Monday, October 28, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Relevance, Relevance-Associated Fallacies, and Sufficiency
Introduction
Last week we revisited premise acceptability and looked at rules of thumb for acceptance, rejection, or "questionable" status. This week we're going to continue our happy reinvestigation of foundational principles by reexamining premise relevance and sufficiency. Recall from previous discussions that relevance and sufficiency are measures of logical force; that is, the degree to which a conclusion follows from premises. In other words, premises have strong logical force if they force us to accept the conclusion (and the opposite is true of weak premises). Also, lets remind ourselves that when we evaluate logical force (relevance and sufficiency) we assume the premises to be true--regardless of if they are or not.
One more time with the definitions to be clear: Premise acceptability is our assessment of the reasonableness of a premise and whether an audience would accept is without further support. Logical force (made up of relevance and sufficiency) is a measure of how strongly the premises (either individually or in conjunction) force us to accept a conclusion.
A deductive argument's premises are all relevant and sufficient. An inductive argument has premises that are relevant but not 100% sufficient.
Note: The book uses the term "inductive validity" to indicate an inductive argument that has strong logical force. For this course (and everyone else in the philosophy department) doesn't use this term because it causes confusion with actual validity.
In logic, the only arguments that are valid are deductive. So, in line with the UNLV philosophy department and conventional formal definitions, we will reserve the term "valid" for deductive arguments only.
If in your evaluation of an argument you come across an inductive argument that is has very strong logical force, say it has "strong logical force" but do not say it is valid.
Premise Relevance
When we first encountered premise relevance, we understood it as something like whether the premises and the conclusion are talking about the same thing. This is a good starting point, but we're going to modify this approach because sometimes a premise can be about the same topic as the conclusion but fail to be relevant.
Premise relevance increases or decreases the likelihood that a conclusion is true. For example, suppose I want to prove that (MC) a certain animal 'x' is a duck. I give the following premises
P1. The animal waddles.
P2. The animal quacks.
P3. The animal has a stomach.
P4. The animal has a reality TV show and is a primate.
Notice that P1 increases the likelihood that (MC) the animal is a duck. Same goes for P2. P3 is neutral. And P4 actually decreases the likelihood of the conclusion being true. It increases the probability of another conclusion: that the animal is a cast member of Duck Dynasty. Premises that swing the probability against the main conclusion can be used as premises in a counter-argument.
A note on extended arguments: The argument we just looked at is a simple argument because no premise requires further support. In the case of extended arguments some premises require further support. In these cases, the sub-premises will be relevant to the sub-conclusion they support but not directly relevant to the main conclusion. In your evaluation you should indicate this.
Summary and Key Points:
(1) When we evaluate for premise relevance we are looking at whether the information in a premise increases or decreases the likelihood of a conclusion being true.
(2) When we evaluate for relevance we assume the premises are all true--even if they aren't.
(3) When we evaluate for relevance we evaluate each premise individually. It's possible that some premises will be relevant while others might not be.
Informal Logical Fallacies Associated with Relevance (i.e. Failures of Relevance)
Ad hominem (against the person): When a claim is rejected or judged to be false based on an alleged character flaw of the person making the claim. A second form occurs whenever someone's statement or reasoning is attacked by way of a stereotype, such as a racial, sexual, or religious stereotype. A third form involves the use of circumstances of a person's life to reject his claims. Exception: denying someone's claim by calling them a liar and they have a reputation for being one.
Examples:Why should I believe what he says about our economy? He's not even a citizen!
Charities use this a lot in their advertising.
Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship. Have a heart! Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue.
Appeal to Force: When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.
Last week we revisited premise acceptability and looked at rules of thumb for acceptance, rejection, or "questionable" status. This week we're going to continue our happy reinvestigation of foundational principles by reexamining premise relevance and sufficiency. Recall from previous discussions that relevance and sufficiency are measures of logical force; that is, the degree to which a conclusion follows from premises. In other words, premises have strong logical force if they force us to accept the conclusion (and the opposite is true of weak premises). Also, lets remind ourselves that when we evaluate logical force (relevance and sufficiency) we assume the premises to be true--regardless of if they are or not.
One more time with the definitions to be clear: Premise acceptability is our assessment of the reasonableness of a premise and whether an audience would accept is without further support. Logical force (made up of relevance and sufficiency) is a measure of how strongly the premises (either individually or in conjunction) force us to accept a conclusion.
A deductive argument's premises are all relevant and sufficient. An inductive argument has premises that are relevant but not 100% sufficient.
Note: The book uses the term "inductive validity" to indicate an inductive argument that has strong logical force. For this course (and everyone else in the philosophy department) doesn't use this term because it causes confusion with actual validity.
In logic, the only arguments that are valid are deductive. So, in line with the UNLV philosophy department and conventional formal definitions, we will reserve the term "valid" for deductive arguments only.
If in your evaluation of an argument you come across an inductive argument that is has very strong logical force, say it has "strong logical force" but do not say it is valid.
Premise Relevance
When we first encountered premise relevance, we understood it as something like whether the premises and the conclusion are talking about the same thing. This is a good starting point, but we're going to modify this approach because sometimes a premise can be about the same topic as the conclusion but fail to be relevant.
Premise relevance increases or decreases the likelihood that a conclusion is true. For example, suppose I want to prove that (MC) a certain animal 'x' is a duck. I give the following premises
P1. The animal waddles.
P2. The animal quacks.
P3. The animal has a stomach.
P4. The animal has a reality TV show and is a primate.
Notice that P1 increases the likelihood that (MC) the animal is a duck. Same goes for P2. P3 is neutral. And P4 actually decreases the likelihood of the conclusion being true. It increases the probability of another conclusion: that the animal is a cast member of Duck Dynasty. Premises that swing the probability against the main conclusion can be used as premises in a counter-argument.
A note on extended arguments: The argument we just looked at is a simple argument because no premise requires further support. In the case of extended arguments some premises require further support. In these cases, the sub-premises will be relevant to the sub-conclusion they support but not directly relevant to the main conclusion. In your evaluation you should indicate this.
Summary and Key Points:
(1) When we evaluate for premise relevance we are looking at whether the information in a premise increases or decreases the likelihood of a conclusion being true.
(2) When we evaluate for relevance we assume the premises are all true--even if they aren't.
(3) When we evaluate for relevance we evaluate each premise individually. It's possible that some premises will be relevant while others might not be.
Informal Logical Fallacies Associated with Relevance (i.e. Failures of Relevance)
Ad hominem (against the person): When a claim is rejected or judged to be false based on an alleged character flaw of the person making the claim. A second form occurs whenever someone's statement or reasoning is attacked by way of a stereotype, such as a racial, sexual, or religious stereotype. A third form involves the use of circumstances of a person's life to reject his claims. Exception: denying someone's claim by calling them a liar and they have a reputation for being one.
Examples:Why should I believe what he says about our economy? He's not even a citizen!
You can't accept her advice. She is so old she has no idea what goes on in today's world.
Why would you listen to him? He's too young to have any wisdom about life.
Type 3: Of course Senator X thinks my administration's tax proposals are bad for the country. After all, his political party lost the last election, and everyone knows that losers are jealous.
You don't want cars to get better gas milage because you are a self-centered rich bastard who isn't affected by gas prices. All you care about it how big your engine is.
Of course you think that people should take drugs. You work for a pharmaceutical company and you make more money if more people take drugs.
Notice in all cases, the issue is not being addressed by bringing up reasons for or against the position, rather it is the person or their circumstances that is being criticized.
Poisoning the Well: Pre-emptive ad hominem to discredit the opponent before they make their point.
Why would you listen to him? He's too young to have any wisdom about life.
Type 3: Of course Senator X thinks my administration's tax proposals are bad for the country. After all, his political party lost the last election, and everyone knows that losers are jealous.
You don't want cars to get better gas milage because you are a self-centered rich bastard who isn't affected by gas prices. All you care about it how big your engine is.
Of course you think that people should take drugs. You work for a pharmaceutical company and you make more money if more people take drugs.
Notice in all cases, the issue is not being addressed by bringing up reasons for or against the position, rather it is the person or their circumstances that is being criticized.
Poisoning the Well: Pre-emptive ad hominem to discredit the opponent before they make their point.
Eg. "Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water."
Tu Quoque: Another variety of ad hominem fallacy in which one person attempts to avoid the issue at hand by claiming the other person is a hypocrite.
Examples:You're always telling us to do our homework and study but you never did your homework when you were an undergrad.
Many Arab countries put house their prisoners in inhumane conditions. Who are they to lecture us about our prison practices?
Argumentum Ad Populum/Bandwagon Effect:
Ad Populum: Appeal to the people
This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.
Tu Quoque: Another variety of ad hominem fallacy in which one person attempts to avoid the issue at hand by claiming the other person is a hypocrite.
Examples:You're always telling us to do our homework and study but you never did your homework when you were an undergrad.
Many Arab countries put house their prisoners in inhumane conditions. Who are they to lecture us about our prison practices?
Argumentum Ad Populum/Bandwagon Effect:
Ad Populum: Appeal to the people
This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.
Eg. (Historically) Everybody agrees that group x shouldn't have equal rights, therefore they shouldn't have them.Eg. Most people agree that vitamin C cures the common cold. Therefore, you should take it.
Eg. Most people agree that Hondas are better than Fords.
Bandwagon Effect (variation of argument from popularity)
Eg. Most people agree that Hondas are better than Fords.
Bandwagon Effect (variation of argument from popularity)
Often used in advertising through images of beautiful/happy people using a product...”you can be like us too!”
Appeal to Emotions: When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc...instead of providing reasons for or against a position.
Appeal to Emotions: When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc...instead of providing reasons for or against a position.
Examples:
The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.
The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
Charities use this a lot in their advertising.
Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship. Have a heart! Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue.
Appeal to Force: When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.
Examples:
If you don't get rid of your chemical weapons we will bomb you.
Missing the point (non-sequitur): Generic catch all for arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises and the premises seem to suggest a different conclusion should be drawn.
Examples:
Professor Brown is a really hard grader. Not only does he force you to attend class, participate in discussion, and do homework. He actually expects us to think about the material outside of class. So, you can believe that his class teaches students nothing about real life.
Ami likes cheese, ice cream, and yogurt. He should eat more vegetables.Appeal to (Unqualified) Authority (Arugmentum Ad Verecundiam—Arg. from reverence or respect):
Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on psychology and medicine.
Sufficiency
Sufficiency is the measure of whether there is enough evidence to guarantee the truth of the conclusion (or at least make it very likely). When an argument's premises are all relevant and 100% sufficient, the argument is deductive. When an argument's premises are relevant but do not 100% guarantee the conclusion, the argument is inductive (and invalid). Being able to make this distinction is one reason why evaluating sufficiency is important.
A few more comments: in an argument it's possible (but very rare) for a single premise to be sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Eg:
P1. Bob and Joe are humans
C. Bob is a human.
Or an argument may require several premises working together to be sufficient for the conclusion:
P1. If the Canucks win the Stanley Cup, I will be happy.
P2. The Canucks won the Stanley Cup.
C. I am happy.
Notice in this argument that P1 and P2 on their own don't do much to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but working together, the conclusion is guaranteed; i.e., together they are sufficient. When you make an analysis of sufficiency, you should point out whether it is a cluster of premises that are sufficient for the conclusion or whether it is a single premise. However, at this point in the course, you can probably bet that you won't be seeing too many single premise arguments and if you do, it means there's a hidden second premise...
Evaluations of sufficiency will take into account all the premises for the argument. In some arguments single premises will be sufficient for the conclusion whereas in other arguments, sufficiency will be achieved through several premises working together. In your analysis you don't need to say of each premise why it on its own isn't sufficient. But when premises are obviously meant to work together, you should evaluate their sufficiency collectively.
Some Heuristics
Because it's not always straight forward to determine whether a premise or set of premises are sufficient, here are a couple of general rules we can apply in our analysis:
1. How strongly worded or broad is the conclusion?
One thing we might look at is how strongly stated or broad the conclusion is. Suppose someone wants to conclude that "all men are evil." This is a very strong/broad claim. The arguer will have to provide enough evidence to show that every man on earth is "evil" (lets ignore the vagueness problem for now). That's going to require quite a bit of compelling empirical evidence.
Now suppose this person argues for their conclusion based on personal experience. "All my boyfriends were mean to me" or something like that. This is insufficient evidence to support the broad and strongly worded claim that all men are evil for several obvious reasons, one of which is that the arguer hasn't encountered all men (we can make that reasonable assumption, anyway).
To simplify this rule we can interpret it this way: universal claims in the conclusion should set off alarm bells in your head, as should strong (emotional) language. Also, the strength of evidence should be in proportion to the strength of the claim being made. We can call this the proportionality principle. Or to quote Carl Sagan paraphrasing Hume: extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence
Heuristic: Words like "all","every", "most", "none", "never" should set off alarm bells when evaluating sufficiency.
2. Don't Jump to Conclusions
This rule is closely related to the previous one. It's basically a close relative of the proportionality rule (strongly worded/broad claims require a lot of evidence). If you have a small sample of evidence pointing to a particular conclusion, don't prematurely jump to that conclusion. Recognize that results from a small sample size can easily be over-turned by a large sample. In other words, when stating a conclusion based on initial evidence, temper the language of the conclusion.
For example, you grew up in a forest and want to argue that all birds can fly. Your evidence for your claim is that every bird you've ever seen can fly. Of course you haven't yet seen the humble chicken or majestic turkey or know of their existence. But as an intelligent forest-dweller you know that the world extends beyond the forest so you should opt for a more reasonable claim in proportion to your evidence: "every bird in the forest can fly." Or you might qualify your claim and make a weaker universal claim: "It's likely that every bird can fly."
Using qualifying language is the mark of a careful thinker. Even more so when it is used to bring a conclusion in line with the amount of current available evidence.
Heuristic: Words like "up to x%" "some" "a few" should set off sufficiency alarm bells.
3. Ensure The Arguer Isn't Engaging in Distortion or Omission
If an argument only presents positive evidence/reasons and doesn't at least acknowledge (reasonable) competing evidence/reasons, then we have reason to be skeptical of the sufficiency of the premises.
Suppose a boy wants to argue that "all girls are mean" because all the girls in his class tease him. His evidence is that each girl in his class teased him at some point. However, he's missing the following evidence: his teacher, mother, and sister are all girls and they are nice to him. Also, sometimes little Susie shares her lunch every week with the boy, even though she teased him only once. As we investigate, we find that sometimes girls are nice to the little boy. Not only that, but sometimes girls that the little boy never met in his life are always nice and never tease any of their classmates in other schools and classrooms. All this evidence is missing and undercuts the strength of the conclusion.
So, if we were evaluating the little boy's argument for sufficiency we'd say there is insufficient evidence for his conclusion because he hasn't considered contravening evidence.
Missing the point (non-sequitur): Generic catch all for arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises and the premises seem to suggest a different conclusion should be drawn.
Examples:
Professor Brown is a really hard grader. Not only does he force you to attend class, participate in discussion, and do homework. He actually expects us to think about the material outside of class. So, you can believe that his class teaches students nothing about real life.
Ami likes cheese, ice cream, and yogurt. He should eat more vegetables.Appeal to (Unqualified) Authority (Arugmentum Ad Verecundiam—Arg. from reverence or respect):
Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on psychology and medicine.
Sufficiency
Sufficiency is the measure of whether there is enough evidence to guarantee the truth of the conclusion (or at least make it very likely). When an argument's premises are all relevant and 100% sufficient, the argument is deductive. When an argument's premises are relevant but do not 100% guarantee the conclusion, the argument is inductive (and invalid). Being able to make this distinction is one reason why evaluating sufficiency is important.
A few more comments: in an argument it's possible (but very rare) for a single premise to be sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Eg:
P1. Bob and Joe are humans
C. Bob is a human.
Or an argument may require several premises working together to be sufficient for the conclusion:
P1. If the Canucks win the Stanley Cup, I will be happy.
P2. The Canucks won the Stanley Cup.
C. I am happy.
Notice in this argument that P1 and P2 on their own don't do much to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but working together, the conclusion is guaranteed; i.e., together they are sufficient. When you make an analysis of sufficiency, you should point out whether it is a cluster of premises that are sufficient for the conclusion or whether it is a single premise. However, at this point in the course, you can probably bet that you won't be seeing too many single premise arguments and if you do, it means there's a hidden second premise...
Evaluations of sufficiency will take into account all the premises for the argument. In some arguments single premises will be sufficient for the conclusion whereas in other arguments, sufficiency will be achieved through several premises working together. In your analysis you don't need to say of each premise why it on its own isn't sufficient. But when premises are obviously meant to work together, you should evaluate their sufficiency collectively.
Some Heuristics
Because it's not always straight forward to determine whether a premise or set of premises are sufficient, here are a couple of general rules we can apply in our analysis:
1. How strongly worded or broad is the conclusion?
One thing we might look at is how strongly stated or broad the conclusion is. Suppose someone wants to conclude that "all men are evil." This is a very strong/broad claim. The arguer will have to provide enough evidence to show that every man on earth is "evil" (lets ignore the vagueness problem for now). That's going to require quite a bit of compelling empirical evidence.
Now suppose this person argues for their conclusion based on personal experience. "All my boyfriends were mean to me" or something like that. This is insufficient evidence to support the broad and strongly worded claim that all men are evil for several obvious reasons, one of which is that the arguer hasn't encountered all men (we can make that reasonable assumption, anyway).
To simplify this rule we can interpret it this way: universal claims in the conclusion should set off alarm bells in your head, as should strong (emotional) language. Also, the strength of evidence should be in proportion to the strength of the claim being made. We can call this the proportionality principle. Or to quote Carl Sagan paraphrasing Hume: extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence
Heuristic: Words like "all","every", "most", "none", "never" should set off alarm bells when evaluating sufficiency.
2. Don't Jump to Conclusions
This rule is closely related to the previous one. It's basically a close relative of the proportionality rule (strongly worded/broad claims require a lot of evidence). If you have a small sample of evidence pointing to a particular conclusion, don't prematurely jump to that conclusion. Recognize that results from a small sample size can easily be over-turned by a large sample. In other words, when stating a conclusion based on initial evidence, temper the language of the conclusion.
For example, you grew up in a forest and want to argue that all birds can fly. Your evidence for your claim is that every bird you've ever seen can fly. Of course you haven't yet seen the humble chicken or majestic turkey or know of their existence. But as an intelligent forest-dweller you know that the world extends beyond the forest so you should opt for a more reasonable claim in proportion to your evidence: "every bird in the forest can fly." Or you might qualify your claim and make a weaker universal claim: "It's likely that every bird can fly."
Using qualifying language is the mark of a careful thinker. Even more so when it is used to bring a conclusion in line with the amount of current available evidence.
Heuristic: Words like "up to x%" "some" "a few" should set off sufficiency alarm bells.
3. Ensure The Arguer Isn't Engaging in Distortion or Omission
If an argument only presents positive evidence/reasons and doesn't at least acknowledge (reasonable) competing evidence/reasons, then we have reason to be skeptical of the sufficiency of the premises.
Suppose a boy wants to argue that "all girls are mean" because all the girls in his class tease him. His evidence is that each girl in his class teased him at some point. However, he's missing the following evidence: his teacher, mother, and sister are all girls and they are nice to him. Also, sometimes little Susie shares her lunch every week with the boy, even though she teased him only once. As we investigate, we find that sometimes girls are nice to the little boy. Not only that, but sometimes girls that the little boy never met in his life are always nice and never tease any of their classmates in other schools and classrooms. All this evidence is missing and undercuts the strength of the conclusion.
So, if we were evaluating the little boy's argument for sufficiency we'd say there is insufficient evidence for his conclusion because he hasn't considered contravening evidence.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Lecture Notes: Premise Acceptability Revisited
Introduction
Up until now we've looked at the major components of argument, argument evaluation, and argument construction: (a) premise acceptability and (b) logical force (which is made up of (i) premise relevance and (ii) sufficiency). Now we are going to look at these elements a little more closely.
Premise/Evidence Acceptability
When it comes to value-based arguments (e.g., political, moral, and religious) we will often not be able to achieve 100% certainty of truth of the premises. Even something as intuitively obvious like "it's wrong to kill innocent people" will have counter-examples. However, simply because a premise cannot be 100% true in all cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should reject it or that the argument of which it is a part is poor. Instead, it means we need to be subtle in our evaluations and consider carefully what the logical consequences are of accepting certain premises.
Recall from our previous discussion of premise acceptability that premises/evidence need to meet general two standards: (1) would the intended audience accept the claims without further support? (i.e., do the premises take into account the audiences "cluster" of beliefs and values) and (2) are the claims acceptable to a "reasonable" universal audience.
Acceptability has much to do with burden of proof. From the perspectives of both (1) and (2) we need to ask: (3) would these claims be accepted without anyone asking for more evidence/support? And (4) is there no available information or evidence that we know of that contradicts the claims? If the answer is "yes" to both, then the premise is acceptable. If not, then it isn't, and the burden to provide further support for that premise rests upon the person making the argument. An acceptable premise is one that passes both the intended audience and the reasonable universal audience test.
Questionable vs Unacceptable Going back to the reasonable universal audience test, if the answer is "no", then we have two possible ways to proceed: In the one case we will say the premise is "questionable" and in the second we'll say it is "unacceptable".
Evidence/premises are questionable when (a) they fail the "reasonableness" test but we still haven't come up with any direct contradicting claims or (b) we just don't have any knowledge either way on the topic in regards to what a general audience would accept or (c) the wording of a premise is too vague to evaluate. Very few of us are experts on everything. (Despite what some people might think!).
When you say a premise is "questionable" you need to also include in your evaluation what sort of evidence/additional support the arguer would have to support for their premise to be true. Then google it!
Lets look at some examples: Suppose I want to claim that it's an affront to the Olympic spirit that wrestling be removed from the Olympics. We might point out that the phrase "affront the the Olympic spirit" is quite vague and could be variously interpreted. So, in our evaluation of the acceptability we might say that the claim is questionable because its meaning is vague.
However, at this point we wouldn't yet be able to say that claim is unacceptable. An unacceptable claim is one for which there is known evidence that directly contradicts the claim. Since, in the wrestling case there isn't obvious evidence against the claim (because we're not quite sure exactly what it means), it is not unacceptable, merely questionable. From the context of the argument we might apply the principle of charity and try to ascribe a reasonable meaning to the phrase.
The evaluation of "questionable" could also arise where we just don't know much about a topic. Consider an argument that was commonly heard in the Food Stamp funding debate.
(P1) Giving people food stamps removes the incentive to find work and leads to chronic unemployment.
(C) Therefore, we restrict or defund the Food Stamp program.
(P1) on its face seems intuitively plausible. If people are just going to be handed something, why work? The fact is, however, we aren't sure, so we say the premise is questionable.
Since we've said it's questionable we need to also specify what sort of evidence or support would be needed for it to be acceptable. This might be government data on un/employment rates of people on food stamps that shows people on food stamps have high unemployment rates and continue to be unemployed while on food stamps.
Lets google and find out:
It turns out that children, the elderly and disabled—i.e., people who, normatively speaking, we don’t expect to fully participate in the workforce—account for 84% of SNAP recipients. Also, contrary to what the premise needs for support, 58% and 62% of SNAP households with an able-bodied adult work (no children/children) and 82% and 87% are employed within a year.
This data doesn't give the premise the required support and so we say it is unacceptable and this particular argument against the Food Stamp program fails.If I were to claim that the moon is made of cheese, this claim would be unacceptable since there is known evidence that directly contradicts the claim.
The difference between a questionable and an unacceptable claim is that with the former, it fails the reasonableness test because we don't have enough information (maybe it's too vague or we don't know enough about the topic); and with the latter there is known evidence that contracts the claim that a reasonable audience would be aware of.
The Nitty Gritty: How Do We Know What a Reasonable Audience Will Accept?
For the most part this is an element of subjectivity here but there are main 2 guidelines we can begin with to determine if a reasonable audience would accept a claim: (A) The claim doesn't contradict any of the other claims made in the argument and (B) the claim could be defended in front of an audience comprised of a broad cross-section of society. Of course, this still doesn't give us any mathematically precise formula for determining reasonableness but it a start. In addition, here are couple more heuristics we can use to determine acceptability...
Acceptable By Definition or Self-Evidently Acceptable
Some premises are definitions. Often, (but not always) definitions are considered self-evident or true by definition. For example, a triangle is a three-sided figure or a bachelor is an unmarried male. You can't argue with that. Ain't nobody got time for that! For definitions, the litmus test is what a community of language-users would accept as a definition for a term.
We can also have claims that are self-evident because they are logical truths, like "a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time."
Self-evident claims can also pertain to the moral realm (unless your audience is philosophers!). Statements like, "causing unnecessary suffering is bad" or "killing innocent people is bad" are considered self-evident to a reasonable general audience.
Acceptable as a Factual Statement Reporting an Observation or as a Statement of Eye-Witness Testimony
Unless we are provided with some reason not to, we accept people's testimony about what happened to them or what they observed. If someone said "it's sunny outside yesterday," you have no reason not to accept the claim. Also, if I told you that I was going to the store to get myself a cold pop, you should accept my claim at face value.
Of course, if I have a reputation of being a big fat liar, then you'd have reason to be skeptical of my claims. Also, if what I said happened to contradict something else I'd said, then you would also have reason to question the acceptability of my claim. But barring such situations, we take speaker observations and testimony at face value.
Acceptable by Common Knowledge or Assent
We have to be careful with this one because it can lead us to accept things uncritically that we probably shouldn't. "Common knowledge" can be divided into 2 categories: factual claims and value claims. A factual claim would be something like, "the earth is a spheroid" or "Obama is the current president of the USA." A value claim or value judgment would be something like, "it's wrong to hit children" or "we shouldn't allow people to starve."
So, where does acceptability fit into this? Although we said previously that acceptability depends largely on what a reasonable member of a universal audience would accept, there are exceptions. Concerning factual claims, if the intended audience has specialized knowledge (doctors, scientists, etc...) then it's OK to evaluate the claim in relation to the knowledge base we'd expect that group to have.
We might reply, but wait! What happens if the knowledge isn't known by every member of that audience? In such cases, we can make assumptions about what factual knowledge we'd reasonably expect the members of a specific expert audience to have.
In all this talk of specific audiences, lets not lose sight of the "common knowledge by a universal audience" aspect of this criteria. Just because some knowledge might be particular to a field of study or expertise, doesn't mean that there isn't knowledge that we can reasonably expect Joe Schmo to know. Stuff like, "the third Batman movie was awful" or "grass is green" or "Las Vegas is the entertainment capitol of the world" are all things that we'd expect a general (North American) audience to know and so we can accept them at face value. Similarly "Uzbekistan was part of the former USSR" is something we'd reasonably expect every general audience outside of the USA to know :)
Acceptable Because it is Defended in a Reasonable Sub-Argument
In Mill's proof of utilitarianism he makes the sub-claim that the general happiness is good to all humans. This is on its face is not a claim that we'd expect a universal audience to accept. However, Mill, knowing what a general audience might not accept, provides a supporting argument working from our particular desire for our own happiness to the more general claim.
Since he supports his sub-claim with a reasonable argument we can now accept it. (And consequentially turn our critical thinking toward the supporting sub-premises.)
When evaluating for premise acceptability, we can do the same with any sub-claim. It it doesn't seem reasonable we can see if it is supported by a sub-argument. If it is, and that sub-argument is reasonable, then we can accept the sub-claim.
Acceptable on the Authoritar of the Arguer or an Expert
We can broadly divide this criteria into two types: uncontroversial claims made by an arguer and claims made by an expert.
In the first class these are claims about relatively uncontroversial things that the arguer might know about. For example, I might say that the University of Houston has a good philosophy graduate program. Because I've been there and you haven't, you have no grounds to doubt my claim and since it isn't particularly contentious, it should be viewed as acceptable.
In the second class we have claims made by experts. This is known as an "appeal to authority". This is when the arguer supports a claim by appealing to the expert knowledge of a person, institution, or source.
A quick note here, the best appeals to authority are appeals to the consensus opinion of a community of experts. Appeal to a single expert doesn't carry much weight, especially in controversial topics. The opinion could easily be an outlier.
Conditions of Unacceptability
Unacceptable because of an Inconsistency
We might label a claim as unacceptable because it is inconsistent with other claims the same arguer has made. For example, in alt-med we often see arguments stating that the flu vaccine shouldn't be used because its efficacy can sometimes be as low as 45%. However, the northern Andean magic rainbow-berry or acupuncture they propose instead has no reported efficacy.
So, if the argument is that we should reject a treatment because of low efficacy, the same should apply to their conclusion.
We also hear that we shouldn't take manufactured (i.e., "unnatural) drugs because big-pharma's just trying to sell you stuff to make money, then in the same breath they will try to sell you the latest all-natural (!) miracle cure...and not for free either!
To be sure, inconsistency doesn't mean the conclusion is false, it only means that the argument for the conclusion is poor and we need to either reject the premise(s) or the conclusion (or both) because both can't be true. Sometimes people can hold the right views (conclusions) for the wrong reasons or as a matter of dumb luck, not because they arrived at them through good argument.
Unacceptable because of Begging the Question
The current use of "begging the question" meaning "raises the question" is something that irks philosophers to no end. The original meaning of the phrase is "circular reasoning." In other words, in your argument, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove.
The classic example comes from an unsophisticated religious argument for the truth of the contents of the Bible. A caricature of the argument goes like this: How do you know what's in the Bible is true? 'Cuz it's the word of God. How do you know it's the word of God? 'Cuz it says so in the Bible.
Notice that for the argument to work you have to assume the very thing the arguer tries to prove: that the contents of the Bible are true.
Unacceptable because of Language Problems
We can call a premise unacceptable if it has one or more of the language problems we encountered on the section on definitions. In other words, if the language of the premise is overly vague or suffers from semantic and/or syntactic ambiguity, we might say it's unacceptable (if context can't reasonably sort it out).
Suppose I claim that "I've never been seriously sick since I started taking Tibetan Booga-Booga Bush capsules. We can't accept this claim because "seriously sick" is too vague. For how long and for what intensity do I have to be sick to be "seriously sick". Do I need to be hospitalized or just miss work? Or maybe just miss my work out. It's not clear from the phrase so we'd say the premise is questionable or unacceptable depending on the severity of the vagueness.
The difference between a questionable and an unacceptable claim is that with the former, it fails the reasonableness test because we don't have enough information (maybe it's too vague or we don't know enough about the topic); and with the latter there is known evidence that contracts the claim that a reasonable audience would be aware of.
The Nitty Gritty: How Do We Know What a Reasonable Audience Will Accept?
For the most part this is an element of subjectivity here but there are main 2 guidelines we can begin with to determine if a reasonable audience would accept a claim: (A) The claim doesn't contradict any of the other claims made in the argument and (B) the claim could be defended in front of an audience comprised of a broad cross-section of society. Of course, this still doesn't give us any mathematically precise formula for determining reasonableness but it a start. In addition, here are couple more heuristics we can use to determine acceptability...
Acceptable By Definition or Self-Evidently Acceptable
Some premises are definitions. Often, (but not always) definitions are considered self-evident or true by definition. For example, a triangle is a three-sided figure or a bachelor is an unmarried male. You can't argue with that. Ain't nobody got time for that! For definitions, the litmus test is what a community of language-users would accept as a definition for a term.
We can also have claims that are self-evident because they are logical truths, like "a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time."
Self-evident claims can also pertain to the moral realm (unless your audience is philosophers!). Statements like, "causing unnecessary suffering is bad" or "killing innocent people is bad" are considered self-evident to a reasonable general audience.
Acceptable as a Factual Statement Reporting an Observation or as a Statement of Eye-Witness Testimony
Unless we are provided with some reason not to, we accept people's testimony about what happened to them or what they observed. If someone said "it's sunny outside yesterday," you have no reason not to accept the claim. Also, if I told you that I was going to the store to get myself a cold pop, you should accept my claim at face value.
Of course, if I have a reputation of being a big fat liar, then you'd have reason to be skeptical of my claims. Also, if what I said happened to contradict something else I'd said, then you would also have reason to question the acceptability of my claim. But barring such situations, we take speaker observations and testimony at face value.
Acceptable by Common Knowledge or Assent
We have to be careful with this one because it can lead us to accept things uncritically that we probably shouldn't. "Common knowledge" can be divided into 2 categories: factual claims and value claims. A factual claim would be something like, "the earth is a spheroid" or "Obama is the current president of the USA." A value claim or value judgment would be something like, "it's wrong to hit children" or "we shouldn't allow people to starve."
So, where does acceptability fit into this? Although we said previously that acceptability depends largely on what a reasonable member of a universal audience would accept, there are exceptions. Concerning factual claims, if the intended audience has specialized knowledge (doctors, scientists, etc...) then it's OK to evaluate the claim in relation to the knowledge base we'd expect that group to have.
We might reply, but wait! What happens if the knowledge isn't known by every member of that audience? In such cases, we can make assumptions about what factual knowledge we'd reasonably expect the members of a specific expert audience to have.
In all this talk of specific audiences, lets not lose sight of the "common knowledge by a universal audience" aspect of this criteria. Just because some knowledge might be particular to a field of study or expertise, doesn't mean that there isn't knowledge that we can reasonably expect Joe Schmo to know. Stuff like, "the third Batman movie was awful" or "grass is green" or "Las Vegas is the entertainment capitol of the world" are all things that we'd expect a general (North American) audience to know and so we can accept them at face value. Similarly "Uzbekistan was part of the former USSR" is something we'd reasonably expect every general audience outside of the USA to know :)
Acceptable Because it is Defended in a Reasonable Sub-Argument
In Mill's proof of utilitarianism he makes the sub-claim that the general happiness is good to all humans. This is on its face is not a claim that we'd expect a universal audience to accept. However, Mill, knowing what a general audience might not accept, provides a supporting argument working from our particular desire for our own happiness to the more general claim.
Since he supports his sub-claim with a reasonable argument we can now accept it. (And consequentially turn our critical thinking toward the supporting sub-premises.)
When evaluating for premise acceptability, we can do the same with any sub-claim. It it doesn't seem reasonable we can see if it is supported by a sub-argument. If it is, and that sub-argument is reasonable, then we can accept the sub-claim.
Acceptable on the Authoritar of the Arguer or an Expert
We can broadly divide this criteria into two types: uncontroversial claims made by an arguer and claims made by an expert.
In the first class these are claims about relatively uncontroversial things that the arguer might know about. For example, I might say that the University of Houston has a good philosophy graduate program. Because I've been there and you haven't, you have no grounds to doubt my claim and since it isn't particularly contentious, it should be viewed as acceptable.
In the second class we have claims made by experts. This is known as an "appeal to authority". This is when the arguer supports a claim by appealing to the expert knowledge of a person, institution, or source.
A quick note here, the best appeals to authority are appeals to the consensus opinion of a community of experts. Appeal to a single expert doesn't carry much weight, especially in controversial topics. The opinion could easily be an outlier.
Conditions of Unacceptability
Unacceptable because of an Inconsistency
We might label a claim as unacceptable because it is inconsistent with other claims the same arguer has made. For example, in alt-med we often see arguments stating that the flu vaccine shouldn't be used because its efficacy can sometimes be as low as 45%. However, the northern Andean magic rainbow-berry or acupuncture they propose instead has no reported efficacy.
So, if the argument is that we should reject a treatment because of low efficacy, the same should apply to their conclusion.
We also hear that we shouldn't take manufactured (i.e., "unnatural) drugs because big-pharma's just trying to sell you stuff to make money, then in the same breath they will try to sell you the latest all-natural (!) miracle cure...and not for free either!
To be sure, inconsistency doesn't mean the conclusion is false, it only means that the argument for the conclusion is poor and we need to either reject the premise(s) or the conclusion (or both) because both can't be true. Sometimes people can hold the right views (conclusions) for the wrong reasons or as a matter of dumb luck, not because they arrived at them through good argument.
Unacceptable because of Begging the Question
The current use of "begging the question" meaning "raises the question" is something that irks philosophers to no end. The original meaning of the phrase is "circular reasoning." In other words, in your argument, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove.
The classic example comes from an unsophisticated religious argument for the truth of the contents of the Bible. A caricature of the argument goes like this: How do you know what's in the Bible is true? 'Cuz it's the word of God. How do you know it's the word of God? 'Cuz it says so in the Bible.
Notice that for the argument to work you have to assume the very thing the arguer tries to prove: that the contents of the Bible are true.
Unacceptable because of Language Problems
We can call a premise unacceptable if it has one or more of the language problems we encountered on the section on definitions. In other words, if the language of the premise is overly vague or suffers from semantic and/or syntactic ambiguity, we might say it's unacceptable (if context can't reasonably sort it out).
Suppose I claim that "I've never been seriously sick since I started taking Tibetan Booga-Booga Bush capsules. We can't accept this claim because "seriously sick" is too vague. For how long and for what intensity do I have to be sick to be "seriously sick". Do I need to be hospitalized or just miss work? Or maybe just miss my work out. It's not clear from the phrase so we'd say the premise is questionable or unacceptable depending on the severity of the vagueness.
Answers 8B
From Monica Karpecki
c) syntactic ambiguity
Discharge status: Patient was alive, but left the hospital without permission.
d) vagueness + semantic ambiguity "his rapid heart had stopped"
By the time he was admitted, his heart began beating normally, and he was feeling better.
e) vagueness/"something else"
In their will, the patient did not agree to an autopsy upon death.
f) syntactic ambiguity
With the except of a 40 lb weight gain, the patient's medical history has been remarkably insignificant to us during the past three days.
g) semantic ambiguity
The patient left the hospital feeling better and without her original complaints.
h) semantic ambiguity
"grew out"
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Critical Thinking Resources: Blogs, Websites, and Podcasts
Back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was doing my undergrad, there was no such thing as critical thinking course. Critical thinking was something you picked up (or didn't) in a good humanities course. When I got out of undergrad I thought I was pretty clever with my philosophy degree and all but about 7 years later I discovered a new popular movement that was taking critical thinking to a whole. nuva. leval.
Modern skepticism is a relatively new movement that blossomed with the internet. At the heart of modern skepticism is the idea that all claims that are testable should be critically evaluated based on quality of evidence and arguments in their favour. Modern skepticism is not the idea that we can't know anything: Instead it's a philosophy about what are and are not good methods of collecting and evaluating data, and forming and assessing arguments.
Most of my knowledge of critical thinking came from my interest in this movement. One of the best ways to develop your critical thinking is to have it modeled by experts. Here is a list of podcasts, websites and blogs for those of you who are interested in furthering your development in critical thinking beyond the basics. Each resource emphasizes critical thinking a particular area. Maybe start by picking one that's an area of interest for you. One last point is that you should not be turned off by the idea that these resources are about "critical thinking." These resources often present the material in a fun way that's easy to understand. This list is by no means extensive but these are the resources that I've come to rely on.
Podcasts: (on itunes)
Skeptics Guide to the Universe (general science and medicine). This is a good general podcast and is the most popular skeptical podcast. It's informative and entertaining.
Skeptics Guide to the Universe 5x5. This one is a series of 5 minute introductions to topics in modern skepticism and critical thinking.
Skeptoid. Another very popular podcast that is about applying skepticism and critical thinking to urban legends and topics in popular culture. Usually only about 10 min/episode. This is an excellent "gateway drug" for modern skepticism.
Rationally Speaking: Issues in science and popular culture.
Point of Inquiry: Interview podcast with famous scientists and philosophers talking about their recent books. Also talks about the relationship between politics and science.
Reasonable Doubts: Talks about religious claims and current events related to religion.
Quackcast: (a favorite) Winner several years running for best medical podcast. Marc Crislip is a curmudgeon who is a genius and tearing apart bad medical research and claims.
Websites/Blogs:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ Excellent resource for checking up wacky health claims. Vital if you to research in this area.
http://www.quackwatch.com/ Database and articles of medical scams and quackery past, present and ongoing.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ List of tonnes of skeptical blogs on a variety of topics (mostly to do with religion, but not all).
http://www.skeptic.com/ Official webpage for skeptic magazine.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/ Very popular skeptical blog on a variety of topics.
http://www.factcheck.org/ Mostly political. Good for fact-checking (obviously).
http://www.snopes.com/ You probably know this one, but just in case. Good for checking up on internet memes.
http://www.randi.org/site/ The godfather of the modern skeptical movement: debunking pseudo-science and scam artists.
http://www.factcheck.org/ Are politicians telling the truth? (Hint: Not Often!)
Recommended Summer Reading: (The "Bibles" of Modern Skepticism)
Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies – How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer
Modern skepticism is a relatively new movement that blossomed with the internet. At the heart of modern skepticism is the idea that all claims that are testable should be critically evaluated based on quality of evidence and arguments in their favour. Modern skepticism is not the idea that we can't know anything: Instead it's a philosophy about what are and are not good methods of collecting and evaluating data, and forming and assessing arguments.
Most of my knowledge of critical thinking came from my interest in this movement. One of the best ways to develop your critical thinking is to have it modeled by experts. Here is a list of podcasts, websites and blogs for those of you who are interested in furthering your development in critical thinking beyond the basics. Each resource emphasizes critical thinking a particular area. Maybe start by picking one that's an area of interest for you. One last point is that you should not be turned off by the idea that these resources are about "critical thinking." These resources often present the material in a fun way that's easy to understand. This list is by no means extensive but these are the resources that I've come to rely on.
Podcasts: (on itunes)
Skeptics Guide to the Universe (general science and medicine). This is a good general podcast and is the most popular skeptical podcast. It's informative and entertaining.
Skeptics Guide to the Universe 5x5. This one is a series of 5 minute introductions to topics in modern skepticism and critical thinking.
Skeptoid. Another very popular podcast that is about applying skepticism and critical thinking to urban legends and topics in popular culture. Usually only about 10 min/episode. This is an excellent "gateway drug" for modern skepticism.
Rationally Speaking: Issues in science and popular culture.
Point of Inquiry: Interview podcast with famous scientists and philosophers talking about their recent books. Also talks about the relationship between politics and science.
Reasonable Doubts: Talks about religious claims and current events related to religion.
Quackcast: (a favorite) Winner several years running for best medical podcast. Marc Crislip is a curmudgeon who is a genius and tearing apart bad medical research and claims.
Websites/Blogs:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ Excellent resource for checking up wacky health claims. Vital if you to research in this area.
http://www.quackwatch.com/ Database and articles of medical scams and quackery past, present and ongoing.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ List of tonnes of skeptical blogs on a variety of topics (mostly to do with religion, but not all).
http://www.skeptic.com/ Official webpage for skeptic magazine.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/ Very popular skeptical blog on a variety of topics.
http://www.factcheck.org/ Mostly political. Good for fact-checking (obviously).
http://www.snopes.com/ You probably know this one, but just in case. Good for checking up on internet memes.
http://www.randi.org/site/ The godfather of the modern skeptical movement: debunking pseudo-science and scam artists.
http://www.factcheck.org/ Are politicians telling the truth? (Hint: Not Often!)
Recommended Summer Reading: (The "Bibles" of Modern Skepticism)
Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies – How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer
HW 8B
p. 175 EX7B 2 (c)-(g)
Challenge: In grad school, my logic professor challenged us to come up with as many interpretations of this syntactically ambiguous sentence. How many can you come up with?
The clown hit the elephant with a twinkie on its forehead.
Challenge: In grad school, my logic professor challenged us to come up with as many interpretations of this syntactically ambiguous sentence. How many can you come up with?
The clown hit the elephant with a twinkie on its forehead.
Take-Home Midterm Due Mon. Oct 28th
Begin Here:
Listen: I know it's an hour, but it's important. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/someone-elses-money
Excellent even-handed summary of the core issues: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/the-hurdles-to-success-for-the-affordable-care-act/
Resources (For later):
Who pays more, who doesn't (sources from across the political spectrum):
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/17/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-premiums-have-gone-virtually-eve/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/
The ACA and the Effect on Taxes, the Deficit, Employment, and the Budget: http://247wallst.com/healthcare-economy/2013/10/10/the-economic-impact-of-obamacare/
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-281
effect on employment: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096
US Healthcare Costs vs Other Industrialized Nations (With Socialized Healthcare): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf
Part I: Critical Thinking Basics
Choose 2 Arguments from each position and do the following:
Stage 1: (a) (i) Break the argument down into premise-conclusion form (paraphrasing is OK)(ii) identify and include any relevant hidden premises and conclusions; (b) diagram the argument; (c) evaluate and justify your evaluations of (i) premise acceptability, (ii) relevance, (iii) sufficiency, (iv) burden of proof
Stage 2: (a) Is the source of the empirical assertions (data) biased (i.e., affiliated with a partisan political think-tank) or from an impartial source (university study/gov't or UN website)? (b) Is there any slanting by distortion or omission (is there any important information that is being either trivialized or misrepresented)? (c) Are there any red herrings or strawmen? (d) Is there any emotional language/euphemisms?
Part II: Being a Good Philosopher
Part of being a good philosopher is adhering to the principle of charity. The principle of charity is that you should always interpret your opponent's argument in the strongest way possible. By showing that a weak version of the argument fails, you leave the door open for many counter-replies. What you want to do is interpret their position in the strongest way. This way you show that even in its strongest interpretation it fails and that particular line of argument for the conclusion is blocked off.
An even stronger version of the principle of charity is to offer your opponent ways to make their argument stronger. That is, you're going to help your opponent! Lets try this:
Stage 1
(a) Pick one argument from each side that you think is weak (you can use the same arguments you used in Part 1 if you like); (b) break it down into premise-conclusion form and explain why it is weak (i.e., what are the weak inferences and premises); (c) add premises, sub-arguments, and look for data to better support the position.
Part III: Being a Good Skeptic (NOT Contrarian or Conspiracy Theorist!)
Choose 1 argument from each position that makes empirical claims (You may choose them from Part I or Part 2 or use different ones)
Stage 1: Imagine the person who gave you these arguments has a reputation for lying--in fact, they are a pathological lier. In other words, the fact that their conclusion may coincide with your own views is no reason to suppose that their premises true. You don't want to hold an position for the wrong reasons. That would make you no better than the people on the other side of the issue!
Use your fancy computer and the "internet" to fact check every single assertion they make. Don't go to just one site--look at sites that are politically neutral as well as on either side of the issue (I recommend using the links above but you're welcome to find some of your own). This is the only way to get at the truth...and you're on a one-way mission!
Stage 1:
What are their empirical assertions? (facts, statistics, what people value, what is good, predictions about the future, etc...). These will be the contents of their premises.
Stage 2:
After compiling your research, answer the following questions: (a) To what degree are the assertions true? (b) if they aren't completely false, what part is true and what is distorted or omitted? Explain; (c) supposing the assertions are true or partially true, to what degree are they relevant to the conclusion? (d) What other information might be relevant to the conclusion that isn't included or distorted (refer back to (b))?
Part IV: Constructing Your Own Good Arguments
Based on all you have learned from your investigation of other arguments and the background information construct one argument, in premise conclusion form, for each position (i.e., for and against) on the ACA.
For your against position, you must also argue for what you would put in place of the ACA or how you'd modify it. When you construct you own arguments for each position, you are expected to create you own arguments. Also remember, when you come up with your negative argument (vs ACA), in addition to pointing out the problems with the ACA you have to say how your solution addresses those problems and you must also say how your solution will address (i) the large number of people who currently can't afford healthcare, (ii) the people who have pre-existing conditions.
Be prepared to defend both your arguments in class! Hint: Anticipate objections!
Part V: Peer Evaluation
Every student, in a separate private email, must submit an evaluation for each of your group members contribution to the group project.
According to the following criteria rank each group member on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree.
(A) Attends group meetings regularly and arrives on time.
(B) Contributes meaningfully to group discussions.
(C) Completes group assignments on time.
(D) Prepares work in a quality manner.
(E) Demonstrates a cooperative and supportive attitude.
(F) Contributes significantly to the success of the project.
If your peers give you an average evaluation score that is less than 3 received for the assignment, this lower evaluation will be reflected in your individual overall score for the assignment.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE ACA
Listen: I know it's an hour, but it's important. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/392/someone-elses-money
Excellent even-handed summary of the core issues: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/the-hurdles-to-success-for-the-affordable-care-act/
Resources (For later):
Who pays more, who doesn't (sources from across the political spectrum):
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/17/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-premiums-have-gone-virtually-eve/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/
The ACA and the Effect on Taxes, the Deficit, Employment, and the Budget: http://247wallst.com/healthcare-economy/2013/10/10/the-economic-impact-of-obamacare/
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
http://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-281
effect on employment: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096
US Healthcare Costs vs Other Industrialized Nations (With Socialized Healthcare): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf
Part I: Critical Thinking Basics
Choose 2 Arguments from each position and do the following:
Stage 1: (a) (i) Break the argument down into premise-conclusion form (paraphrasing is OK)(ii) identify and include any relevant hidden premises and conclusions; (b) diagram the argument; (c) evaluate and justify your evaluations of (i) premise acceptability, (ii) relevance, (iii) sufficiency, (iv) burden of proof
Stage 2: (a) Is the source of the empirical assertions (data) biased (i.e., affiliated with a partisan political think-tank) or from an impartial source (university study/gov't or UN website)? (b) Is there any slanting by distortion or omission (is there any important information that is being either trivialized or misrepresented)? (c) Are there any red herrings or strawmen? (d) Is there any emotional language/euphemisms?
Part II: Being a Good Philosopher
Part of being a good philosopher is adhering to the principle of charity. The principle of charity is that you should always interpret your opponent's argument in the strongest way possible. By showing that a weak version of the argument fails, you leave the door open for many counter-replies. What you want to do is interpret their position in the strongest way. This way you show that even in its strongest interpretation it fails and that particular line of argument for the conclusion is blocked off.
An even stronger version of the principle of charity is to offer your opponent ways to make their argument stronger. That is, you're going to help your opponent! Lets try this:
Stage 1
(a) Pick one argument from each side that you think is weak (you can use the same arguments you used in Part 1 if you like); (b) break it down into premise-conclusion form and explain why it is weak (i.e., what are the weak inferences and premises); (c) add premises, sub-arguments, and look for data to better support the position.
Part III: Being a Good Skeptic (NOT Contrarian or Conspiracy Theorist!)
Choose 1 argument from each position that makes empirical claims (You may choose them from Part I or Part 2 or use different ones)
Stage 1: Imagine the person who gave you these arguments has a reputation for lying--in fact, they are a pathological lier. In other words, the fact that their conclusion may coincide with your own views is no reason to suppose that their premises true. You don't want to hold an position for the wrong reasons. That would make you no better than the people on the other side of the issue!
Use your fancy computer and the "internet" to fact check every single assertion they make. Don't go to just one site--look at sites that are politically neutral as well as on either side of the issue (I recommend using the links above but you're welcome to find some of your own). This is the only way to get at the truth...and you're on a one-way mission!
Stage 1:
What are their empirical assertions? (facts, statistics, what people value, what is good, predictions about the future, etc...). These will be the contents of their premises.
Stage 2:
After compiling your research, answer the following questions: (a) To what degree are the assertions true? (b) if they aren't completely false, what part is true and what is distorted or omitted? Explain; (c) supposing the assertions are true or partially true, to what degree are they relevant to the conclusion? (d) What other information might be relevant to the conclusion that isn't included or distorted (refer back to (b))?
Part IV: Constructing Your Own Good Arguments
Based on all you have learned from your investigation of other arguments and the background information construct one argument, in premise conclusion form, for each position (i.e., for and against) on the ACA.
For your against position, you must also argue for what you would put in place of the ACA or how you'd modify it. When you construct you own arguments for each position, you are expected to create you own arguments. Also remember, when you come up with your negative argument (vs ACA), in addition to pointing out the problems with the ACA you have to say how your solution addresses those problems and you must also say how your solution will address (i) the large number of people who currently can't afford healthcare, (ii) the people who have pre-existing conditions.
Be prepared to defend both your arguments in class! Hint: Anticipate objections!
Part V: Peer Evaluation
Every student, in a separate private email, must submit an evaluation for each of your group members contribution to the group project.
According to the following criteria rank each group member on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree.
(A) Attends group meetings regularly and arrives on time.
(B) Contributes meaningfully to group discussions.
(C) Completes group assignments on time.
(D) Prepares work in a quality manner.
(E) Demonstrates a cooperative and supportive attitude.
(F) Contributes significantly to the success of the project.
If your peers give you an average evaluation score that is less than 3 received for the assignment, this lower evaluation will be reflected in your individual overall score for the assignment.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE ACA
Pro ACA
Argument 1
No matter which side of the health reform debate you fall on, one thing is certain: premiums have been rising sharply, and hard-working American families are struggling to afford the high costs.
A 2009 Families USA study showed that from 2000-2009 health insurance premiums skyrocketed, while wages have remained at a standstill-causing a strain on family budgets.
Thanks to the economy, those lucky enough to keep their jobs often see their share of health insurance premiums go up, while their salary stays the same. Other workers are required to pay more out of pocket for services each year, while still more lose their coverage entirely. As health care costs continue to rise, more and more workers are priced out of job-based coverage. Currently, many of these workers and their families are forced to face the wild west of the individual insurance market or go without coverage entirely.
Because of health reform, however, Americans are no longer left out in the cold when it comes to purchasing coverage. Those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford the high cost of insurance in the individual market will finally get the relief they've been waiting for. And those who have ever been sick and have seen their premiums unfairly jacked up will now be eligible to receive financial assistance-so no one will be priced out of the system.
Argument 2
It is likely sometime in your life that you, or someone you know, have been denied insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition. According to a report recently released by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services:
"12.6 million non-elderly adults - 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market - were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years."
To make matters worse, even if an individual is able to gain coverage, insurance companies are still able to water down your coverage due to your determined pre-existing condition. For example:
"[S]omeone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease - such as bronchitis or pneumonia - excluded from coverage."
For the millions of Americans who have had to suffer under this discriminatory system, the passage of health reform is a true blessing. Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn down Americans for coverage based on their pre-existing condition, health status, gender or age.
Argument 3
Andrew Ondrejcak, 24, was attempting to live out his dream. He moved from a small town to New York City to start a career in fashion. To make ends-meet, Andrew worked at a local bakery. He could barely afford rent and health insurance was out of the question.
According to Andrew,
"Health insurance wasn't even an option. I was flying through my savings, trying to get a career started. I was doing a lot of assisting [for] designers who were doing great work, but I wasn't making anything. The last thing I'm going to do is spend $300 or whatever on insurance, you know?"
Unfortunately, Andrew became ill. Looking around for a doctor to help him, he found that many would not see him because he didn't have insurance. When he finally found a doctor, he also found that the price was high: A simple doctor' visit would be $200. It was a devastating blow. According to Andrew,
"Basically all the money I'd made that week. I left keeling over in pain but took the bus home because I was so broke.
Andrew's ulcers, which he had problems with a few years back, returned and the pain intensified. The doctor's remedy did not work, and Andrew was rushed to the hospital. So now, he is left with pain, suffering, and debt.
In America, a person who tries to pursue their dream should not be penalized because they get sick. Luckily, for people in Andrew's situation, health reform has eliminated that horrifying scenario from happening to anyone else.
Under health reform, people like Andrew who are dubbed "young invincibles" will now be able to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. This allows for young adults to start careers, move, and take risks without the threat of debt. It is a simple measure, but it will help prevent other kids striking out on their own from going through what Andrew went through.
Argument 4
A common misconception about health insurance is that if you are covered, you don't have to worry about skyrocketing health care costs. We pay insurance companies premiums every month so we won't have to shell out tons of money when we get sick, right? In theory that's true, but in practice it doesn't always work out that way.
According to a report by Families USA, nearly one in four Americans were in families that spent more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care related expenses in 2009. And 18.7 million Americans were in families that spent more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care. For middle-class families struggling to make ends meet, that is a significant chunk of change.
Left unchecked, rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs could leave more Americans in a tight bind-and in some cases could lead to bankruptcy.
Another report by Families USA shows that unaffordable cost-sharing leads people to delay treatment even when they're sick. This means that when they get so sick they must seek out treatment, it's inevitably more expensive.
Thanks to health reform, however, Americans can expect some relief. Thanks to health reform, the amount that anyone will have to pay out of pocket for health expenses each year will be capped -giving Americans peace of mind that they will be covered when they need it most.Additionally, lower- and moderate-income people will receive extra assistance with out-of-pocket costs and will have lower out-of-pocket caps.
Against ACA:
Argument 1:
Health care should not be government run. It is inefficient and just like in most countries will become bankrupt because of the simple fact that not everyone can pay into the system. While some may have to manage without healthcare the most efficient way to provide quality cheap insurance is to have a private healthcare system with multiple company’s that compete for business. This will allow for technological advancements in the medical field as well due to investment opportunity’s that would not be available through a government run system. While there should be government intervention and oversight it should be limited.
Argument 2:
(P1) Many people already have some form of health care program or insurance.
(P2) Many people that are unfortunate enough not to have a health care program of their own are
provided assistance through various programs.
(P3) Penalizing people who do not have health care could make their financial situation worse.
(MC) The purposed reforms to the health care system will help the few, not the many.
Argument 3:
Argument 1
No matter which side of the health reform debate you fall on, one thing is certain: premiums have been rising sharply, and hard-working American families are struggling to afford the high costs.
A 2009 Families USA study showed that from 2000-2009 health insurance premiums skyrocketed, while wages have remained at a standstill-causing a strain on family budgets.
Thanks to the economy, those lucky enough to keep their jobs often see their share of health insurance premiums go up, while their salary stays the same. Other workers are required to pay more out of pocket for services each year, while still more lose their coverage entirely. As health care costs continue to rise, more and more workers are priced out of job-based coverage. Currently, many of these workers and their families are forced to face the wild west of the individual insurance market or go without coverage entirely.
Because of health reform, however, Americans are no longer left out in the cold when it comes to purchasing coverage. Those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford the high cost of insurance in the individual market will finally get the relief they've been waiting for. And those who have ever been sick and have seen their premiums unfairly jacked up will now be eligible to receive financial assistance-so no one will be priced out of the system.
Argument 2
It is likely sometime in your life that you, or someone you know, have been denied insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition. According to a report recently released by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services:
"12.6 million non-elderly adults - 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market - were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years."
To make matters worse, even if an individual is able to gain coverage, insurance companies are still able to water down your coverage due to your determined pre-existing condition. For example:
"[S]omeone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease - such as bronchitis or pneumonia - excluded from coverage."
For the millions of Americans who have had to suffer under this discriminatory system, the passage of health reform is a true blessing. Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn down Americans for coverage based on their pre-existing condition, health status, gender or age.
Argument 3
Andrew Ondrejcak, 24, was attempting to live out his dream. He moved from a small town to New York City to start a career in fashion. To make ends-meet, Andrew worked at a local bakery. He could barely afford rent and health insurance was out of the question.
According to Andrew,
"Health insurance wasn't even an option. I was flying through my savings, trying to get a career started. I was doing a lot of assisting [for] designers who were doing great work, but I wasn't making anything. The last thing I'm going to do is spend $300 or whatever on insurance, you know?"
Unfortunately, Andrew became ill. Looking around for a doctor to help him, he found that many would not see him because he didn't have insurance. When he finally found a doctor, he also found that the price was high: A simple doctor' visit would be $200. It was a devastating blow. According to Andrew,
"Basically all the money I'd made that week. I left keeling over in pain but took the bus home because I was so broke.
Andrew's ulcers, which he had problems with a few years back, returned and the pain intensified. The doctor's remedy did not work, and Andrew was rushed to the hospital. So now, he is left with pain, suffering, and debt.
In America, a person who tries to pursue their dream should not be penalized because they get sick. Luckily, for people in Andrew's situation, health reform has eliminated that horrifying scenario from happening to anyone else.
Under health reform, people like Andrew who are dubbed "young invincibles" will now be able to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. This allows for young adults to start careers, move, and take risks without the threat of debt. It is a simple measure, but it will help prevent other kids striking out on their own from going through what Andrew went through.
Argument 4
A common misconception about health insurance is that if you are covered, you don't have to worry about skyrocketing health care costs. We pay insurance companies premiums every month so we won't have to shell out tons of money when we get sick, right? In theory that's true, but in practice it doesn't always work out that way.
According to a report by Families USA, nearly one in four Americans were in families that spent more than 10 percent of their pre-tax income on health care related expenses in 2009. And 18.7 million Americans were in families that spent more than 25 percent of their pre-tax income on health care. For middle-class families struggling to make ends meet, that is a significant chunk of change.
Left unchecked, rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs could leave more Americans in a tight bind-and in some cases could lead to bankruptcy.
Another report by Families USA shows that unaffordable cost-sharing leads people to delay treatment even when they're sick. This means that when they get so sick they must seek out treatment, it's inevitably more expensive.
Thanks to health reform, however, Americans can expect some relief. Thanks to health reform, the amount that anyone will have to pay out of pocket for health expenses each year will be capped -giving Americans peace of mind that they will be covered when they need it most.Additionally, lower- and moderate-income people will receive extra assistance with out-of-pocket costs and will have lower out-of-pocket caps.
Against ACA:
Argument 1:
Health care should not be government run. It is inefficient and just like in most countries will become bankrupt because of the simple fact that not everyone can pay into the system. While some may have to manage without healthcare the most efficient way to provide quality cheap insurance is to have a private healthcare system with multiple company’s that compete for business. This will allow for technological advancements in the medical field as well due to investment opportunity’s that would not be available through a government run system. While there should be government intervention and oversight it should be limited.
Argument 2:
(P1) Many people already have some form of health care program or insurance.
(P2) Many people that are unfortunate enough not to have a health care program of their own are
provided assistance through various programs.
(P3) Penalizing people who do not have health care could make their financial situation worse.
(MC) The purposed reforms to the health care system will help the few, not the many.
Argument 3:
Who Makes Medical Decisions? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factor. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
Argument 4:
Argument 4:
Medicare and Medicaid is pushing the federal budget to the breaking point. Obamacare makes the problem much worse by adding to the entitlement crisis in the form of a massive Medicaid expansion and a new entitlement subsidy for households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. These two spending entitlement programs will add at least 35 million Americans to the government rolls at an expense of more than $200 billion annually by the end of the decade.
Argument 5:
Argument 5:
People are welcome to argue that Obamacare is a great deal, that it’s worth all that added spending to get extra coverage for tens of millions of Americans. But of course, that’s not how Obamacare was sold. Rather than tell Americans the truth that they’d have to pay more and that the extra price was worth it, candidate Obama promised the ultimate free lunch: we’ll cover 30 million uninsured AND the typical family will see their premiums go down by $2500 (per year!!!!). Every one of these promises/claims/predictions turned out to be totally wrong. We can start having a productive debate when progressives are willing to concede these simple, easily demonstrable empirical claims. And then perhaps we can move on to junking this unworkable law and replacing it with the world-class patient-centered health system Americans deserve.
Monday, October 14, 2013
HW 8A: p. 170 7A #2
p. 179 7A #2
If you are still unsure about hidden premises and conclusions, I suggest doing more exercises from 6C. You can email your answers to me and I'll give you feedback.
If you are still unsure about hidden premises and conclusions, I suggest doing more exercises from 6C. You can email your answers to me and I'll give you feedback.
Definitions: Euphemisms, Emotional Language, Vagueness, Ambiguity, Fallacy of Equivocation
Introduction
Many a philosopher has argued that "happiness" is the or one of the most important elements of human life. Some even go so far as to say that an action is moral to the degree that it brings about happiness. Whether we accept such assertions will have much to do with what is meant by "happiness."
If all that is meant by "happiness" is the momentary good feeling you can get from eating cake or doing crack, then we will probably be less inclined to accept happiness as a measuring stick for morality. If we mean by "happiness" something closer to Aristotle's "eudaimonia" (i.e., human flourishing), then we might be more persuaded to accept the assertion.
So, how does this all fit in with critical thinking? As you may have guessed how terms are used has much to do with whether we find a premise or conclusion acceptable. So, in this next segment we are going to look at how to evaluate the way in which a term is being used and how that evaluation fits with how much we accept a premise.
Interpretation 1: Context
By now, you should be alert to the role of context in interpretation. Regarding a word's definition context can impact our interpretation in several ways.
The first is time. A word's meanings change over time. For example, if we are reading an 19th Century book and a character describes all the guests as being "very gay," it probably doesn't mean the same thing it would mean today. It does not make sense to impose our current meanings of words that had different meanings in the past. We must be sensitive to temporal context.
The next is audience. For example, "theory" means something very different in daily conversation than what it means in a scientific context. The colloquial meaning is something closer to "hypothesis," while the scientific meaning is an account of nature that has been verified and supported through (often) multiple lines of independent evidence, and from which we can make accurate predictions. So, I should interpret "theory" differently depending on the context identifiable through the audience for which the argument is written.
Euphemisms and Emotional Language
A euphemism is the substitution of an offensive or disturbing word with a more polite or socially/politically acceptable word. We might say of a child that he has behavioural challenges instead of telling his parents that their kid is a little sh*t. The 80s marked the beginning of what some people thought was politically correct overkill. People would joke that now we have to call anyone who is short, "vertically challenged."
Yesterday, I took my dogs to the vet and "had their anal glands expelled." This sounds much nicer than what actually occurred. Long story short, people use euphemisms to express ideas in less jarring and/or offensive ways.
Like most things, there are legitimate and illegitimate uses of euphemisms In a legitimate use, the primary idea contained in the word remains intact. In an illegitimate use, important content is obscured. Consider the US military's term "collateral damage" to indicate accidental killing of innocent civilians. The important content of what actually occurred is lost/obscured by the sanitized term.
An example from the corporate world might be "downsizing." It sounds pretty harmless but when we look at the essential features of downsizing (many people losing their jobs) we can reasonably claim that the term is misleading.
The most fertile ground for illegitimate euphemisms is in politics. As one of my political science professors once said, if a country has "People's Republic of..." or "Democratic Republic of ...", you can pretty much guarantee that they are anything but what their titles profess.
Determining whether a euphemism is legitimate or illegitimate will not always be obvious, but with a little critical thinking you should be able to identify instances.
Emotional language uses words that are intentionally chosen to evoke or present an emotional bias. Taking their cue from Nazi propaganda, politicians often use emotional language. For example we commonly hear phrases like "militant homosexual agenda" (but I thought gays weren't allowed in the military until recently...); "bleeding-heart liberal"; "religious fanatics"; "hysterical" or "bigoted" opponents, etc...
In the context of critical thinking, the use of emotional language should be a red flag. Essentially, anyone who uses strong emotional language is assuming that their position is right and accurate. But as we know by know, there is a tremendous difference between assuming something to be true and arguing for its truth. If something is so obviously true, then we would reasonably suppose there's an argument for it too!
Let's take the example "militant homosexual agenda." Both "militant" and "agenda" are emotionally evocative. But we need to ask: if they're so militant, then surely there must be evidence to support this assertion...and we should demand it before accepting the assertion.
"Agenda" also has a negative connotation. Does every group who wants equal right have an "agenda"? It really depends on what side of the political spectrum you sit on. "Bleeding-heart liberals" will argue that the NRA has an "agenda" too. Instead, we should ask for clarification on what is meant by "agenda" before we evaluate whether it's desirable or not.
Another of my favorite emotional words is "activist judge." This is another one where it really depends on what side of the political aisle you're sitting on. If a judge interprets the law in a way that rules against your "team," then they're activists.
Euphemisms, Emotional Language, and Argument Construction
Returning back to our theme of being good critical thinkers, we can also take this information into account when we construct our own arguments. That is, if we think that something is obviously good or bad or true, then we should provide an argument for it, rather than use euphemisms and emotional language. A good argument gets the point across without relying on either of these.
Vagueness and Ambiguity
Vagueness
When a definition is vague it has no specific meaning for the intended audience. Here are a few examples of vague definitions from the goldmine of pseudo-wisdom that is Depak Chopra:
Happiness is a continuation of happenings which are not resisted.
To think is to practice brain chemistry.
A person is a pattern of behavior, of a larger awareness.
Many a philosopher has argued that "happiness" is the or one of the most important elements of human life. Some even go so far as to say that an action is moral to the degree that it brings about happiness. Whether we accept such assertions will have much to do with what is meant by "happiness."
If all that is meant by "happiness" is the momentary good feeling you can get from eating cake or doing crack, then we will probably be less inclined to accept happiness as a measuring stick for morality. If we mean by "happiness" something closer to Aristotle's "eudaimonia" (i.e., human flourishing), then we might be more persuaded to accept the assertion.
So, how does this all fit in with critical thinking? As you may have guessed how terms are used has much to do with whether we find a premise or conclusion acceptable. So, in this next segment we are going to look at how to evaluate the way in which a term is being used and how that evaluation fits with how much we accept a premise.
Interpretation 1: Context
By now, you should be alert to the role of context in interpretation. Regarding a word's definition context can impact our interpretation in several ways.
The first is time. A word's meanings change over time. For example, if we are reading an 19th Century book and a character describes all the guests as being "very gay," it probably doesn't mean the same thing it would mean today. It does not make sense to impose our current meanings of words that had different meanings in the past. We must be sensitive to temporal context.
The next is audience. For example, "theory" means something very different in daily conversation than what it means in a scientific context. The colloquial meaning is something closer to "hypothesis," while the scientific meaning is an account of nature that has been verified and supported through (often) multiple lines of independent evidence, and from which we can make accurate predictions. So, I should interpret "theory" differently depending on the context identifiable through the audience for which the argument is written.
Euphemisms and Emotional Language
A euphemism is the substitution of an offensive or disturbing word with a more polite or socially/politically acceptable word. We might say of a child that he has behavioural challenges instead of telling his parents that their kid is a little sh*t. The 80s marked the beginning of what some people thought was politically correct overkill. People would joke that now we have to call anyone who is short, "vertically challenged."
Yesterday, I took my dogs to the vet and "had their anal glands expelled." This sounds much nicer than what actually occurred. Long story short, people use euphemisms to express ideas in less jarring and/or offensive ways.
Like most things, there are legitimate and illegitimate uses of euphemisms In a legitimate use, the primary idea contained in the word remains intact. In an illegitimate use, important content is obscured. Consider the US military's term "collateral damage" to indicate accidental killing of innocent civilians. The important content of what actually occurred is lost/obscured by the sanitized term.
An example from the corporate world might be "downsizing." It sounds pretty harmless but when we look at the essential features of downsizing (many people losing their jobs) we can reasonably claim that the term is misleading.
The most fertile ground for illegitimate euphemisms is in politics. As one of my political science professors once said, if a country has "People's Republic of..." or "Democratic Republic of ...", you can pretty much guarantee that they are anything but what their titles profess.
Determining whether a euphemism is legitimate or illegitimate will not always be obvious, but with a little critical thinking you should be able to identify instances.
Emotional language uses words that are intentionally chosen to evoke or present an emotional bias. Taking their cue from Nazi propaganda, politicians often use emotional language. For example we commonly hear phrases like "militant homosexual agenda" (but I thought gays weren't allowed in the military until recently...); "bleeding-heart liberal"; "religious fanatics"; "hysterical" or "bigoted" opponents, etc...
In the context of critical thinking, the use of emotional language should be a red flag. Essentially, anyone who uses strong emotional language is assuming that their position is right and accurate. But as we know by know, there is a tremendous difference between assuming something to be true and arguing for its truth. If something is so obviously true, then we would reasonably suppose there's an argument for it too!
Let's take the example "militant homosexual agenda." Both "militant" and "agenda" are emotionally evocative. But we need to ask: if they're so militant, then surely there must be evidence to support this assertion...and we should demand it before accepting the assertion.
"Agenda" also has a negative connotation. Does every group who wants equal right have an "agenda"? It really depends on what side of the political spectrum you sit on. "Bleeding-heart liberals" will argue that the NRA has an "agenda" too. Instead, we should ask for clarification on what is meant by "agenda" before we evaluate whether it's desirable or not.
Another of my favorite emotional words is "activist judge." This is another one where it really depends on what side of the political aisle you're sitting on. If a judge interprets the law in a way that rules against your "team," then they're activists.
Euphemisms, Emotional Language, and Argument Construction
Returning back to our theme of being good critical thinkers, we can also take this information into account when we construct our own arguments. That is, if we think that something is obviously good or bad or true, then we should provide an argument for it, rather than use euphemisms and emotional language. A good argument gets the point across without relying on either of these.
Vagueness and Ambiguity
Vagueness
When a definition is vague it has no specific meaning for the intended audience. Here are a few examples of vague definitions from the goldmine of pseudo-wisdom that is Depak Chopra:
Happiness is a continuation of happenings which are not resisted.
To think is to practice brain chemistry.
A person is a pattern of behavior, of a larger awareness.
Notice that none of these definitions give us any clarity as to what the defined term actually means. If you were an outer-space alien and asked for a definition of "happiness", "thinking", and a "person", your knowledge would not in anyway be improved over your current position of ignorance.
Vagueness can apply to both individual words like "happenings" as well as to entire phrases, e.g., "a larger awareness." It should be noted that Depak isn't the only entity that employes vagueness as a means to appear to say something meaningful.
This is also a favourite technique of advertisers. How many times do we hear "new and improved!" with no description of what is new and improved? Or that something "'boosts' your immune system"?
Ambiguity
Terms are ambiguous when they have more than one plausible interpretation. ("Ambi" means "two"). Ambiguity comes in two flavours: syntactic and semantic. Semantic ambiguity is when a word can have two possible meanings. For example, suppose a store has a sign that says "Watch repairs here." We could interpret this as "this is a venue in which we can view someone doing repairs" or "timepieces are repaired here." Generally context sorts outs semantic ambiguity (but not always).
Syntactic ambiguity is when the sentence structure offers more than one plausible meaning. For example: I tackled the thief with my pyjamas on. We could interpret this as meaning the thief was wearing my pyjamas or that I was wearing pyjamas when I tackled the thief. Again, context can usually help us sort this out, but not always.
Fallacy of Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation is when a key term in the argument isn't used with a consistent meaning through out the premises and conclusion. In other words, a term might be used differently between premises or between the premises and the conclusion.
Example: Scientists say that energy can neither be created or destroyed, therefore it's impossible for there to be an energy crisis.
In the premise "energy" is being used in the general scientific sense which refers to a closed system (i.e., the universe). In the conclusion, "energy" is used in the natural resources sense (i.e., oil and coal). Also, the earth isn't a closed system, but an open one. Because the meaning of the term "energy" isn't held constant from premise to conclusion, this is an example of the fallacy of equivocation.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Speech Acts, Hidden Conclusions, and HIdden Premises
Introduction
Here comes the tricky part. Who needs the Quickie-Mart? Often identifying hidden premises and conclusions can require a little more cognitive effort than we have so far had to use in identifying explicit premises and conclusions. Before we look at some helpful interpretivedances tools to pick them out, lets quickly review what implied premises and conclusions are.
An implied premise is an unstated reason or claim that supports and is generally required to support the main claim of the argument (i.e., the conclusion). For example consider the following simple argument: We should ban GMO crops because they aren't natural. The stated premise is "GMO crops aren't natural" and the stated conclusion is "therefore we should ban GMO crops." But notice that there is an unstated general premise lurking in the dark that supports the stated premise. It is, "we should reject foods that aren't found in nature." If we decomposed the argument it'd look like this:
Key:
HP1 We should reject foods that aren't found in nature.
P2 GMO crops aren't natural.
MC Therefore, we should ban GMO crops.
HP1 means "hidden premise"
The Vong diagram would look like this:
HP1 + P1-->MC (I.e., linked premises)
As you may have guessed by now, a hidden/implied conclusion is a conclusion that is not explicitly stated but supported by the premises. Hidden or implied conclusions are almost always (but not exclusively) contained in advertising or editorial cartoons.
Lets look at an example:
Your chances at winning the lottery are slim to none. And slim just left town.
The implied conclusion is that you have (virtually) no chance of winning the lottery.
P1 Your chances at winning the lottery are slim to none.
P2 And slim just left town.
HMC Therefore, you have virtually no chance of winning the lottery.
Vong Diagram
P1+P2-->MC ("+" means linked premises)
General Heuristics: Principles of Communication
For most of you, picking out the hidden premises and conclusions in these examples probably wasn't too difficult. Of course, in real life (and on exams) things usually aren't so easy. What we need are some heuristics to help increase our odds of identifying the unstated parts of arguments. So, lets take a step back and to get a big picture view of what's happening. It will help us devise strategies.
Before moving on, I should quickly note that these principles of communication apply not only to written and spoken arguments. They apply to any type of communication, whether it be a facial expression, movie, piece of art, cartoon, advertisement, hand gesture, etc... If you want to impress you friends, these types of communication are called speech acts.
Given that speech acts are any act or medium that conveys information, we are going to creatively name the three principles of interpretation "principles of communication."
Principle I: Intelligibility
This one's pretty simple. You should assume that a speech act is intelligible. This means that we should assume that it is an attempt to convey something meaningful. It is not just random noise (despite our opinion of the view being expressed).
Principle II: Context
This principle tells us to interpret a speech act relative to its context. For example, is it in response to an opposing speech act? What is the social or political context? Suppose you're walking to class and a young woman offers you a red bull and tells you that it will give you wings. Should we interpret the speech act as the woman's earnest desire for you to have wings or is this an argument for you to buy the product? (Hint: It's not the first choice).
If we examine the context of the speech act, it should be fairly obvious that we should interpret it as an argument. There may be one or more possible contexts within which to frame a speech act: to choose, refer back to principle I: which context makes the speech act more inteligible?
Principle III: Components
So far we've established that a speech act is intelligible and we've interpreted it in a way that fits the context in which we find it. Now, we're going to get a bit more fine grained at look at its components and their relationship to each other. Recall that a speech act can be composed of images, words, gestures, and even interpretive dance (my favorite!). Lets look at an example using images and words:
Applying principle 1 we assume that there is some sort of intelligible message being conveyed. Applying principle II, from the context (someone's facebook page) we might reasonable assume this is an argument for being more cautious about what we consume. Finally, applying principle III we look at the components. There are the words "rethink your drink" and images of sugar and popular drinks. Putting these components together we can formulate the elements of the intended argument: Lots of sugar is bad for you (premise). These drinks have a lot of sugar (premise). Therefore, we should be more careful about what we consume (and how much).
Even though the above image doesn't contain an explicit argument, if we apply the 3 principles of communication we can pick one out and identify the premises and conclusion.
Identifying Hidden Conclusions
Hidden conclusions are most commonly found in short passages or in image-based speech acts (magazine ads, billboards, political cartoons, etc...). OK, now that we know where to find them, how do we identify hidden conclusions? Ask yourself, (a) do the remarks or images imply some sort of point of view? (look at context) In other words, does the information provided propose a conclusion that is unstated? (b) what is this speech act trying to convince me of? (what's it trying to get me to believe, do, endorse?) If it's not trying to convince you of anything, chances are it isn't an argument, but if it is trying to persuade you of something, then it's an argument and you can be darn sure there's a conclusion!
Lets look at an example:
Here we have a speech act that, assuming principle I, is an inteligible message. Applying, principle II we might interpret it as an argument (because it's making a controversial assertion). And applying principle III we can identify elements: The image is of a healthy looking community being "eaten away." It's a metaphor for cancer. Given the context and the words we can interpret the premises and conclusion: Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer (stated premise). Cancer is bad (hidden premise). Capitalism has the same ideology--growth for the sake of growth (hidden premise implied by the picture). Therefore, capitalism is bad (hidden conclusion).
Identifying Hidden Premises
How do we identify hidden premises? One mechanical way to do it is to write down the explicit premises and conclusion and see if the argument is intelligible. That is, can we reasonably infer the conclusion from the premises? If not, then there are hidden premises. In other words, there are unstated reasons or claims that the argument depends on. As a charitable person (and good critical thinker) it's up to you to fill in the blanks.
For example, in the previous image if we hadn't filled in the unstated premises, the conclusion wouldn't make sense. It only makes sense if we include (the obvious) hidden premise that cancer is bad. This may be trivial in this particular argument, but hidden premises are sometimes very important and underpin the strength of the entire argument. This relates to a second point about hidden premises.
Frequently, when we evaluate an argument, it is the hidden premises that are good fodder for criticizing the argument. Consider the "anti GMO" argument I gave in the beginning. The hidden premise is that "non-natural food is bad." The argument depends on this being true. If we can find counter-examples then the argument is in trouble. The argument is also in trouble if there is little or no evidence to support the hidden premise.
Caveat: As we've discussed earlier every argument makes many assumptions. You simply cannot possibly state everything you are assuming. What are stated and what are unstated assumptions will depend in large part on what is considered reasonable by the specific audience to which the argument is targeted (and hopefully for a general audience).
Why does this matter? Because you should be judicious in identifying hidden premises. Instead of willy-nilly identifying what are painfully obvious things that are assumed by the arguer, you should expend your effort picking out the hidden premises that are required in order to infer the conclusion from the stated premise. In other words, it doesn't do you much good to identify and criticize trial unstated premises (ah ha! the arguer assumes that people don't like getting punched in the face!).
Here comes the tricky part. Who needs the Quickie-Mart? Often identifying hidden premises and conclusions can require a little more cognitive effort than we have so far had to use in identifying explicit premises and conclusions. Before we look at some helpful interpretive
An implied premise is an unstated reason or claim that supports and is generally required to support the main claim of the argument (i.e., the conclusion). For example consider the following simple argument: We should ban GMO crops because they aren't natural. The stated premise is "GMO crops aren't natural" and the stated conclusion is "therefore we should ban GMO crops." But notice that there is an unstated general premise lurking in the dark that supports the stated premise. It is, "we should reject foods that aren't found in nature." If we decomposed the argument it'd look like this:
Key:
HP1 We should reject foods that aren't found in nature.
P2 GMO crops aren't natural.
MC Therefore, we should ban GMO crops.
HP1 means "hidden premise"
The Vong diagram would look like this:
HP1 + P1-->MC (I.e., linked premises)
As you may have guessed by now, a hidden/implied conclusion is a conclusion that is not explicitly stated but supported by the premises. Hidden or implied conclusions are almost always (but not exclusively) contained in advertising or editorial cartoons.
Lets look at an example:
Your chances at winning the lottery are slim to none. And slim just left town.
The implied conclusion is that you have (virtually) no chance of winning the lottery.
P1 Your chances at winning the lottery are slim to none.
P2 And slim just left town.
HMC Therefore, you have virtually no chance of winning the lottery.
Vong Diagram
P1+P2-->MC ("+" means linked premises)
General Heuristics: Principles of Communication
For most of you, picking out the hidden premises and conclusions in these examples probably wasn't too difficult. Of course, in real life (and on exams) things usually aren't so easy. What we need are some heuristics to help increase our odds of identifying the unstated parts of arguments. So, lets take a step back and to get a big picture view of what's happening. It will help us devise strategies.
Before moving on, I should quickly note that these principles of communication apply not only to written and spoken arguments. They apply to any type of communication, whether it be a facial expression, movie, piece of art, cartoon, advertisement, hand gesture, etc... If you want to impress you friends, these types of communication are called speech acts.
Given that speech acts are any act or medium that conveys information, we are going to creatively name the three principles of interpretation "principles of communication."
Principle I: Intelligibility
This one's pretty simple. You should assume that a speech act is intelligible. This means that we should assume that it is an attempt to convey something meaningful. It is not just random noise (despite our opinion of the view being expressed).
Principle II: Context
This principle tells us to interpret a speech act relative to its context. For example, is it in response to an opposing speech act? What is the social or political context? Suppose you're walking to class and a young woman offers you a red bull and tells you that it will give you wings. Should we interpret the speech act as the woman's earnest desire for you to have wings or is this an argument for you to buy the product? (Hint: It's not the first choice).
If we examine the context of the speech act, it should be fairly obvious that we should interpret it as an argument. There may be one or more possible contexts within which to frame a speech act: to choose, refer back to principle I: which context makes the speech act more inteligible?
Principle III: Components
So far we've established that a speech act is intelligible and we've interpreted it in a way that fits the context in which we find it. Now, we're going to get a bit more fine grained at look at its components and their relationship to each other. Recall that a speech act can be composed of images, words, gestures, and even interpretive dance (my favorite!). Lets look at an example using images and words:
Applying principle 1 we assume that there is some sort of intelligible message being conveyed. Applying principle II, from the context (someone's facebook page) we might reasonable assume this is an argument for being more cautious about what we consume. Finally, applying principle III we look at the components. There are the words "rethink your drink" and images of sugar and popular drinks. Putting these components together we can formulate the elements of the intended argument: Lots of sugar is bad for you (premise). These drinks have a lot of sugar (premise). Therefore, we should be more careful about what we consume (and how much).
Even though the above image doesn't contain an explicit argument, if we apply the 3 principles of communication we can pick one out and identify the premises and conclusion.
Identifying Hidden Conclusions
Hidden conclusions are most commonly found in short passages or in image-based speech acts (magazine ads, billboards, political cartoons, etc...). OK, now that we know where to find them, how do we identify hidden conclusions? Ask yourself, (a) do the remarks or images imply some sort of point of view? (look at context) In other words, does the information provided propose a conclusion that is unstated? (b) what is this speech act trying to convince me of? (what's it trying to get me to believe, do, endorse?) If it's not trying to convince you of anything, chances are it isn't an argument, but if it is trying to persuade you of something, then it's an argument and you can be darn sure there's a conclusion!
Lets look at an example:
Here we have a speech act that, assuming principle I, is an inteligible message. Applying, principle II we might interpret it as an argument (because it's making a controversial assertion). And applying principle III we can identify elements: The image is of a healthy looking community being "eaten away." It's a metaphor for cancer. Given the context and the words we can interpret the premises and conclusion: Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer (stated premise). Cancer is bad (hidden premise). Capitalism has the same ideology--growth for the sake of growth (hidden premise implied by the picture). Therefore, capitalism is bad (hidden conclusion).
Identifying Hidden Premises
How do we identify hidden premises? One mechanical way to do it is to write down the explicit premises and conclusion and see if the argument is intelligible. That is, can we reasonably infer the conclusion from the premises? If not, then there are hidden premises. In other words, there are unstated reasons or claims that the argument depends on. As a charitable person (and good critical thinker) it's up to you to fill in the blanks.
For example, in the previous image if we hadn't filled in the unstated premises, the conclusion wouldn't make sense. It only makes sense if we include (the obvious) hidden premise that cancer is bad. This may be trivial in this particular argument, but hidden premises are sometimes very important and underpin the strength of the entire argument. This relates to a second point about hidden premises.
Frequently, when we evaluate an argument, it is the hidden premises that are good fodder for criticizing the argument. Consider the "anti GMO" argument I gave in the beginning. The hidden premise is that "non-natural food is bad." The argument depends on this being true. If we can find counter-examples then the argument is in trouble. The argument is also in trouble if there is little or no evidence to support the hidden premise.
Caveat: As we've discussed earlier every argument makes many assumptions. You simply cannot possibly state everything you are assuming. What are stated and what are unstated assumptions will depend in large part on what is considered reasonable by the specific audience to which the argument is targeted (and hopefully for a general audience).
Why does this matter? Because you should be judicious in identifying hidden premises. Instead of willy-nilly identifying what are painfully obvious things that are assumed by the arguer, you should expend your effort picking out the hidden premises that are required in order to infer the conclusion from the stated premise. In other words, it doesn't do you much good to identify and criticize trial unstated premises (ah ha! the arguer assumes that people don't like getting punched in the face!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)