Lecture 2B: Critical Thinking Manifesto, Bias, Detecting Illegitimate Biases, Legitimate and Illegitimate Arguments from Authority

Homework
1. What happened to Sidgwick and Ami's insights?
2. Discuss Moral Foundations results:  Expectations vs Actual.

Ami's Critical Thinking Manifesto
1. Thou shall ignore the conclusions of arguments and instead focus on evaluating the quality of support for a conclusion: thou shall align one's position with the strongest evidence and arguments.
2. Thou shall employ the principle of charity.  Thou shalt not commit the strawman fallacy.
3. Thou shalt not commit the fallacy of confirming instances; Thou shall evaluate the entire data set.
4. Thou shalt not concern one's self with absolute values (numerical, probabilistic, or moral); instead thou shall always concern one's self with relative values. This is particularly important when assessing risk.
5. Thou shalt not use anecdotes as evidence unless one's conclusion is that one is a poor reasoner.

Relative Risk: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm
Risk vs hazard based policy: https://risk-monger.com/2016/05/04/risk-based-or-hazard-based-regulation/
"Stickiness" of false beliefs and effect of biases: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right

Introduction Biases Activity. Google and Cancer Causes/Cures.

Bias, Illegitimate Bias, Vested Interests, and Conflicts of Interest
A.  Definitions
Bias:  An inclination or prejudice for or against. (Examples of bias in social media)
Illegitimate Bias: A bias that interferes with one's judgment or reasoning.
Illegitimate Bias Vs. Legitimate Bias:
Vested Interest:  When the arguer stands to gain in some important way if their conclusion is true.  I.e., there is a personal benefit to the arguer if their position turns out to be true or is believed to be true.
Conflict of Interest:  Vested interest on steroids.   "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favours for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable." (Wikipedia)

B.  Examples
Climate Denial Arguments from Vested Interests
Wakefield
Kids for Cash
Oil and Gas Policy and Political Contributions
Oil and Gas and Politicians
Alcohol Industry and Marijuana Legislation
Immigration Law and Private Prison Industry

C.  Example of HW:  Conflicts of Interest in Politics?  Say it ain't so!
Oil and Gas
http://votesmart.org/

Arguments from Authority:  Legitimate and Illegitimate

Examples:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
1.  Illegitimate Arguments from Authority

2.  Degrees of Legitimate Arguments from Authority

   a.  Individual vs. Individual

   b.  Individual vs. Consensus

   c.  Galileo/Einstein Argument

3.  Problems Part 1

   a.  Analogy to the overconfidence bias.   

   b.  Social Cognition and Evaluation of Experts and Scientific Consensus

Not all policy disputes turn on issues amenable to scientific investigation, of course, so no one 

would or should expect that what scientists have to say will resolve every conflict. But when empirical 

assessments of risk and risk abatement are exactly what members of the public are fighting about, why is the prevailing opinion of scientists—on questions only they are equipped to answer—so infrequently 

treated as decisive? 

   c.  Effect of Political Bias on Perception of Scientific Authority

4.  Solutions: 

   a.  The secret philosophy professors don't want you to know:  The Ol' Switcheroo
   b.  A priori agreement.
5. Articles:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/harry-collins-inquiring-minds-science-studies-saves-scientific-expertise
Periodic table of Expertise
Problems with Online Pay-to-Publish Journals


Homework:
1.  Go to http://influenceexplorer.com/ and pick an industry.
2.  Summarize which party is getting most of the money and by about how much.
3.  Pick one or two of the top recipients then put their name in the search field of http://votesmart.org/. "Voting Record" should come up in the search results.
4.  Look to see how they voted on legislation that involves the industry/interest group from which they received their funding.
5.  Write a brief paragraph on your own thoughts on the relationship between money and democracy. How well are the general public's interests represented by elected officials?   Propose 1 or two reforms and provide an argument for how your reforms might address particular problems with the existing system.
6. The Revolving Door and Financial Regulation

Lesson 2B: Biases, Vested Interest, Conflicts of Interest

Introduction
The previous chapter on arguments focused on how differences in systems of beliefs can give rise to arguments. People with disparate systems of beliefs hold differing values and beliefs, which in turn influence what they consider to be basic assumptions (to be used in an argument as premises).  Reasoning from these different sets of basic assumptions often yields conflicting conclusions about what is the ethically and politically 'right' thing to do (generally and specifically).  

It should also be mentioned that sometimes the difference isn't so much that the values are different in an absolute sense, but that they are held to different degrees.  For example, much research in social psychology has shown that conservatives favour attributing moral status and providing resources to "in group" members, while liberals often concern themselves more with "out groups" (than do conservatives).   This is not to say conservatives don't care about "out groups" or that liberals don't care about "in groups,"; instead, it is a matter of relative value.

For more information on the psychological differences between conservatives, liberals, and libertarians check out this great website: http://www.moralfoundations.org/index.php?t=home

So, why does this all matter to us as critical thinkers?  There are a host of reasons, but here are two important ones:  The first is that understanding the role of systems of belief in an argument can help make us aware of biases in the premises (both in our opponent's argument and in our own).  The second is that understanding an opponent's bias can give us hints as to how we might sway the opponent to our own point of view.

Mommy?  What's a Bias?
A bias is an "inclination or prejudice for or against" some fact or point of view.  In arguments, what this means is that we are prone to giving undue favour or neglect to some fact or point of view.  Everybody does this (except me, of course); it's part of being a human being.  As philosopher Richard Feynman says, "the first principle [of critical thinking] is you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest to fool"!

There is a wealth of evidence in the psychological "litra-cha" demonstrating that we begin with our position first then collect or reject evidence and reasons to support that pre-existing position.  Our pre-existing position is usually grounded in emotion/preferences rather that "Reason."  

The more emotional our investment in an issue, the greater the likelihood that some kind of bias has crept into our supporting arguments--in attributing either undue strength to a supporting assertion or in overlooking or dismissing  contrary reasons or evidence.  To quote another philosopher, David Hume, "reason is slave to the passions."

Biases:  Too Illegit to Quit?
We've established people (except me) have biases.  Now what?  Do we automatically rejet everybody's arguments 'cuz they're biased?  Nope.

We can make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate biases.  The distinction will depend mostly on how opposing reasons, evidence, and arguments are portrayed, and if there are any intentional important omissions.  As you might have guessed an illegitimate bias is one in which the arguer poorly or dishonestly represents the aforementioned elements, or if the bias leads to weak logical connections between premises and the conclusion.  Any website or blog with a strong political bias in either direction will usually provide excellent samples of arguments with illegitimate biases.

A legitimate bias is simply favoring a point of view but not in a way such that the opposing position is misrepresented. It allows an impartial observer to fairly evaluate the proposed point of view.  For example, I think everyone should be allowed to own an assault riffle-bow that fires swords for self-defense.   That's my point of view.

My argument is that they are not prohibited by the Constitution, therefore, they should be legal.  

My opponents reply that the 2nd Amendment isn't about arms for personal self-defense but for a well-regulated militia that should be controlled by the Gov't.  They'd also might also argue that just because a small group of people a few hundred years ago voted on something, doesn't mean that we need to accept it now.  Societies and circumstances change, and the best laws reflect that.  

Notice that even though I'm biased toward people owning assault rifle-bows that fire swords, I don't distort the opposing arguments.

Vested Interests
A vested interest is when an arguer (or someone paying the arguer) stands to benefit from their point of view being accepted.  When vested interests are involved there's a very high likelihood of illegitimate bias.

For example, when certain industries spend millions of dollars to pay lobbyists and "donate" to politicians, we can be fairly certain that their arguments for special treatment or exemption contain illegitimate biases.

Not all vested interests need be financial.  One might be motivated by the desire for power, fame, revenge, attention, sex, etc.. or to get out of trouble/prove one's innocence.

We should be cautious of dismissing arguments out of hand just because the arguer has a vested interest in the outcome.  That they have a vested interest tells us nothing about the argument's validity which should be evaluated independently   When there is a vested interest, it simply means we should be extra cautious about illegitimate biases (and omissions).  It doesn't automatically follow that their argument is invalid. 

Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest is a vested interest on steroids; i.e., when vested interests are extreme.  In such cases there is usually an ethical issue involved too, and in professional settings, conflicts of interest have to be disclosed.

For example, in medical research if a university study of a drug is funded by the company that produces the drug, this is a conflict of interests for the researchers for obvious reasons.  It must be disclosed at the beginning of any research that is produced.  This is actually quite a big problem in medial research because drug studies that are funded by the drug producer sytematically have higher positive results than if the same drug is studied by a neutral party.  For more info check out the link:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/09/23/can-the-source-of-funding-for-medical-research-affect-the-results/

But bias in medicine (and elsewhere) isn't only on the "proponent's" side.  Often people who oppose something for ideological reasons are just as guilty of bias.  

An important recent example of a conflict of interest in medicine that wasn't disclosed was Andrew Wakefield's anti-vaccine research article in the Lancet.  What he did not disclose in his research was that he had been paid several millions of dollars to do research on vaccines by a company that was developing an alternative to the conventional vaccine.    

There was a clear conflict of interest because he stood to gain so much if his research showed that conventional vaccines are unsafe and that the company that had funded the research was developing an alternative.

In the end, his results were never replicated, his methods shown to be unethical, his data drawn from a statistically insignificant sample size (12 children), and the article was subsequently retracted by the publisher.  However,  because of the fear that came about because of his "research," there was and continues to be tremendous damage to public health.
http://debunking-andrew-wakefield.tumblr.com/

Summary:  
We all have biases.  What matters is the degree to which they distort the presentation of evidence and reasons in arguments both for and against the arguers position.  Biases are illegitimate when they cause distortion such that arguments cannot be fairly evaluated.  

For some excellent examples of how biases affect how we interpret the world, this is a beautiful article.

Lesson 2A.3 Audiences

Review
Hey guys, in the last section we looked at systems of belief from the point of view of the arguer.  Doing so helps us to become better critical thinkers in two important ways: 

(a)  it helps us to identify what might be hidden assumptions in the argument that we might (i) attack or (ii) (if we agree with the position) try to strengthen.  

(b) When we turn a critical eye on our own beliefs and values, understanding systems of belief allows us to identify premises or beliefs that might not be accepted at face value by our opponent(s).  If we can identify these elements, we can anticipate where our opponent will attack our argument and launch a pre-emptive defensive strike by strengthening those premises/assumptions.

One final review note is to recall the elements that influence our system of belief (often unbeknownst to us). They include things like: race, sex, nationality, culture, language, family, economic class, social class, religion/non-religion, peer group, career, education, and whether you like cilantro or not. 

Systems of Belief and the Audience
Obviously facts about the person making the argument are important (especially when it's me!) but as critical thinkers and arguers it's also good to consider the system of belief of the audience to whom the argument is addressed.  

There are two general ways to "chop up" the concept of 'audience': (a) according to clusters of values and (b) according to anticipated receptivity to our argument.

When we consider an audience as a group that shares common beliefs and values we call this a specific audience.  Some examples would be Catholics, faculty, Democrats, hockey fans, the NRA, the ACLU, Hispanics, tourists, people that live in Summerlin, philosophers, and so on.  There are often specific audiences within larger specific audiences.  For example, Republicans are a sub-group of American, and 'Ron-Paul Republican' is a sub-group of Republicans.  Wherever there are 'clumps' of values, there are specific audiences.

A universal audience is more of an abstract concept than an actual blood and flesh audience.  While it's debatable that there is a set of (non-trivial) values that unite everyone, you should think of a universal audience as "the common person." As an arguer addressing a universal audience, you'd want to begin with assumptions/values/beliefs that just about any rational person could agree to (such as pizza makes us happy).

Suppose you were a Ron-Paul-lovin', Ayn-Rand-worshipping, pick-up-truck-drivin' Libertarian and you wanted to logically explain to a Karl Marx-lovin', Grateful dead-listenin', group-hug hippy Liberal why there should be no restrictions on the right to bear arms.  It might do you some good to consider something about your audience's values and basic assumptions.  Much of what you might say about gun rights would take for granted things that those damn hippies would object to! 

So, what should you do? Well, what you'd want to do is "construct an argument that makes an effort to respond to your audiences convictions and concerns" (p. 19).  If you begin with premises/assumptions/values that you share with the hippies, then you stand a chance of working an argument that they will at least consider.  

Conversely, if you begin your reasoning with premises that bear no relation to those of your audience, they won't even try to follow your reasoning because you are beginning with premises to which they don't agree.

Key point:  A good argument is sensitive to the values/beliefs/convictions of the intended audience.  A good arguer will modify their argument depending on the audience.

Three Types of Audiences based on Receptivity:
Generally we can distinguish between 3 types of audience based on (anticipated) degree of receptivity to the argument. 

A sympathetic audience probably already agrees with many of the values connected to the conclusion of the argument.  For example, if I'm arguing against abortion to a group of evangelical christians, I probably don't have to spend much time arguing for the premise that a fetus is a person with rights.

An open audience does not share our position but is open to considering it.  Such audiences generally don't have values so disparate from those of the arguer.  We don't have to search too hard to find common ground in values and beliefs from which we may begin to reason toward our argument.

A hostile audience does not share our position or many of our values and beliefs and is not open to considering it.  For obvious reasons this is the toughest type of audience to argue with.  When common beliefs and values are scarce, it is difficult to find a starting point from which to begin.  Some political debates can appear this way because some groups value individual autonomy over collective needs.  When differences are so fundamental, it's hard to know where to begin.  

Also, with a hostile audience, because the differences in beliefs and values are so fundamental, they are central to that group's identity.  Relinquishing those values might mean leaving the group, something to which most are adverse. The emotional component makes arguing with a hostile audience even more difficult because heightened emotions often shut us off to 'reason'.

The Flip Side
While it is very helpful to take into account your audiences' beliefs and values, we should be cautious not to exploit them.  We see this happen all the time with cults, psychics, medical quackery, and--of course--politics.  An unscrupulous cult leader or "psychic" can appeal to an audiences' values for reasons of exploitation.  

Recall from previous lessons that most of our values and beliefs are acquired uncritically as a result of how we experience the world.  Because of their uncritical origins, we are often eager to assent with anyone who shares our beliefs/values.  Right?  Now look into my eyes and give me all your money!

However, while you might be able to pursued a particular audience with an argument that appeals to specific values, once you try to apply that same argument to a broader audience, you will surely encounter resistance!

Conclusion
The lesson here is that it is important to take into account the values and beliefs of your audience in how you present your argument.  The most effective arguments begin with the values and beliefs shared by the specific audience at which the argument is targeted.  And then, using reason, reasons, and evidence you lead them down the garden path into the waiting jaws of your conclusion.

A caveat is that, while your argument should be tailored to a specific audience, it should not rely so heavily on the beliefs and values of that audience such that a more general audience wouldn't take the argument seriously. 

Lesson 2A.2 Systems of Belief and Sidgwick's Insight

Review: 
In the last post we gave a formal definition to an argument:  a set of reasons and evidence that support a conclusion.  We also discussed the two main components of an argument: the premises and the conclusion.  Recall that the conclusion is the central claim that the arguer is trying to make.  If they do their job well, they will support that claim with relevant premises (i.e., reasons and evidence).  If they don't, they might as well just be waiving their hands in the air and jumping up and down.

In this next section we will look at how certain facts about the person or group making an argument influences various aspects their argument.

Arguers and Systems of Belief
Overview
As much as many of us would like to think we are objective thinkers, we often are not.  Hume famously argued that "reason is slave to the passions."  The general idea is this:  We begin with a position that we are emotionally attached to and we collect evidence and arguments to support what we already believe.  This is as opposed to how most people think they operate; that is, collect evidence and consider reasons and then see where that leads.  There is a wealth of psychological research showing that Hume was right about most people, most of the time.

Mommy, Where do Beliefs Come from?
As we go through our early life, we uncritically acquire a "web" of beliefs based on experiences.  How we experience the world, and the types of experiences we have depend heavily on things out of our control.  Typical elements that form our system of belief include: race, culture, socio-economic class, attractiveness, gender, education, family life, religion/non-religion, nationality, geography, and so on.

Examples of how politics and social media interact to shape our view of the world.

Often, before our ability to reason develops, may of these beliefs become central to our identity.  To have them shown to be false would be to admit that something important to our identity is false.  Having our identity come under scrutiny is often an emotionally painful experience and so we vigorously protect the beliefs that form the core of our identity--often ignoring contravening reasons and evidence.

So, why does this all matter?  Because when it comes to arguments about things that are really important to us, our arguments are often driven by emotion rather than reason and even-handed evaluation of reasons and evidence.  So, on such issues, instead of entering the debate with the attitude, "well, lets look at the reasons and evidence for both positions and evaluate which is best," what often happens is we enter a debate with a pre-existing particular position.  We then use arguments to defend the position that we already held--no matter the relative quality of argument for the other position.

In other words, we are emotionally attached to a conclusion before any real critical thought begins.  From that conclusion, we use argumentation, reason, logic to arrive where we already were!  Our reason is slave to the passions; i.e., reason serves to justify the positions we already hold.  Or, to paraphrase Hume again, "man is not the rational animal but the rationalizing animal."

(Note: There are several recent trends in psychology and philosophy that argue that rather than having a distorting effect, emotions play an important role in various domains such as social and ethical reasoning.)

Now, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with holding a position on an issue, however, what is important is to be aware of how our web of beliefs and emotions influence our ability to effectively argue for a position and evaluate the issue. 

Elements of a Web of Belief
As critical thinkers we need to pay close attention to how a person's web of beliefs influences the assumptions they will make; that is, what sorts of things will they take for granted. For example, in the abortion debate, opponents of abortion will often take it for granted that a fetus is a person.  This assumption stems from many facts about their personal history.  Such facts might include: race, religiosity and religion (or lack of), gender, sex, education, career, and socio-economic class.

Some proponents of abortion might even agree that fetus is in some ways a person.  But for them the desires of the autonomous woman carrying the fetus outweigh those of the fetus.  But is this a scientific question where someone in a lab coat can put all the fetus' desires into a beaker and put all the pregnant woman's desires into another then put them on a scale and measure which have more weight?  No.  To demonstrate that one set of desires has more weight than the other requires argument--and that argument must begin from common premises if opposing sides are to have any hope of agreement. 

For many people in this debate, the answer to this question will depend heavily upon the different elements that helped to build that individual's web of beliefs.  Their position will likely not come out of having spent month studying the academic literature on the issue and carefully evaluating the arguments on all sides.  It is for this reason that arguers must seek and begin with common ground with their opponents.

Why Do the Elements that Build Someone's System of Belief Matter?
How to Win an Argument/Sidgwick's Insight
What is interesting is that based on a person's web of beliefs we can sometimes "reverse engineer" some of the elements that influenced their web of beliefs and also identify what many of their unstated assumptions are.  Doing so can be an important step in deciding how to engage with the arguer.

If our goal is to show our opponent why his argument is problematic or persuade him to our point of view, you must be able search for and identify common ground from which you can build to your conclusion rather than his.  If you both begin from different assumptions, no progress will ever likely be made!

Sidgwick's Insight: A key to bringing someone to your point of view is to find common assumptions (premises) and show how your conclusion, rather than your opponents follows from these assumptions.

Ami's/Psychological Insight:  There is a growing body of research in psychology showing that people either reject or disbelieve facts if they conflict with their existing beliefs.  In short, trying to bring someone around to your point of view by citing facts often accomplishes nothing at best but more likely results in further recalcitrance.  Because of the counter-intuitive "weakness" of using factual evidence in many debates, it's often a more successful strategy to begin your argument by appealing to values that are shared in common with your opponent (or audience).


How to be a Philosopher
A true philosopher seeks truth above all else--or at least (non-foolish) consistency.  While we can use our understanding of systems of beliefs and the elements that form them, we can also use this information on ourselves.

It would be foolish to think that, magically, we are the only ones without ideological blind spots and unexamined assumptions!  Introspection on how our own gender, culture, religion/non-religion, family, education, career, peer group, etc... shape the way we experience the world (and in turn our beliefs and assumptions about it) is a valuable exercise. Doing so allows us to see where we have uncritically accepted certain views.

Lesson 2A.1: Extended Arguments and Inference Indicators

Introduction
Up until now we've been applying our analytical skills to relatively simple arguments.  Now we will begin to apply those skills to extended arguments.  What's an extended argument?  Well, I'm glad you asked:  An extended argument is one that has a main conclusion supported by premises which themselves are in turn supported by sub-premises.  

When a major premise is supported by sub-premises we can consider the major premise to be sub-conclusion.  Extended arguments are often more difficult to break down into premises and conclusion because there's a lot more information involved.  Also, sometimes it can be difficult to disentangle the sub-premises from the premises and the final conclusion from the sub-conclusion(s).  

Some General Strategies As a general heuristic, work backwards from conclusion to premises to sub-premises.  First, try to identify the main conclusion.  A good way to go about it is to ask yourself, "what is the argument trying to convince me of?"  If all else fails, look at the title of the article...

Once you answer that question ask yourself "why does the arguer think I should believe this?" This will help you identify the main premises. What's left will often be sub-premises. 

In some extended arguments, once we've identified the main components it can still be difficult to distinguish what is supporting what--especially between a sub-conclusion and the main conclusion.  Here's a little trick to help make the distinction.  

Suppose you have 2 statements and you're not sure which is the main conclusion and which is a sub-conclusion.  Read one statement followed by "therefore" then read the next.  If it sounds awkward, try it the other way around.  Often, this can help sort things out.  

Extended Arguments:  Argument Extend-a-Mix
So, why should we care about extended arguments?  There are a couple of reasons.  First, most arguments we encounter "in the wild" as articles, essays, and books come to us as extended arguments.  Second, as you may have noticed, the premises of simple arguments don't always withstand scrutiny.  

This implies that if an arguer wishes to maintain her position against criticism, she will have to provide further sub-premises (i.e., reasons and evidence) to support the premises which are being criticized.  A good arguer will anticipate criticism and so will include the sub-premises as a pre-emptive defensive strike.  

Let's look at an example to illustrate what I'm talking about: 

Sample Simple Argument:
P1  Mugatu invented the piano key necktie.
P2  The piano key necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
C    Therefore, Mugatu is a fashion genius. 

Suppose someone takes issue with the premise acceptability of P2.  (Of course, they'd be wrong, but just suppose....) The person making this argument would then have to give further premises (reasons or evidence) to support P2.  For example, they might say "all the cool kids in the 80s owned one."  The fact that all the cool kids owned a pianokey necktie further supports the premise that the pianokey necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion. 

The extended version of the argument would look like this:
P1  Mugatu invented the pianokey necktie.
P2a  All the cool kids owned pianokey neckties.
P2b  Given that P2, the pianokey necktie was an important milestone in men's fashion.
C   Therefore, Mugatu is a fashion genius.

Analyzing Extended Arguments Using Inference Indicators
As I mentioned earlier, a problem with analyzing extended arguments is trying to distinguish between premises, sub-premises, and conclusion.  But do not despair fair child.  There are yet more tricks to help us.  

Paying attention to inference indicators will often help us to disentangle argument components.  An inference indicator is a word that gives us a sign as to whether the sentence is a premise or a conclusion.

Here are some common indicators for premises:  Since, because, for, as can be deduced from, given that, and the reasons are.

Here are some common indicators for conclusions:  Consequentially, so it follows, thus, hence, therefore, and we conclude that.

Now go forth and analyze. 

Lecture 2A: Identifying Argument Components Con't, Indicator Words, Arguers and Systems of Belief, Sidgwick's Insight

I.  Business:
A.  Purpose, grading, and quantity of homework.
B.  Subject Heading for HW and Reviews
C.  Reviews and Content.

II.  Homework Review
A.  Mini review of main concepts and methods.
   1.  Argument, premise, conclusion, heuristics for finding the conclusion and premises.

B.  Go through homework.
   1.  Note:  Each premise and conclusion should be a complete intelligible sentence.  This may require minor rewriting.  In doing so, try not to stray too far from the original meaning.

III.  Lecture:  Extended Arguments and Indicator Words (Ch. 4 Sec. 2)
Why do we have to learn this crap?
A.  Premise Indicator Words:  Since, because, for, as can be deduced from, given that, the reasons are.

B.  Conclusion Indicator Words: Consequentially, thus, therefore, so it follows, so, hence, we conclude that

C.  Rhetorical questions as conclusion indicators.
   Examples:
   1.  Do people really think that bombing civilian populations is a good way to get them on our side?  Polls show that US policy in Afghanistan has only harmed Afghani and Muslim perceptions of America.
   2.  Should we give up on Obamacare?  Many people are paying more than before and the website     was a complete failure.
   3.  Isn't it too early to judge Obamacare to be failure?  Every major government program from social security to medicaid had problems when they were first introduced but are now run fairly well.  We should expect the there to be a learning curve with any major policy shift.  Obamacare is no different.
   4*.  Some websites claim that potatoes cure cancer.  Are you kidding me?  If that were true, then we'd expect lower rates of cancer in Ireland relative to other populations.  But this isn't the case.

D.   Practice: Ex. 4B

IV.  Arguers, Audiences, Systems of Belief, and Sidgwick's Insight (Ch. 1 Sec. 3&4)
Why do we have to learn this crap?
A.  What elements make up a system of belief?
B.  How does a system of belief affect argument interpretation and construction?
C.  Specific vs. universal/general audience.   What are some examples of specific audiences?
D.  3 different types of audiences:  sympathetic, open, hostile.
   1.  Eg. p. 19 bottom paragraph.
   2.  Dangers of constructing for a sympathetic audience.
   3.  Eg.  New sports stadium.
E.*  What is Sidgwick's insight? And why is it important to identify the type of audience?
F.  Ami's insight: don't argue from facts, argue from shared values.
G.  Practice:   Ex. 1D Q. 1

More advice for debating: http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/the-neurochemistry-of-positive-conversations/


Homework: 
1.  Ex. 4B ALL
2.  What are your moral foundations?  From this page, click on the link that says self-scorable MFQ30
How are the results different from what you expected or are they what you expected?
3.  Constructing your own argument.   In premise-conclusion form, drawing from Sidgwick and Ami's insights, construct an argument for a hostile audience to your personal position on gun control or Obamacare.

Lesson 1A: Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions.

Defining an Argument
Argument: vas is das? For most of us when we hear the word 'argument' we think of something we'd rather avoid.  As it is commonly understood, an argument involves some sort of unpleasant confrontation (well, maybe not always unpleasant--it can feel pretty good when you win!).  While this is one notion of 'argument,' it's (generally) not what the term refers to in philosophy.

In philosophy what we mean by argument is a set of reasons offered in support of a claim. An argument, in this narrower sense, also generally implies some sort of structure.  For now we'll ignore the structural aspects and focus on the two primary elements that make up an argument: premises and conclusions.

Let's talk about conclusions first because their definition is pretty simple.  A conclusion is the final assertion that is supported with evidence and reasons.  We can also think of it as the claim that the arguer wants the audience to believe. The relationship between premises and conclusions is important.  The premises are independent reasons and evidence that support the conclusion.  In an argument, we say that the conclusion should follow from the premises.

Let's consider a simple example:
Claim: Some people thought Miley Cyrus' performance was both a travesty and offensive.

Premise 1: Everyone thought Miley Cyrus' performance was a travesty. 
Premise 2:  Some people thought her performance was offensive.
Conclusion:  Therefore, some people thought her performance was both a travesty and offensive.

Notice that so long as we accept Premise 1 and Premise 2 as true, then we must also accept the conclusion.  This is what we mean by "the conclusion 'follows' from the premises." 

Let's examine premises a little more closely.  A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the conclusion of the argument.  In the context of arguments we can use 'reasons', 'evidence', and 'premises' interchangeably.  For example, if my conclusion is that dogs are better pets than cats, I might offer the following reasons:

(P1) Dogs are generally more affectionate than cats and
(P2) Dogs are more responsive to their owners' commands than cats.

From my two premises, I infer my conclusion that

(C) Dogs are better pets than cats.

Let's return to the definition of an argument.  Notice that in the definition, I've said that arguments are a set of reasons.  While this isn't always true, generally a good argument will have more than one premise.  

Heuristics for Identifying Premises and Conclusions
Now that we know what each concept is, let's look at how to identify each one as we might encounter them "in nature" (e.g., in an article, in a conversation, in a meme, in a homework exercise, etc...).  First, I'll explain each heuristic, then I'll apply them to some examples.

Identifying Conclusions:  
The easiest way to go about decomposing arguments is to first try to find the conclusion.  This is a good strategy because there is usually only one conclusion so, if we can identify it, it means the rest of the passage is made up of premises. For this reason, most of the heuristics focus on finding the conclusion.  

Heuristic 1:  Look for the most controversial statement in the argument.  The conclusion will generally be the most controversial statement in the argument.  If you think about it, this makes sense.  Typically arguments proceed by moving from assertions (i.e., premises) the audience agrees with then showing how these assertions imply something that the audience might not have previously agreed with.

Heuristic 2:  The conclusion is usually a statement that takes a position on an issue.  By implication, the premises will be reasons that support the position on the issue (i.e., the conclusion).  A good way to apply this heuristic is to ask "what is the arguer trying to get me to believe?".  The answer to this question is generally going to be the conclusion.

Heuristic 3:   The conclusion is usually (but not always) the first or last statement of the argument. 

Heuristic 4:  The "because" test.  Use this method when you're having trouble figuring which of 2 statements is the conclusion.  The "because" test helps you figure out which statement is supporting which.  Recall that the premise(s) always supports the conclusion.  This method is best explained by using an example.  Suppose you encounter an argument that goes something like this:

It's a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit.  It tastes delicious.  Also, lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer.

Suppose you're having trouble deciding what the conclusion is.  You've eliminated "it tastes delicious" as a candidate but you still have to choose between "it's a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit" and "lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer".  To use the 'because' test, read one statement after the other but insert the word "because" between the two and see what makes more sense.  Let's try the two possibilities:

A:  It's a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit because lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer.

B:  Lots of facebook posts say that amazonian jungle fruit cures cancer because it's a good idea to eat lots of it. 

Which makes more sense?  Which is providing support for which?  

The answer is A.  Lots of facebook posts saying something is a reason (i.e. premise) to believe that it's a good idea to eat amazonian jungle fruit--despite the fact that it's not a very good reason...

Identifying the Premises
Heuristic 1:  Identifying the premises once you've identified the conclusion is cake.  Whatever isn't contained in the conclusion is either a premise or "filler" (i.e., not relevant to the argument).  We will explore the distinction between filler and relevant premises a bit later, so don't worry about that distinction for now.

Example 1
Gun availability should be regulated. Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too.http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

Ok, lets try heuristic #1.  What's the most controversial statement?  For most Americans, it is probably that "gun availability should be regulated."  This is probably the conclusion.  Just for fun let's try out the other heuristics.

Heuristic #2 says we should find a statement that takes a position on an issue.  Hmmm... the issue seems to be gun control, and "gun availability should be regulated" is taking a position.  Both heuristics converge on "gun availability should be regulated."

Heuristic #3 says the conclusion will usually be the first or last statement.  Guess what? Same result as the other heuristics.

Heuristic #4.  
A:  Gun availability should be regulated because people with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you. 

Or

B:  People with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you because gun availability should be regulated.

A is the winner.

The conclusion in this argument is well established.  It follows that what's left over are premises (support for the conclusion): 
(P1)  If your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. 
(P2)  Studies show that P1 is true, not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. 
(C)  Gun availability should be regulated.

Example 2
If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns. This means only “bad” guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage. Gun control is a bad idea.

Heuristic #1:  What's the most controversial statement? Probably "gun control is a bad idea."

Heuristic #2: Which statement takes a position on an issue? "Gun control is a bad idea."

Heuristic #3:  "Gun control is a bad idea" is last and also passed heuristic 1 and 2.  Probably a good bet as the conclusion. 

Heuristic #4:  
A: If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns because gun control is a bad idea.

OR

B: Gun control is a bad idea because if you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

The winner is B, therefore, "gun control is a bad idea" is the conclusion. 

All 4 heuristics point to "gun control is a bad idea" as being the conclusion therefore we can safely infer that the other statements are premises:

(P1)   If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

(P2)   This means only “bad” guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage.
(C)     Gun control is a bad idea.

Looking Ahead
Also, many arguments can also contain what are called 'hidden', 'unstated,' or 'assumed' premises.

To understand the notion of a hidden premise let's return to the argument about dogs. 

(P1) Dogs are generally more affectionate than cats and
(P2) Dogs are more responsive to their owners' commands than cats.
(C) Dogs are better pets than cats.

Look at (P1).  Can you find the hidden premise?  Here it is: (HP1) If a pet is more affectionate then it is a better pet than a less affectionate one.  This is an assumption that displays the values of the arguer.  (Note: hidden premises might not always be about values.)

However, there may be people who don't value affection as a marker of being a good pet.  Maybe for some people what makes a good pet is that it is clean or self-reliant.  So, a huge part of being a good critical thinker is to look beyond the stated premises and to try to find the assumed premises.  When we do this, the task of assessing the relative strength and weaknesses of an argument's premises (and, in turn, the argument itself) becomes much easier.

A cat lover could now counter the dog-as-better-pets argument by showing that the hidden assumption upon which the relevance of (P1) relies isn't necessarily true, and therefore the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

So, the cat lover can show that (C) (dogs are better than cats) doesn't necessarily follow from (P1) (dogs are more affectionate than cats) because (P1) is only relevant to the conclusion if we also assume that affection-giving is a necessary determinant of being a good pet.  In other words, the dog proponent's argument only works if we also accept their hidden assumption/premise. 

However, showing that (C) doesn't follow from (P1) doesn't mean (C) is false, nor does it show the contrary, that cats are better pets than dogs. It only shows that "dogs are better pets than cats" can't be established through this particular argument or at least not without further argument.

In other words, it could very well be true that dogs are better pets than cats but this argument doesn't show it.  In order to prove that dogs are better than cats we'd need a different argument or support for the hidden premise. 

This brings us to an interesting point which I'll discuss in the next section: systems of belief, biases, and values.  When (as often happens) arguments involve values, evaluating an argument as 'true' or 'false' becomes difficult because it is an open question whether a value (that is supporting a major premise or conclusion) can be 'right' or 'wrong'.  

This is more a question for ethics, but as far as being good critical thinkers goes, it  is extremely important to be able to recognize when and how a premise or conclusion is ultimately supported by a value judgement, bias, or system of belief.

The next post will give an overview of systems of belief, biases, and values, and their role in arguments and critical thinking.

Summary:
An argument is a set of reasons or evidence offered in support of a claim.

A premise is an individual reason or piece of evidence offered in support of a conclusion.

A conclusion is the claim that follows from or is supported by the premise(s).

Key ideas:
1) Just because a conclusion is true, it doesn't mean that the argument in support of the conclusion is a good one (i.e. valid).  Truth and justification are two different things!

2)  Be on the alert for hidden premises!