes me to be healthy.
This logic in this argument is a little weaker for a bunch possible reasons--here are a few: (a) Perhaps I don't eat fish by itself, so maybe it's something else that keeps me healthy--like the tartar sauce I always eat with my fish; (b) maybe it's just dumb luck that the few days following eating fish I haven't happened to get sick; or (c) maybe I only eat fish when I'm already feeling good. For anyone keeping track, this is called the "post hoc, ergo proptor hoc" fallacy. It means, "after, therefore, because of." Or colloquially, "confusing correlation with causation."
It's not a logical impossibility, but the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion is weak. (P3) doesn't compel me to accept (C2). I can accept (P3) without accepting (C2). However, in the first example, if I accept (P1) and (P2), I must also accept (C) or I risk being arrested by the logic police.
Conclusion
As always we can apply this new information in two ways: (1) As critical thinkers criticizing an argument or (2) as clever scholars constructing our own arguments. In both cases we need to be cognizant of the following:
(A) When the arguer's conclusion is unreasonable, he bears the burden of proof to give an argument for why the audience should accept it. (Same goes for the conclusion's critic)
(B) A strong argument will have premises that are accepted as reasonably true by the audience.
(C) A strong argument will compel us through logical force to accept its conclusion if we have accepted its premises.
As critical thinker we should ask of all arguments:
(D) Who bears the burden of proof?
(E) How acceptable (i.e., reasonably true) are the premises?
(F) To what degree does the conclusion necessarily follow from the premises?
Sample Student Answers 3A
Charles Malachi Schlink
Phil 102 HW Wk3A
P26
Ex 5
Directions: Identify the premises and conclusion. Try to figure out the traits of audience based on the
explicit and implicit beliefs. Identify the probable opponents and proponents of the arguments,
(iii) [From "Health News" in More magazine] "there are so many changes that occur in women's lives
from 40 to 60," says Marianna Golts, a psychiatrist as Toronto's Mnt. Sinai Hospital. "The stress of work,
menopausal symptoms, aging parents, having kids or kids leaving--all these factors can contribute to
our depression risk. "...The safeguard is maintenance. "It's so important for women to put their needs
first, get adequate sleep, exercise and have a life outside of family and work--all the normal things that
usually get pushed aside at the is point in a woman's life."
Premise: There are many changes that occur in women's lives from 40 to 60 which can contribute to
depression risk.
Conclusion: It's important for women to put their needs first.
Audience traits: female, 40-60 years old
Opponents: men, families
Proponents: older women, health professionals
(iv) [From The Windsor Star, p. A7, Opinion: "Keep phones out of class," by Cory Matchett] "The school
board thinks it would be good for students and allow them to take notes on their phones. I think this is
outrageous. I am a student at the university and have seen firsthand that many students just sit there
and text all class...The world is far too complicated these days and the only way we are going to move
in the right direction is by simplifying things. In my opinion, all you need to do well in school is paper, a
pen, most importantly, your mind."
Premises: Students text in class. The world is too complicated and we need to simplify things.
Conclusion: Phones should not be allowed in school.
Audience traits: old-fashioned, anti-technology
Opponents: students, phone companies
Proponents: teachers, professors
(v) [Letter to the editor "Support for arts lacking in Windsor"] "I would ask that every family with
young children go out and actively support [the arts] before they are gone. Not only does it enrich the
children's lives but brings many benefits to this city. To be a truly great city, there has to be a mixture of
cultural and sporting activities for people of all ages."
Premise: Supporting the arts enriches children’s lives and brings many benefits to the city.
Conclusion: People should support the arts.
Audience traits: influential, have money
Opponents: Sports, other groups which might lose funding if it is given to art programs
Proponents: artists, art teachers, musicians
(vi) Singing can also nurture the body. A 2000 American study found that choral singing helps the
immune system. The study measured the levels of immunoglobulin A and cortisol immediately after
singing in a choir and after listening to choral music. The choir members had much higher levels of the
immune-boosting chemicals right after singing.
Premise: A study indicated that choir members had high levels of immune-boosting chemicals right after
singing.
Conclusion: Singing is good for you.
Audience traits: scientific, musically-inclined, concerned about health
Opponents: scientists who disagree who the findings of the study or distrust it
Proponents: Singers, choir teachers, scientists, health professionals
Phil 102 HW Wk3A
P26
Ex 5
Directions: Identify the premises and conclusion. Try to figure out the traits of audience based on the
explicit and implicit beliefs. Identify the probable opponents and proponents of the arguments,
(iii) [From "Health News" in More magazine] "there are so many changes that occur in women's lives
from 40 to 60," says Marianna Golts, a psychiatrist as Toronto's Mnt. Sinai Hospital. "The stress of work,
menopausal symptoms, aging parents, having kids or kids leaving--all these factors can contribute to
our depression risk. "...The safeguard is maintenance. "It's so important for women to put their needs
first, get adequate sleep, exercise and have a life outside of family and work--all the normal things that
usually get pushed aside at the is point in a woman's life."
Premise: There are many changes that occur in women's lives from 40 to 60 which can contribute to
depression risk.
Conclusion: It's important for women to put their needs first.
Audience traits: female, 40-60 years old
Opponents: men, families
Proponents: older women, health professionals
(iv) [From The Windsor Star, p. A7, Opinion: "Keep phones out of class," by Cory Matchett] "The school
board thinks it would be good for students and allow them to take notes on their phones. I think this is
outrageous. I am a student at the university and have seen firsthand that many students just sit there
and text all class...The world is far too complicated these days and the only way we are going to move
in the right direction is by simplifying things. In my opinion, all you need to do well in school is paper, a
pen, most importantly, your mind."
Premises: Students text in class. The world is too complicated and we need to simplify things.
Conclusion: Phones should not be allowed in school.
Audience traits: old-fashioned, anti-technology
Opponents: students, phone companies
Proponents: teachers, professors
(v) [Letter to the editor "Support for arts lacking in Windsor"] "I would ask that every family with
young children go out and actively support [the arts] before they are gone. Not only does it enrich the
children's lives but brings many benefits to this city. To be a truly great city, there has to be a mixture of
cultural and sporting activities for people of all ages."
Premise: Supporting the arts enriches children’s lives and brings many benefits to the city.
Conclusion: People should support the arts.
Audience traits: influential, have money
Opponents: Sports, other groups which might lose funding if it is given to art programs
Proponents: artists, art teachers, musicians
(vi) Singing can also nurture the body. A 2000 American study found that choral singing helps the
immune system. The study measured the levels of immunoglobulin A and cortisol immediately after
singing in a choir and after listening to choral music. The choir members had much higher levels of the
immune-boosting chemicals right after singing.
Premise: A study indicated that choir members had high levels of immune-boosting chemicals right after
singing.
Conclusion: Singing is good for you.
Audience traits: scientific, musically-inclined, concerned about health
Opponents: scientists who disagree who the findings of the study or distrust it
Proponents: Singers, choir teachers, scientists, health professionals
Page 26, Exercise 5
Monica Karpecki
M/W 1PM
(iii)
Premises:
1. From 40 to 60, there are many changes in women's lives that can contribute to their depression risk.
2. The stress from work is a factor.
3. Menopausal symptoms are a big contributor.
4. They have to deal with their parents aging.
5. They have to deal with their kids leaving the nest.
6. A lot of the needs that help keep women sane are usually pushed aside at this point in life.
Conclusion:
At this age, is important for women to put their needs first as a safeguard from depression.
Audience:
Older women that are worried about their mental health
People with mothers that are this age
Husbands of wives around this age
The mental health community
Opponents/Proponents
O: Men
P: The mental health community, Women
(iv)
Premises:
1. The world is far too complicated these days.
2. Many students just sit and text all class long.
3. All you need to do well in class is a pen, paper, and your mind.
Conclusion:
The school board should not allow students to take notes on their phones.
Audience:
Those who agree that the world is too complicated and we should just go back to reading by candlelight.
Opponents/Proponents:
O: Students who text during class, Those who are open to using technology as a learning tool
P: Teachers, Parents, Those who think technology is a distraction
(v)
Premises:
1. The arts enrich the lives of children.
2. It brings many benefits to the city.
3. A great city needs a mixture of cultural and sporting activities for all ages.
4. The arts won't be around for much longer with the way things are going.
Conclusion:
Families with young children need to support the arts.
Audience:
Young families
Citizens of the city
City Officials
Opponents/Proponents:
O: Families, Artists, People interested in culture
P: Tax payers, City officials that need to cut the arts program so that they can get their yearly bonuses
(vi)
Premises:
1. Choral singing helps the immune system.
2. Choir members have much higher levels of immune-boosting chemicals right after singing.
Conclusion:
Singing nurtures the body.
Audience:
Those interested in becoming healthier
Opponents/Proponents:
O: People who hate choirs and the Sound of Music
P: Singers, Health nuts
Monday, September 9, 2013
Lecture Notes: Detecting Illegitimate Biases, Confirmation Bias, and Falsificationism
Introduction
In this section we are going to start learn how to detect BS. Lets move beyond the general notion of 'bias' and get more specific about biases and how they affect the strength and validity of arguments. Recall that one way we can classify biases is according to how much skin the arguer has in the game; that is, the degree to which the arguer stands to gain from his audience accepting his position. In this respect we can make 3 broad categories of bias: legitimate, illegitimate, and conflict of interest. By now you should be able to say something about each type. Moving on...
Cognitive Biases
Another way to classify bias in an argument is according to how the hard-wiring in our brains affect the way the information is presented and interpreted. A cognitive bias is when our brain's hard-wiring has an unconscious effect on our reasoning. It is a current area of philosophical debate as to whether cognitive biases are on the whole beneficial or detrimental to our reasoning. We'll set these concerns aside for this class and operate under the assumption that in many instances cognitive biases do negatively influence our capacity to reason well.
There are hundreds of cognitive biases but the most common and the one to which we can trace most errors in reasoning is called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when we only report the "hits" and ignore the "misses"; in other words, we only include information/evidence/reasons in our argument that support our position and we ignore information that disconfirms. Confirmation bias is often (but not always) unintentional and everyone does it to some degree (except me).
What? You don't think you do? Oh, I get it. You're special. Ok, smarty pants. Here's a test. Lets see how smart you are. And don't forget you've already been give fair warning of what's going to happen. The smart money says you will still fall into the trap.
Click on this link and do the test before you continue:
http://hosted.xamai.ca/confbias/index.php
.
.
.
.
.
I said do the test first!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well? Vas happened? I'm going to continue with the assumption that you committed the confirmation bias. Hey, don't feel bad--we're hardwired for it. Before we move forward and discuss how and why confirmation bias works, let me take you on a philosophical aside.
Aside on Falsificationism
I promised myself I wouldn't do this but it'd be helpful to bring in a little philosophy here. Please meet my good friend Carl Popper (no relation to the inventor of the popular snack food known as Jalepeno Poppers).
Popper made a very important philosophical observation in regards to how we can test a hypothesis: he said we cannot test for a hypothesis' truth, rather we can only test for its falsity. This is called falsificationism. In other words, there are infinitely many ways to show that a hypothesis is true, but it only requires one to show that it is false. We should focus on looking to falsify rather than to confirm.
In technical philosophy we refer to an instance of a falsification as a counter example. A counter example is a case in which all the premises are true but the conclusion is false (more on this later).
For illustrative purposes lets apply this principle to the number-pattern test from the link. You were given a series of numbers and asked to identify the principle that describes the pattern. Suppose, (unbeknownst to you) the ordering principle is any 3 numbers in ascending order. How did you go about trying to discover the ordering principle? You looked at the numbers and like most people thought it was something to do with even numbers evenly spaced. You looked at the sample pattern and tried to make patterns that conformed to your hypothesis.
For instance, if the initial pattern was 2, 4, 6 you might have thought, "ah ha! the pattern is successive even numbers!" So, you tested your hypothesis with 8, 10, 12. The "game" replied, yes, this matches the pattern. Now you have confirmation of your hypothesis that the pattern is successive even numbers. Next, you want to further confirm you hypothesis so you guess 20, 22, 24. Further confirmation again! Wow! You are definitely right! Now, you plug you hypothesis (successive even numbers) into the game, but it says you are wrong. What? But I just had 2 instances where my hypothesis was confirmed?!
Back to Confirmation Bias
Here's the dealy-yo. You can confirm your hypothesis until the cows come home. That is, there are infinitely many ways to confirm the hypothesis. However, as Popper noted, what you need to do is to ask questions that will falsify possible hypotheses. So, instead of testing number patterns that confirm what you think the pattern is, you should test number sequences that would prove your hypothesis to be false. That is, instead of plugging in more instances of successive even numbers you should see how the game responds to different types of sequences like 3, 4, 5 or 12, 4, 78. If these are accepted too, then you know your (initial) hypothesis is false.
Lets look at this from the point of view of counter examples. Is it possible that all our number strings {2, 4, 6}, {8, 10, 12}, {20, 22, 24} are true (i.e., conform to the actual principle--ascending order) but our conclusion is false (i.e., the ordering principle is sequential even numbers). The answer is 'yes', so we have a counter-example. In other words, it's possible for all the premises to be true (the number strings) yet for our conclusion to be false.
How do we know our premises can be true and the conclusion false? Because our selected number stings are also consistent with the actual ordering principle (3 numbers in ascending order). If this is the case (and it is), all of the premises are true and our conclusion (our hypothesis) is false. We have a counter-example and should therefore reject (or in some cases further test) our hypothesis.
If you test sequences by trying to find counter-examples you can eventually arrive at the correct ordering principle, but if you only test hypothesis that further confirm your existing hypothesis, you can never encounter the necessary evidence that leads you to reject it. If you never reject your incorrect hypothesis, you'll never get to the right one! Ah! It seems sooooooo simple when you have the answer!
Why do we care about all this as critical thinkers?
When most arguments are presented, they are presented with evidence. However, (usually) the evidence that is presented is only confirming evidence. But as we know from the number-pattern example, the evidence can support any number of hypothesis. To identify the best hypothesis we need to try to disconfirm as many hypotheses as possible. In other words, we need to look for evidence that can make our hypothesis false. The hypothesis that stands up best to falsification attempts has the highest (provisional) likelihood of being true.
As critical thinkers, when we evaluate evidence, we should look to see not only if the arguer has made an effort to show why the evidence supports their hypothesis and not another, but also what attempt has been made to prove their own argument false. We should also be aware of this confirmation bias in our own arguments.
Bonus Round: Where do we often see confirmation bias?
Conspiracy theories and alt-med are rife with confirmation bias. Evidence is only used that supports the hypothesis. Alternative accounts of the results are not considered and there is often no attempt to falsify the pet hypothesis.
Confirmation Bias and the Scientific Method:
We'll discuss the scientific method in more detail later in the course but a couple of notes are relevant for now. The scientific method endeavors to guard against confirmation bias (although, just as in any human enterprise, it sometimes creeps in). There are specific procedures and protocols to minimize its effect. Here are a few:
Slanting by omission and distortion are 2 other species of confirmation bias. Slanting by omission, as you might have guessed, is when important information is left out of an argument to create a favorable bias.
Perhaps a contemporary example can be found in the gun-rights debate. We often hear something like "my right to bear arms is in the Constitution." While this is true, the statement omits the first clause of the Second Amendment which qualifies the second, i.e., that the right to bear arms arises out of the historical need for national self-defense. The Constitution is mute on the right to bear arms for personal security. There also the troublesome word "well-regulated".
Omitting these fact slants the bias in favor of an argument for an unregulated right to bear arms based on personal self-defense. This may or may not be a desirable right to have, but it is an open question as to whether this right is constitutionally grounded.
Another example of slanting by omission might be the popular portrayal by the media of terrorists in the US of being of foreign origins. Such an argument omits many contemporary acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by white American males (for example, Ted Kaczynski aka the unibomber and Timothy McVeigh).
Slanting by distortion is when opposing arguments/reasons/evidence are distorted in such as way as to make them seem weaker or less important than they actually are. Think of slanting by distortion as something like white lies.
For example, famously, when Bill Clinton said "[he] did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was slanting by distortion in the way he deceptively used the term 'sexual relations'.
Summary
In this section we are going to start learn how to detect BS. Lets move beyond the general notion of 'bias' and get more specific about biases and how they affect the strength and validity of arguments. Recall that one way we can classify biases is according to how much skin the arguer has in the game; that is, the degree to which the arguer stands to gain from his audience accepting his position. In this respect we can make 3 broad categories of bias: legitimate, illegitimate, and conflict of interest. By now you should be able to say something about each type. Moving on...
Cognitive Biases
Another way to classify bias in an argument is according to how the hard-wiring in our brains affect the way the information is presented and interpreted. A cognitive bias is when our brain's hard-wiring has an unconscious effect on our reasoning. It is a current area of philosophical debate as to whether cognitive biases are on the whole beneficial or detrimental to our reasoning. We'll set these concerns aside for this class and operate under the assumption that in many instances cognitive biases do negatively influence our capacity to reason well.
There are hundreds of cognitive biases but the most common and the one to which we can trace most errors in reasoning is called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when we only report the "hits" and ignore the "misses"; in other words, we only include information/evidence/reasons in our argument that support our position and we ignore information that disconfirms. Confirmation bias is often (but not always) unintentional and everyone does it to some degree (except me).
What? You don't think you do? Oh, I get it. You're special. Ok, smarty pants. Here's a test. Lets see how smart you are. And don't forget you've already been give fair warning of what's going to happen. The smart money says you will still fall into the trap.
Click on this link and do the test before you continue:
http://hosted.xamai.ca/confbias/index.php
.
.
.
.
.
I said do the test first!
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well? Vas happened? I'm going to continue with the assumption that you committed the confirmation bias. Hey, don't feel bad--we're hardwired for it. Before we move forward and discuss how and why confirmation bias works, let me take you on a philosophical aside.
Aside on Falsificationism
I promised myself I wouldn't do this but it'd be helpful to bring in a little philosophy here. Please meet my good friend Carl Popper (no relation to the inventor of the popular snack food known as Jalepeno Poppers).
Popper made a very important philosophical observation in regards to how we can test a hypothesis: he said we cannot test for a hypothesis' truth, rather we can only test for its falsity. This is called falsificationism. In other words, there are infinitely many ways to show that a hypothesis is true, but it only requires one to show that it is false. We should focus on looking to falsify rather than to confirm.
In technical philosophy we refer to an instance of a falsification as a counter example. A counter example is a case in which all the premises are true but the conclusion is false (more on this later).
For illustrative purposes lets apply this principle to the number-pattern test from the link. You were given a series of numbers and asked to identify the principle that describes the pattern. Suppose, (unbeknownst to you) the ordering principle is any 3 numbers in ascending order. How did you go about trying to discover the ordering principle? You looked at the numbers and like most people thought it was something to do with even numbers evenly spaced. You looked at the sample pattern and tried to make patterns that conformed to your hypothesis.
For instance, if the initial pattern was 2, 4, 6 you might have thought, "ah ha! the pattern is successive even numbers!" So, you tested your hypothesis with 8, 10, 12. The "game" replied, yes, this matches the pattern. Now you have confirmation of your hypothesis that the pattern is successive even numbers. Next, you want to further confirm you hypothesis so you guess 20, 22, 24. Further confirmation again! Wow! You are definitely right! Now, you plug you hypothesis (successive even numbers) into the game, but it says you are wrong. What? But I just had 2 instances where my hypothesis was confirmed?!
Back to Confirmation Bias
Here's the dealy-yo. You can confirm your hypothesis until the cows come home. That is, there are infinitely many ways to confirm the hypothesis. However, as Popper noted, what you need to do is to ask questions that will falsify possible hypotheses. So, instead of testing number patterns that confirm what you think the pattern is, you should test number sequences that would prove your hypothesis to be false. That is, instead of plugging in more instances of successive even numbers you should see how the game responds to different types of sequences like 3, 4, 5 or 12, 4, 78. If these are accepted too, then you know your (initial) hypothesis is false.
Lets look at this from the point of view of counter examples. Is it possible that all our number strings {2, 4, 6}, {8, 10, 12}, {20, 22, 24} are true (i.e., conform to the actual principle--ascending order) but our conclusion is false (i.e., the ordering principle is sequential even numbers). The answer is 'yes', so we have a counter-example. In other words, it's possible for all the premises to be true (the number strings) yet for our conclusion to be false.
How do we know our premises can be true and the conclusion false? Because our selected number stings are also consistent with the actual ordering principle (3 numbers in ascending order). If this is the case (and it is), all of the premises are true and our conclusion (our hypothesis) is false. We have a counter-example and should therefore reject (or in some cases further test) our hypothesis.
If you test sequences by trying to find counter-examples you can eventually arrive at the correct ordering principle, but if you only test hypothesis that further confirm your existing hypothesis, you can never encounter the necessary evidence that leads you to reject it. If you never reject your incorrect hypothesis, you'll never get to the right one! Ah! It seems sooooooo simple when you have the answer!
Why do we care about all this as critical thinkers?
When most arguments are presented, they are presented with evidence. However, (usually) the evidence that is presented is only confirming evidence. But as we know from the number-pattern example, the evidence can support any number of hypothesis. To identify the best hypothesis we need to try to disconfirm as many hypotheses as possible. In other words, we need to look for evidence that can make our hypothesis false. The hypothesis that stands up best to falsification attempts has the highest (provisional) likelihood of being true.
As critical thinkers, when we evaluate evidence, we should look to see not only if the arguer has made an effort to show why the evidence supports their hypothesis and not another, but also what attempt has been made to prove their own argument false. We should also be aware of this confirmation bias in our own arguments.
Bonus Round: Where do we often see confirmation bias?
Conspiracy theories and alt-med are rife with confirmation bias. Evidence is only used that supports the hypothesis. Alternative accounts of the results are not considered and there is often no attempt to falsify the pet hypothesis.
Confirmation Bias and the Scientific Method:
We'll discuss the scientific method in more detail later in the course but a couple of notes are relevant for now. The scientific method endeavors to guard against confirmation bias (although, just as in any human enterprise, it sometimes creeps in). There are specific procedures and protocols to minimize its effect. Here are a few:
- When a scientist (in a lab coat) publishes an article, it is made available to a community of peers for criticism. (Peer review)
- Double blinding
- Control Group
- Incentives for proving competing hypotheses and theories wrong (be famous!)
- Use of statistical methods to evaluate correlation vs causation
Slanting by omission and distortion are 2 other species of confirmation bias. Slanting by omission, as you might have guessed, is when important information is left out of an argument to create a favorable bias.
Perhaps a contemporary example can be found in the gun-rights debate. We often hear something like "my right to bear arms is in the Constitution." While this is true, the statement omits the first clause of the Second Amendment which qualifies the second, i.e., that the right to bear arms arises out of the historical need for national self-defense. The Constitution is mute on the right to bear arms for personal security. There also the troublesome word "well-regulated".
Omitting these fact slants the bias in favor of an argument for an unregulated right to bear arms based on personal self-defense. This may or may not be a desirable right to have, but it is an open question as to whether this right is constitutionally grounded.
Another example of slanting by omission might be the popular portrayal by the media of terrorists in the US of being of foreign origins. Such an argument omits many contemporary acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by white American males (for example, Ted Kaczynski aka the unibomber and Timothy McVeigh).
Slanting by distortion is when opposing arguments/reasons/evidence are distorted in such as way as to make them seem weaker or less important than they actually are. Think of slanting by distortion as something like white lies.
For example, famously, when Bill Clinton said "[he] did not have sexual relations with that woman," he was slanting by distortion in the way he deceptively used the term 'sexual relations'.
Summary
- A common type of bias is confirmation bias in which only confirming evidence and reasons are cited, and falsifying evidence is ignored.
- A good way to test a hypothesis or argument is to ask whether it's possible for all the premises to true and the conclusion to be false; that is, are there counter examples. Instead of emphasizing confirming evidence, a good argument also tries to show why counter examples fail. In other words, it shows why, if all the premises are true we must also accept the particular conclusion rather than another one.
- As critical thinkers assessing other arguments, we should try to come up with counter examples.
- Slanting by omission is when important information (relative to the conclusion) is left out of an argument.
- Slanting by distortion is when opponents arguments/evidence are unfairly trivialized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)