Lesson 6A: Enthymemes: Hidden Premises and Hidden Conclusions

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 interpretive dances 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 another 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 intelligible?

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? 

Method 1
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!  (E.g., "buy product x").

Lets look at an example:

Here we have a speech act that, assuming principle I, is an intelligible 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).

Method 2
Method 2 is similar to method 1 except it's a bit simpler.  To identify a hidden conclusion (a) first figure out what the main issue is then (b) determine what position on that issue the arguer wants to convince you of.

Lets consider an example:
"Killing people as punishment doesn't teach them anything."  Analysis:  (a)  What's the main issue?  Whether killing people as punishment is a good thing or whether we ought to do it.  (b)  What position does the arguer seem to take?  The seem to be against it so the hidden/implied conclusion would be (HC) Therefore, we shouldn't kill people to punish them OR more generally, we should abolish capital punishment.

Example 2:

Analysis:
What's the main issue? Whether modern technology makes us anti-social.  Given the evidence provided, what's the arguers position on the issue?  Modern technology doesn't make us any more anti-social than the technology of the past.


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!).

Lecture 6A: Enthymemes--Hidden Argument Components

Warm Up

Homework 5A Review


Hidden Premises:  Deductive Vs Inductive Reconstruction + Diagraming
Concept:  In reconstructing the argument as deductive or inductive, employ the principle of charity.

Sample Arguments
I just got a new book by Tom Robbins.  I'm sure I'm going to like it.

I have a new car so I won't have to spend much on maintenance.

My car is fast because it's a Ferrari.

I got an 'A' in critical thinking therefore I'm smrt.

Oregano oil is good for you because it's natural.

Aspartame is bad for you because it isn't natural.

We should enact gun control legislation because it could save lives.

We shouldn't enact gun control legislation because the right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

Discuss assumptions behind the Constitutional assumption.

Homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural.

We shouldn't condemn homosexuality because no one chooses to be gay.

Homosexuality is wrong because it's condemned in the Bible.
Leviticus

We shouldn't have invaded Iraq/Afghanistan because it cost too much money and cost too many American lives.

Concept:  In reconstructing the argument as deductive or inductive, employ the principle of charity.


Hidden Conclusions
What's the issue?  Whether...
What position on the issue does the arguer want to convince you of?  X is good/bad.  We should/shouldn't endorse/do X.



HW 6A

1.  P. 137 Ex 6B 1, 2, 3.
2.  P. 142 Ex 6C 1 whatever wasn't done in class
1. For the following quote (a) identify the implied conclusion (b) discuss whether you agree or disagree with the implied conclusion and why. 

“I’m selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control, and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”

Lecture 5A: Inductive vs Deductive, Validity, Sufficiency, Soundness

Business:
1.  Exam 1 is next Wednesday.  Review will be Monday at the end of class.  It will be on everything up to and including today.
2.  Don't wait too long to do the podcast/blog article reviews.

Homework 4B Review
3D & 3M

Logical Force, Validity, Soundness, and Inductive vs Deductive Arguments
Definitions:
1.  Logical force is the degree to which a conclusion follows logically from the premise(s).

2.  Validity is the logical relation between the aggregate of the premises and the conclusion:  If an argument is valid, then if the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion must also be true.  Otherwise stated: If the premises are assumed to be true it's logically impossible for the conclusion to be false.  By definition, all deductive arguments are valid and all inductive arguments are invalid.

3.  Soundness refers to the truth value of a valid (deductive) argument.  If an argument is valid and the premises are true (not just assumed to be true) then the argument is sound.  An argument can be valid but not sound.  An argument cannot be sound but not valid.  A sound argument is always valid.

4.  A deductive argument is one in which if we assume the premises to be true then the conclusion must also be true.  Otherwise stated, if we assume the premises to be true, it's impossible for the conclusion to be false.  The premises of a deductive argument are always both relevant and sufficient.

5.  An inductive argument is one in which if we assume the premises to be true it's possible for the conclusion to be false.  Inductive arguments are probabilistic arguments.  A strong inductive argument will mean that, if we assume the premises to be true, it's improbable that the conclusion is false (or very likely that it's true).  A weak inductive argument will mean that, even if we assume the premises to be true, the conclusion isn't likely to be true.  A cogent inductive argument is one that is strong and the premises are true.  An uncogent inductive argument is one that is either weak or strong and one or more premises are false.  (see examples below).  The premises of a cogent inductive argument are always relevant but not sufficient.  Inductive arguments are never 100% sufficient...if they were, they'd be deductive arguments!

6.  Identifying an argument as deductive vs inductive:  (a) Assume the premises to be true;  (b) evaluate whether it's possible for the conclusion to be false (no matter how improbable); (c) if yes, then the argument is inductive, if no, then the argument is deductive.  Otherwise stated: if we assume the premises to be true, a deductive argument's premises will always be relevant and sufficient; an inductive arguments premises might be relevant (to varying degrees) but never sufficient.

7.  Internal/Premise Relevance:  If we assume all premises to be true, premise relevance is the degree to which a premise increases the likelihood that a conclusion is true.

8.  Sufficiency: An argument is sufficient if, assuming the premises to be true, the conclusion is also guaranteed to be true.  If an argument's premises are sufficient then it is a deductive argument.  If not, then it is an inductive argument.

Examples:  Strong and Weak Inductive Arguments
(P1) An opaque jar contains exactly 100 marbles.
(P2) There are 99 blue marbles in the jar.
(P3) There is 1 red marble in the jar.
(C)  The marble picked is blue.

(P1)  An opaque jar contains exactly 100 marbles.
(P2)  There are 99 blue marbles in the jar.
(P3)  There is 1 red marble in the jar.
(C)  The marble picked is red.

E.g., paranormal

Examples:  Deductive Vs Inductive + check for relevance and sufficiency
(P1)  Every raven I've ever seen is black.
(C)  Therefore, the next raven I see will also be black.

(P1)  Every person who has had a bacterial lung infection was cured with anti-biotics.
(C)  Tomorrow, a person with a lung infection will be cured by ant-biotics.

(P1)  All ravens are black.
(P2)  I see a raven.
(C)  The raven is black.

(P1)  Most NFL players weigh over 200lbs.
(C)   The next NFL player I meet will weigh over 200lbs.

(P1)  Killing humans is wrong.
(P2)  Abortion is killing a human.
(C)  Abortion is wrong.

(P1)  We are morally obligated to help others when the value to them would be great and the cost to us would be little.
(P2)  A starving child would benefit greatly from a $20/month donation and the cost to us is little.
(C)  We are morally obligated to donate a small amount every month to starving children.

(P1)  A watch has a high degree of complexity and so could not have been designed and assembled by chance and must have been assembled and designed by an intelligent being.
(P2)  Life also has a high degree of complexity and so could not have been designed and assembled by chance.
(C)  Therefore, life must also have been assembled and designed by an intelligent being.

(P1)  All cats are mammals.
(P2)  All mammals are lions.
(C)  All cats are lions.

(P1)  If my dog is left alone he will pee on the floor.
(P2)  I left my dog alone.
(C)  My dog peed on the floor.

Some Standard Deductive Forms
Universal to instance; modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism

Some Standard Inductive Forms
Generalization, statistical syllogism, argument from analogy, induction by enumeration, slippery slope, argument from ignorance,

Order of Operations for Evaluating Arguments (See Flow Chart PDF via email).

Homework 5A:
p. 64 Ex. 3C  Also evaluate for premise acceptability after evaluating for sufficiency (i.e., follow the flow chart I sent you).
p. 78 Ex. 3M Question 4 a-e

Lesson 4B: Internal and Contextual Relevance

Internal (I.e., Premise) Relevance
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. 
MC. The animal is a duck.

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.

Contextual Relevance
Contextual relevance is the evaluation of whether an argument addresses the main topic that's being debated. We usually evaluate contextual relevance in the context of a debate between 2 sides over a particular issue.  If one side's argument doesn't seem to have any bearing on the main topic, then the argument is contextually irrelevant.

Example:
Suppose two people are debating whether GMOs are safe for human consumption:

Person 1:  There's no good evidence to show that GMOs are safe for human consumption.
Person 2:  Actually, there's over 20 years of studies, the majority of which show there are no negative health effects to consuming GMOs.
Person 1: Yes, but using GMOs cause farmers to use stronger pesticides like Round Up.  And besides, Monsanto is evil! 

In this case, person 1's arguments, regardless of whether they are true or not, are not relevant to the topic being debated which is whether GMOs are detrimental to human health.

See Straw Man and Red Herring Fallacies for examples of specific kinds of failures of contextual relevance. 

Lecture 4B: Contextual and Internal Relevance, Strawman, Red Herring, Naturalistic Fallacy

Homework Review of 4A
1.  Go through the diagrams and also talk about internal relevance.

Internal Relevance: (Aka Premise Relevance)
Explanation:  Does the premise increase the likelihood of the conclusion (or subconclusion) being true?  If yes, then the premise is relevant.  If no, then it is not.  Internal relevance is about the relationship between an argument's premises and it's conclusion (and subconclusions)

How to Evaluate Premise Relevance:  Assume that the premises are true, then evaluate the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion (and subconclusions).

Contextual Relevance: 
In the context of a debate between 2 sides, contextual relevance is the degree to which a response or line of argument is relevant to the main issue being debated.  Contextual relevance is about whether an entire argument has a logical relationship to the topic that is being debated.

Examples

Example:
Person 1:  It's your turn to do the dishes.
Person 2:  Whatever, I took out the trash yesterday.

Straw Man Fallacy

Definition:  A restatement of an opposing view/position which is exaggerated and distorted such that it is easy to defeat.

Example: 
Person A:  Given the tragic nature of mass shootings, we should consider implementing some sort of background check to make sure people buying guys don't have any known major psychological problems or any records of violent criminal behavior.
Person B:  My opponent doesn't think people have the right to own guns.  In person A's world, citizen's won't be able to lawfully defend themselves or even go hunting.

OR

Person A:  If you deny people the right to self-defense then you are risking increasing the rate home break-ins because a major deterrent will have been removed.
Person B:  My opponent thinks we should give children AK-47s for self-protection when their parents aren't home.  This is obviously a bad idea.

From 1:39

http://www.examiner.com/article/republican-governor-signs-new-bill-allowing-loaded-guns-to-carried-bars?cid=db_articles

"If we came from monkeys, why aren't monkey's having baby humans?"



Structure:  
Person A gives their position or argument;  call it argument X.
Person B reformulates (i.e., exaggerates and distorts) Person A's position to make it look ridiculous/implausible.  Call it argument Y.
Person B then shows why argument Y is a bad argument.
The problem is that Person B hasn't shown that person A's actual argument (X).


Red Herring Fallacy and Moving the Goal Posts

Red Herring Definition:  When an arguer brings up an issue or line of argument that isn't directly relevant to the original issue being debated in order to divert attention away from it.  Red herrings are often used by arguers (especially politicians) to avoid having to answer a question.

Moving the Goal Posts (aka the "Oh Yeah?" Defense) Definition:  A topic is under discussion. Person 1 shows why person 2's argument fails.  Instead of admitting defeat, person 2 changes the standard of evidence or changes the topic to one that is closely related but not the same as the original one.  Basically, when person 1 shows why person 2's argument fails, person 2 responds by saying "oh yeah? what about this?"

Example: Moving the Goal Posts

Person 2: Vaccines are bad because the mercury in vaccines causes autism.

Person 1:  There is no mercury in vaccines.  All vaccines except the flu vaccine have been mercury-free since 2001.  If mercury in vaccines caused autism, we'd expect the autism incident rate to have fallen since 2001 but it hasn't.  It has increased.  So even if mercury in vaccines of the past did contain mercury, the amount that they contained wasn't enough to cause autism. 

Person 2: Oh yeah! Vaccines have formaldehyde!  And formaldehyde is bad for you.

Person 1:  Everything is bad for you if the dosage is high enough but the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines in insignificant.  There is actually more formaldehyde in a single pear than there is in a child's vaccine schedule.  Also, our own bodies produce much more formaldehyde in a single day than we ever get in vaccines.  

Person 2:  Oh yeah! etc...

Red Herring Examples

http://youtu.be/GLdDQ32ltiA

Example (From the Washington Post)
BLM contends that Bundy owes $1 million in fees, and will also have to pay the round-up expenses. Bundy — who retorts that he only owes $300,000 in fees — says the city folk are only hurting themselves by taking his cows. He told a reporter from the Las Vegas Review Journal that there would be 500,000 fewer hamburgers per year after his cows were towed away; “But nobody is thinking about that. Why would they? They’re all thinking about the desert tortoise. Hey, the tortoise is a fine creature. I like him. I have no problem with him. But taking another man’s cattle? It just doesn’t seem right.”

Straw man Structure:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced as though it is relevant to topic A.
Topic B ends up being discussed, leaving topic A unresolved.



Naturalistic Fallacy

Definitions
Health:  When something is presumed to be healthy/good for you because it is natural.
Morality:  When something is presumed to be morally right because is it natural or "the natural order of things"--usually as described by a holy text.

Examples: Heath
Every product ever.
Anti-GMO movement
Implied Naturalistic fallacy: "chemicals" in our food.

Examples: Moral  
A.  "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of theConfederate States of America. 

1. Jefferson Davis, from a speech in the US Senate on 1850-FEB-14

Anti-Abolitionist Pamphlet

Social Darwinism

B.  Where else do we hear this familiar argument (still today).

Homework 4B

Ex 3D p. 71  ALL:  Instructions:  Just identify the fallacy.  You don't need to deconstruct the argument.

Ex 3M Question 2, p. 76 ALL:   Instructions:  You don't need to rewrite the arguments. The issue being debated is whether factory farming (as it is currently practiced) should be practiced.  You need to read each argument and (1) decide if the arguments are contextually relevant to the issue (it could be a matter of degree) and (2) decide whether and the premises are acceptable (give a quick justification for your evaluation) .

Lesson 4B: Straw man and Red Herring Fallacies

Introduction
In the last post we looked at the properties of a strong argument: (a) premise acceptability and (b) logical force (i.e., validity).  The concept of validity can be further sub-divided into two components:  (i) premise relevance and (ii) premise sufficiency.  Now we're going to look at the dark side of arguments: fallacies. Fallacies are intentional or unintentional (common) mistakes in argument.

There are many different types of fallacies but the two that we will look at here have to do with how premises relate to the context of an argument.  They are the red herring and the straw man.  Both fallacies can be either intentional or unintentional.

Red Herring
A red herring is "an attempt to shift debate away from the issue that is the topic of an argument" (Groarke & Tindale; p. 66).   Basically, a red herring is an objection to a position that doesn't address the actual issue being debated.  Its premises are irrelevant to the conclusion it seeks to negate/oppose.

Let's look at an example from Plato's Republic:

Socrates:  Rebecca Black is such a great singer. Her voice is a combination of Jesus and Fergie.
Glaucon:  Whatev, her voice is auto-tuned. If it weren't or if she were singing live you'd hear that she's out of tune. Therefore, she is not a great singer.
Socrates:  Why do you hate her? OMG, you're so mean!

Glaucon's argument is that Rebecca Black's voice isn't very good, and he provides reasons. Instead of replying to Glaucon's argument by addressing his premises or reasoning, Socrates brings up an issue irrelevant to the argument.  In short, Socrates' premises are not relevant to the conclusion he's trying to support, that Rebecca Black is a great singer.  That is to say, Glaucon's opinion of Rebecca as a person has no bearing on whether she's a good singer or not--regardless of what day of the week it is.

The red herring fallacy has many cousins and sub-species which we'll examine later in the course.  Some of them you may have heard of: non-sequitur, ad hominem, and tu quoque. When you use the Latin names you can really impress your friends...yay!

Straw Man
The straw man argument is similar to the red herring in that it doesn't address the actual argument.  It differs in that a straw man doesn't address the opposing argument because it misrepresents or distorts it.  A straw man argument often contains a grain of truth, but the opposing position is so blown out of proportion it is hardly recognizable.   The general purpose of a straw man argument is to present an opponents position in a way that makes it seems ridiculous, weak, and obviously wrong.

A great source for straw man arguments is any heavily biased news source.  Sentiments like "Obama's going to take all our gunz" is a straw man argument against proposed gun control legislation.  While there may be some truth in that the proposed legislation seeks to ban assault weapons, there is no part of any proposed bill that requires all gun owners to turn in every type of gun they own. Conversely, proponents of gun-control legislation might make a straw man out of the legislation's opponents by arguing that pro-gun people don't want any restrictions at all on gun ownership and types of ownership. Most gun owners do in fact endorse some restrictions on gun ownership.

From the point of view of critical thinking there are a few important points to notice:  (a)  The straw man gun control arguments on both sides distort the respective opponent's position such that its actual content isn't being addressed, (b) because the opposing argument is distorted it seems ridiculous and easy to refute, and (c) because the actual content isn't being addressed, the topic of the argument gets shifted away from the actual premises rendering difficult meaningful dialogue.

Hotly debated topics are fertile ground for straw man arguments.  For good examples read the comments section for any article on GMO, nuclear power, natural gas, gun control, health care (in the US), immigration policy, and public policy regarding religion.  

Fallacy Fest! (It's not what you Think....)

It's my lucky day.  This just popped into my newsfeed.  Can you find the red herring and the straw man arguments?  (Both are conveniently contained in one meme!)  Note that pointing out the logical fallacies has nothing to do with whether you agree or not with the conclusion/point of view. It is only an evaluation of how an arguer arrived at a particular point of view.  

As I'm mentioned before, it is perfectly possible to give terrible arguments for a true conclusion. As critical thinkers we seek to separate our analysis of the argument from our approval/disproval and truth/falsity of the conclusion.

Ok, I can't help myself.  The people who made this meme are so scientifically illiterate that they list creatine as an artificial sweetener.  Good lord...  (Bonus, what logical fallacy did I just commit?)

Lecture 4A: Diagraming Arguments

Homework Review 3B
1. Short cut method

2. Examples (+assumptions):
(1)  People have differing opinions about what's right and wrong therefore, moral truth is subjective. (Mackie)

(2)  There are universal moral principles because all cultures agree that, in general, children are valuable and should be protected, murder is wrong, and you should not break promises.  (Rachels)

(3)  The soul is said to be immaterial and the body material.  Something that has no spacial or material existence cannot causally affect something that does have a spacial and material existence--and vice versa.  It follows that we either don't have a soul or that our soul has no causal power over our bodies' actions.  (Churchland)

(4)  Critical thinking is the most important course in the wooooooooooooooooorld:  You learn how think more clearly, you learn how to separate good arguments from bad arguments, you learn how to avoid common cognitive errors which could cause you to make poor decisions, and you get to learn how to sound smrt.

3.  The blog won't let me upload diagrams so for the lesson notes, please refer to the hand out.  I'll also email a copy to all of you.

Homework 4A
8C All
5B All  Be sure to diagram the arguments
5C All  Be sure to diagram the arguments
If you are having trouble drawing the diagrams on your word processor, you may do them by hand and turn them in at the beginning of class on Wednesday.

Lesson 3B: Burden of Proof, Premise Acceptability, Unacceptability, and Questionability

Burden of Proof
One thing we can look at to evaluate an argument's strength is who should bear the burden of proof.  In simple terms, burden of proof refers to whether an intended audience will accept a claim without further support.  If an audience will accept a claim without further support then the any opponent to the claim must provide evidence against the claim (i.e., the burden of proof falls on the challenger).  If an audience doesn't accept the claim without further support, then it is up to the arguer to provide additional support for the claim (that the audience will accept); in other words, the burden of proof falls on the arguer.  

Lets take a step back: Recall that arguments can be decomposed into premises and conclusion(s).  A burden of proof can concern the premises or the conclusion, however, lets first focus on the concept as it applies to conclusions.

2 Heuristics for Burden of Proof
When we evaluate burden of proof, we can apply 2 heuristics
Heuristic 1:  Will the intended (specific) audience accept the claim without further support?  If yes, then the burden falls on the opponents to the claim.  If no, then the burden falls on the arguer.

Heuristic 2 (better):  Would a universal audience (i.e., a group of reasonable people) accept the claim without further support? This is a much better standard of burden of proof for constructing your own arguments because usually we aren't trying to convince people who already agree with us on issues, we're trying to convince a general audience.


When we evaluate an argument for burden of proof with the second heuristic we are essentially asking if its conclusion is something a reasonable person would accept (i.e., universal audience).  If the assertion is reasonable, then the opponent bears the burden of proof to show that we should not accept the assertion. If the assertion is unreasonable, then the arguer bears the burden of proof to show (with further supporting premises) why we ought to accept the particular assertion.  

When the arguer's conclusion isn't reasonable (i.e., when the burden of proof falls upon the arguer's conclusion), an argument must be made!  That is, he's now going to have to support his conclusion with premises (i.e., reasons and evidence).  If, in turn, any of the premises are considered unreasonable, then they too will have to be backed up with further premises.  That is, he will also bear the burden of proof to support those premises until he arrives at support that the audience does accept.

Now we can give a formal definition:  A burden of proof refers to which party (arguer or challenger) has the obligation to defend their position.  It speaks to reasonableness of an assertion (be it a conclusion or a premise); the person who opposes whatever is considered reasonable bears the burden of proof--that is, it's up to them to convince us (through argument) that the default position is unreasonable or incorrect.  Without a supporting argument, we have no good reason to take their point of view seriously.

It's important to note that simply because a position bears the burden of proof it doesn't follow that it is false. Burden of proof just tells us who has to provide evidence for their position. 

Lets look at a few examples to illustrate:
When people deny that the moon landing happened, the burden of proof is on them.  They are taking a position against all experts and mountains of testimonial and physical evidence.  The burden falls upon them to show why we should reject the reasonable position of thinking people landed on the moon.  The reasonable position is that people landed on the moon; to assume otherwise would require further argument.

When people say that the earth is only 6 000 years old, the burden of proof falls upon them.  It's up to them to show why multiple converging lines of evidence are mistaken in their implications and why the theory upon which modern geology and biology are founded is incorrect.  It's reasonable to think that virtually all geologists are well qualified to determine what theories and evidence do or do not apply to to the age of the earth.  To assume a claim that implies that virtually all geologists are wrong requires further argument than mere assertion.

One last note on burdens of proof (laaaaaaaa!):
Historically, burdens of proof can shift.  So, what was a reasonable assumption a few hundred years ago might be unreasonable today.  We see this with social assumptions.  For example, it wasn't too long ago that it was reasonable (for men) to assume that women weren't capable of math and science.  Someone (back then) assuming the opposite would bear the burden of proof.  Today, that burden of proof has shifted.  

Economics is one area where the burden of proof is shifting. It used to be the common assumption that humans are (classically) rational--always seeking to maximize personal interest along the lines of classical mathematical rules. Behavioural economics, interdisciplinary psycho-economics, and socio-economic theory are starting to show these assumptions are wrong.  Giving this mounting empirical evidence, the burden of proof is shifting concerning economic models built upon the assumption of (classically) rational agents.

Notice that when burdens of proof shift, it often has to do with accumulation of evidence (and reasons).  So, maybe in the future we will discover mountains of evidence that the moon landing was a hoax and that the earth is 6000 years old.  If this happens the burden of proof will shift.

Argument Jiu Jitsu
When constructing a strong argument, whenever possible, try keep the burden of proof on your opponent.  Hai-ya! 


Premise/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.

HW 3A: Student Memes for Fallacy of Confirming Instances and Slanting by Omission

From Megan Lawson

From Michelle Mendez-Yela

From Kellin Taylor

From Dustin T Turner

From Dakodia Strack

From Zachary Hibert

Will Crocker

From Zheng Dong

From Sao Renee

From Noelle Nelson

Anonymous 

From Cathy Diaz

From Kelsie Omura

From Tony G

From Raj Singh

Anonymous or I forgot!