Critical Thinking and Reasoning

Critical Thinking

and Reasoning

Week 1 Meeting 1…

Introduction:

From: It take more than a major - Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success An Online Survey Among Employers Conducted

On Behalf Of: The Association Of American Colleges And Universities By Hart Research Associates (2013), Hart Research Associates

• Nearly all those surveyed (93%) agree, “a candidate’s demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more Important than their undergraduate major.”

• More than nine in ten of those surveyed say it is important that those they hire demonstrate ethical judgment and integrity; intercultural skills; and the capacity for continued new learning.

• More than three in four employers say they want colleges to place more emphasis on helping students develop five key learning outcomes, including: critical thinking, complex problem-solving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge in real-world settings.”

“

Questions

week 1 meeting 1

• What is reasoning?

•

• Is it the same for every body/culture/historical period?

•

• Are you sufficiently reasonable? And, Is there a simple yes or

• no answer on “are you reasonable”?

•

• Where and when do you use reasoning?

•

Rene Descartes

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly

provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is

properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men;

“

”

“

Student Learning Outcomes

• SLO 1

• Understand the major concepts of reasoning, the features of an argument

• and the ability to represent them.

•

• SLO 2

• Critically examine and analyze written and spoken arguments.

•

• SLO 3

• Distinguish between good and bad reasoning, credibility of sources,

• plausibility of claims and to identify fallacies in reasoning.

•

• SLO 4

• Compare, assess and use inductive and deductive reasoning.

•

• SLO5

Course Plan (1)

• Introduction: reason and argument

• _{Week 2}

• Arguments

• Week 3

• _{Obstacles to critical thinking/the environment of critical} • thinking

• Week 4

• _{Intercultural dialogue}

Course Plan (2)

• _{Diagramming arguments}

• Reasons for belief and doubt

• Week 6

• _{Faulty reasoning} • Week 7

• Deductive reasoning: propositional logic

• _{Week 8}

Course Plan (3)

• Appeal to Experts and Epistemic Justice

• Week 10

• _{Inductive Reasoning} • Week 11

• Inference to the Best Explanation

• _{Week 12}

Course Plan (4)

• Week 13

• _{Judging Moral Arguments and Theories} • • Week 14 • TBA • • _{Week 15} • Course Review • • Week 16 • _{Final Exam}

Grading Plan:

Methods Week Weights

Class Participation &

Quiz-questions 20%

Assignments 30%

Mid-Term Exam 8 20%

Week 1 Meeting 2

Argument:

Questions

week 1 meeting 2

•

Why does critical thinking matter?

•

How does critical thinking relate to logic?

•

Where is critical thinking needed?

•

Can we be too critical? And what does this mean?

Importance of critical

thinking

• _{Beliefs are not really yours if you just receive them.}

• Often reasons presented to you represent someone else’s interest (you want to look through the game)

• Without CR your opinions are like leaves in the storm. You can easily be manipulated

• Examine beliefs means to examine your life! (Socrates: “an unexamined life is not worth living”)

CR and Logic

•

Logic is constitutive of critical reasoning

•

Violations of logical rules mark the breakdown of

critical reasoning

•

But critical reasoning is not merely the

application of logical rules. It is a creative

process

•

There can be critical reasoning about the rules of

logic (philosophy of logic)

Critique against critical

reasoning

•

_{It is cold, calculating and emotionally}

aloof!?

•

_{It stifles spontaneity!?}

•

_{It undermines creativity!?}

•

_{It suppresses intuition and}

 Perhaps critical reasoning can be seen as complementary to these capacities and support rather than undermine all

Some alternatives to

critical thinking

• Appeal to tradition (prioritising the past over the future)

• _{Authority (often force or threat implied)} • Following role model (e.g. celebrities)

• Adapting to common views (following the crowd)

• Giving way to reflexes and unqualified emotions (e.g. greed, panic etc.)

When does an argument

come to an end?

• When a point is clarified or proof is given sufficiently (mathematical proof)

• When parties have hammered out an agreement (business or diplomatic negotiations)

• When time is up or third party intervenes (election campaigns, court cases, ultimatum situations)

• When context changes (debate on whether US should enter 2nd word war after pearl

harbour)

• Some go on forever (e.g. philosophical debates: do we have a free will or are all our actions determined by causes – has occupied minds for over 3000 years)

Week 2 Meeting 1

Questions:

week 2 meeting 1

•

_{What is the standard form of an argument?}

•

_{What are the elements of an argument? What}

are their relations?

•

_{How do arguments get undermined?}

Statement

•

Statement: declarative sentence that can

2 senses of “argument”

•

Common use: verbal dispute, conflict, bickering

•

Our sense: a connected set of sentences

proposed with the intention of supporting a claim

as a conclusion

Elements of an argument

•

Claim!

•

Premises (propositions),

•

Warrants (“inference tickts” – often

counted among premises)

Standard form of an

argument

• Premise(s)

• Warrant(s)

Week 2 Meeting 2

Arguments in

Questions:

week 2 meeting 2

•

What types of dialogue can you distinguish?

•

Which typical fallacies occur in dialogues?

•

What are the regular components of

argumentative dialogue?

•

How can we persuade through critical

discussion?

Rules of argumentation

• _{Locution rules (what diction, utterances and propositions}

are deemed apposite)

• Commitment rules (which arguments do have to be taken serious? Self-contradictions cannot stand)

Rules pertaining to stages of

argumentation

• Opening stage rule: how to define a topic and how to set an agenda

• Argumentation stage: e.g. relevance, informativeness

• Closing stage: .e.g. who gets the last word; what can be left for future debate

Good argumentation is more than

mechanically following a scheme…

• _{It is is about content and structure} • Rhetoric

• Psychology (feelings, prejudices, trust, authority)

• It addresses background assumptions

• It is pitched at an audience and its level of education and expectation

• It takes a position respective the larger context of a controversy

Week 3

Obstacles to critical thinking/

The environment of critical

Week 3 Meeting 1

Questions:

week 3 meeting 1

• What limits or impedes critical thinking?

• Name a few common fallacies?

• _{How do we detect errors in our thinking?}

• What tricks does our mind play on us when it comes to critical and rational thinking?

• _{How can group thinking and group pressure (peer}

Groupthink

•

Pejorative (negatively valued) term

•

Refers suboptimal deliberation and

decision-making by groups

•

Groupthink decision-making can be inefficient,

ill-informed, irrational – even disastrous

•

Group-think can lead to worse decision-making

than what might be expected of any

Types of Groupthink

• _{Overestimation of the group’s rationality and wisdom} • Illusory believe in the group’s power and efficacy

• Blind trust in the group’s moral righteousness

• Narrow-mindedness and prejudice

Famous examples of

groupthink desasters

•

The bay of pigs invasion

•

Pearl Harbor

•

Suisse Air

•

British Airways

Indicators of groupthink

• Steep hierarchies

• Communication barriers between hierarchy levels

• Stereotyping and exclusion

• _{Self-censorship}

• Mind-police (self-appointed guards of the right group ideology

Contributing factors

• _{Deindividuation (prioritization of group cohesiveness}

over individual freedom and expression)

• Homogeneity of group-members

• _{Steep hierarchies}

• Stress, panic, time-pressure

A Few Fallacies

• _{Ad populum (appeal to public opinion} • Ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

Week 3 meeting 2

Questions:

week 3 meeting 2

• Can you critically reason about your own worldview?

• _{Are there subjective truths (name and explain some}

candidates)?

• Why does Vaughn believe all forms of relativism are self-defeating?

• What is the difference between “being beyond possible doubt” and “being beyond reasonable doubt”?

• _{How can we do things with words, and what can we do}

with words?

Subjective Relativism

(candidates of subjective truths)

• Declares every person his or her own authority on matters such as morality, knowledge or reality

• Truths (moral and epistemic) depend solely on the judgments of the subject.

Cultural relativism

• _{Moral relativism: the authority of moral norms depends}

on cultural practices and the believes of a moral

community. They may have no authority beyond the boundaries of a cultural community that embraces them

• _{Epistemic relativism: beliefs about the world depend on}

cultural patterns of judgment and recognition. Even perception is conditioned by culture

• Metaphysical relativism: reality itself depends on (arbitrary) cultural constructions

Candidates for subjective, objective or

intersubjective categories

• _{Internal sensations (toothache, pleasure, thirst, nausea)} • Feelings/emotions (love, excitement, resentment)

• _{Tastes (preferences)}

• Perceptions/experiences (the stick is bent in the water)

• _{Values (the importance of being faithful)} • Beliefs (existence of guardian angels)

• Reality (are there nine planets?)

• _{Definitions (is a dolphin a fish? Was the attack on the}

Problems with relativism

• It leaves no possibility of being wrong in inter-subjective or intercultural comparison

• Subjective relativism leaves no room for the difference between moral norms and tastes

• Cultural relativism leaves no room for distinction

between cultural and moral norms (e.g. between rules of politeness and human rights)

• Relativism can be self-defeating (if relativism is presented as a universally valid theory)

Speech acts

(John AUSTIN)

•

_{Locution (expressing sense, meaning)}

•

Perlocution (exerting a causal power)

•

_{Illocution (changing a status of}

someone/something by means of an

utterance)

WEEK 4 Meeting 1

The logic of

Questions: week 4

meeting 1

• _{How does Parekh define “operative public values” in a}

society (give examples)?

• Which stages do intercultural conflicts normally go through according to Parekh?

• What can a dominant local culture expect from cultural minorities?

• Can value conflicts be beneficial for any culture?

• How should we conduct dialogue with members of different cultures?

4 ways of addressing

value-conflicts

• Reference to universal values (human rights, liberal principles, equality)

• Shared values (values that are historically acquired and embedded in practices)

• No harm-principle (interference is allowed if and only if someone gets harmed)

• _{Open-minded intercultural dialogue (involving}

Operative public values

(Parekh)

•

_{Constitutionally enshrined values}

•

_Laws

Which stages do intercultural conflicts

normally go through according to Parekh?

1. defense appeals to cultural authority

2. defense appeals to deep meaning and

connection with practice

3. Step beyond confines of culture: appeal

to wider social values

What can a dominant local culture

expect from cultural minorities?

•

Not to undo the fabric of the majority culture

•

Although majority has an obligation to

accommodate minorities, this does not hold at

any cost

•

Minority culture that is unfamiliar with local

customs must gracefully submit to the majority

Potential benefits of

cultural conflicts

•

_{Challenge views (to overcome or to}

invigorate them)

•

_{Inspire and enrich an existing culture}

•

_{Trigger implicit internal processes of}

Gustav Mahler

“Tradition is passing on the flame,

not worshipping the ashes”

Week 4 Meeting 2

Making Sense of Complex

Arguments

Questions:

week 4 meeting 2

• _{What is a valid argument?} • What is a sound argument?

• _{Can a valid argument have true premises and a false}

conclusion?

• _{Can it have false premises and a true conclusion?} • What is a cogent argument? (Give an example)

Statements can be

•

_True

or

Arguments can be

•

_{Valid or invalid}

•

_{Sound or unsound}

Validity

•

Refers to the relation between the premises and

the conclusion of an argument

•

It points at how well the premises support the

conclusion

•

Validity is only concerned with the structure of

the argument (not with the content or the truth or

falsity of any sentence)

Validity

• Establishes ONLY one thing: if the premises are true then the conclusion is true, and nothing else…

Valid arguments can have…

•

_{True premises and true conclusions}

•

_{False premises and false conclusions}

But never….

True premises and true

conclusion

•

People with red hair and light skin burn easily in

the sun.

•

Philipp has red hair and light skin

False Premise

true conclusion

•

_{Dolphins are fish}

•

All fish have tailfins

False Premise

false conclusion

Passing this course takes 10 minutes of preparation;

I have studied for 10 minutes while driving to class

Therefore I will pass the course!

Modus Ponens

•

_{If A then B}

•

_{A is indeed the case!}

•

_{Therefore B}

Fallacy (of denying the antecedent)

•

_{If A then B}

•

_{A is not the case!}

•

_{B is not the case}

Example

• _{If you get an A in all subjects you will be set for a}

rocketing career

• You have only achieved B’s and C’s

Fallacy (of affirming the consequent)

•

_{If A then B}

•

_{B is the case!}

Example

• If it rains the street gets wet

• _{The street is wet}

Modus Tolens

•

_{If A then B}

•

_{B is not the case!}

Example

•

If you study, you pass the course

•

You did not pass

•

Therefore in can be concluded that you did not

Arguments

•

_Valid



•

Sound

•

_Strong

•

Cogent

An argument is

sound

if and only if …

•

_{It is valid}

and

Deductive vs. inductive

arguments

• Deductive – arguments give conclusive support to a

claim, i.e. conclusion follows with necessity, given the premises

• _{Inductive – arguments gives support to a conclusion only}

An (inductive) argument is

strong

if and only if

The premises support the conclusion

(analogue to valid)

An (inductive) argument

is

cogent

if and only if…

•

_{If it is strong}

and

Week 5 meeting 1

Understanding and

diagramming

What does (persuasive) text

contain besides arguments

• Examples • _Images • Ideas • Descriptions • Background information • Illustrations • _{Irrelevancies} • Etc. etc….

Steps in analyzing

arguments

1. Make sure you understand the argument

2. Identify conclusion (claim)

3. Identify premises

4. Fill in gaps and delete irrelevant parts

5. Determine if it is deductive or inductive

6. Evaluate it’s validity (or strength)

7. Evaluate it’s soundness (or cogency)

“If you don’t get out of the house now you won’t catch the 9:23 bus. You will be late, and this will be probably the last time you get away with it. You boss is definitely going to raise the issue of your work attitude again and you can forget about your promotion.

…o.k., it is 9:40 now, so forget about a career in your current job.”

Sequential structure

(dependent)

“AURAK is developing into full-grown university of international standing at a remarkable speed. Student

numbers have more than doubled in two years; as of this year AURAK offers 14 new degree programs; more than 20 international academics have recently joined; MBA

programs have been approved, and our library resources have considerably augmented; the PhD program is

Convergent structure

(cumulative/semi-dependent)

Argument

Argument ArgumentArgument ArgumentArgument ArgumentArgument

Resolution / Main claim

Resolution / Main claim

Leopold II of Belgium was an

evil King

“He ruled the Congo Free State … as a personal domain. His men tortured, maimed, and slaughtered millions of Congolese. Congolese were killed if they did not bring enough rubber. Hundreds of thousands of people had their hands, legs, feet, arms, heads, ears, and noses cut off.

Many villages were burned... Leopold’s men raped [and] flogged natives. They slaughtered hundreds … of children.”

Parallel structure

(independent arguments)

Argument

Argument ArgumentArgument ArgumentArgument ArgumentArgument

Resolution / Main claim

Resolution / Main claim

Please draw a diagram

“This ring is made of gold. Since gold conducts electricity, this ring will too”

Like so???

This ring is made of gold This ring is made of gold Since gold conducts electricity, this ring conducts electricity too Since gold conducts electricity,

Better

This ring is made of gold

This ring is made of

gold Gold conducts electricityGold conducts electricity This ring will conduct

electricity

This ring will conduct electricity

Best (Toulmin model)

Premise:

This ring is made of gold

Premise:

This ring is made of gold

Warrant:

Gold conducts electricity Warrant:

Gold conducts electricity Conclusion:

This ring will conduct electricity

Conclusion:

This ring will conduct electricity

Week 5 Meeting 2

Reasons for Belief and Doubt: personal

experience and fooling ourselves

Steps in analyzing

arguments (reminder)

1. Make sure you understand the argument

2. Identify conclusion (claim)

3. Identify premises

4. Fill in gaps and delete irrelevant parts

5. Determine if it is deductive or inductive

6. Evaluate it’s validity (or strength)

7. Evaluate it’s soundness (or cogency)

Alan Greenspan (2005)

“The use of a growing array of derivatives

and the related application of

more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and

managing risk are key factors underpinning

the greater resilience of our largest financial

institutions ... Derivatives have permitted the

unbundling of financial risks.”

Steps 1 & 2

“The use of a growing array of derivatives

and the related application of

more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and

managing risk are key factors underpinning

the greater resilience of our largest financial

institutions ... Derivatives have permitted the

unbundling of financial risks.”

Step 3

“The use of a

growing array of derivatives

and the related application of

more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and

managing risk are key factors underpinning

the greater resilience of our largest financial

institutions ...

Derivatives have permitted the

unbundling of financial risks

.”

Step 4

“The use of a

growing array of derivatives

and the related application of

more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and

managing risk are key factors underpinning

the greater resilience of our largest financial

institutions ...

Derivatives have permitted the

unbundling of financial risks

.”

Step 5 (Diagramming)

Warrant: derivatives help unbundling financial risks, and thereby help

resilience

Warrant: derivatives help unbundling financial risks, and thereby help

resilience Banks today are more

resilient

Banks today are more resilient

Alternative

Financial institutions use a growing array of

derivatives

Financial institutions use a growing array of

derivatives Explicit: Derivatives help unbundling financial risks Explicit: Derivatives help unbundling financial risks

Banks today are more resilient

Banks today are more resilient

Financial institutions have unbundled their

risk

Financial institutions have unbundled their

risk Implicit: Unbundling financial risks increases resilience Implicit: Unbundling financial risks increases resilience

Complete…

Financial institutions use a growing array of

derivatives

Financial institutions use a growing array of

derivatives Derivatives help unbundling financial risks Derivatives help unbundling financial risks

Banks today are more resilient

Banks today are more resilient

Financial institutions have unbundled their

risk

Financial institutions have unbundled their

risk Unbundling financial risks increases resilience Unbundling financial risks increases resilience More sophisticated methods of measuring risks More sophisticated methods of measuring risks Better risk management Better risk management

Four ways to attack an

argument (LAU)

• _{Direct method 1: attack the premise} • Direct method 2: attack the reasoning

• Indirect method 1: attack conclusion

• Indirect method 2: use analogous argument to show that original argument is poor

Alan Greenspan (2005)

• Derivatives help unbundling risks (and thereby increase the resilience of financial institutions)

• Derivatives helped increasing the financial resilience of big financial institutions.

Alan Greenspan (2005)

“The use of a growing array of derivatives

and the related application of

more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and

managing risk are key factors underpinning

the greater resilience of our largest financial

institutions ... Derivatives have permitted the

unbundling of financial risks.”

Questions:

week 5 meeting 2

• _{What are the sources of personal knowledge?} • How reliable are they?

• Is our memory true to the facts?

• What is the problem with confirmation bias and how can we help resisting it?

• Can we guard ourselves against manipulation (e.g. by the media)? If so how?

Sources of personal

knowledge

• Perception: acquaintance of the world through senses

• _{Memory: records of experienced events and encoded}

knowledge

• Judgment/Reasoning: augmentation of knowledge and

Change blindness

• Murder mystery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ubNF9QNEQLA

• Person swap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb-gT6vDrmU

Memory or false

memory?

• False memories (simple mistake)

• “Recovered” memories (psychoanalysis)

• Memory by association (e.g. manufactured laboratory memory: though suggestive context information)

Judgment: Framing

• Would you buy a car radio for 1600 Dirham?

• Would you prefer a car with a radio for 95000 Dirham? Rather than on without for 93400Dirham?

Judgment: Framing

• 93 % of students registered early when penalty fee for late registration was emphasised. Only 67 % when it was presented as a discount for early registration…

Week 6 Persuasion,

Manipulation and Fallacies

Recap: Change blindness

• Murder mystery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= ubNF9QNEQLA

• Person swap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb-gT6vDrmU

Questions:

week 6 meeting 1

• What are the problems of “resisting contrary evidence” and “confirmation bias”?

• _{How can we guard ourselves against them?}

• _{What reasons do we have to read/watch news with critical}

attention?

• _{What means does the advertising industry have to persuade}

or manipulate us?

• Can we resist persuasion and manipulation (by the media or the advertising industry)? If so, how?

Cognitive Bias

• Evidential bias: misapplying critical standards for revising or confirming beliefs

• Context bias: being swayed by the context or presentation of an issue

• Ego bias: Over (or under-) estimating ones own capacities

• _{Memory Bias: typical misrepresentations of reality due to}

Evidential Biase

• Confirmation bias: we tend to interpret new information

as confirming our existing beliefs;

• Resistance to contrary evidence: we give undue

recognition or treatment to evidence counterviewing our beliefs

Confirmation Bias

• We read existing experience as evidence for our view

• We select sources of information that support our convictions

Resistance to contrary

evidence

• We sometimes ignore or dismiss contrary evidence (e.g. “this is just liberal garble and communist propaganda”) • We give it unduly severe scrutiny (e.g. we demand more

evidence, criticize methodology, dismiss examples as anecdotal and not representative, or we demand proof instead of good support)

• We sometimes interpret contrary evidence to support our claim

Context biases

• Anchoring: setting an arbitrary reference point. Judgment uses this as a basis for adjustments

• Framing…see previous week

• _{Sensual experience: e.g. light, smell, color, music, e.g.}

Ego biases

• Most people think their kids are above average

• _{Most people think they are more intelligent than their}

peers

• More than 50 % believe they drive more securely when they had alcohol

Memory Biases

• _{People think emotional or dramatic events are more}

likely

• They give more weight to firsthand experience than statistics

• Imagining an outcome makes us think it is more likely to happen

• _{People respond more positively to familiar things}

• Recent experiences have a greater impact than earlier ones

Combating cognitive

biases (Lau)

• _{Enhance awareness: Learn about these biases and their}

causes

• Think critically! Careful and systematic reflection helps discovering biases

• Seek feedback and criticism. Don’t be too proud or resistant

• Take other points of view: try to see the world through the eyes of another

Can we exploit ignorance and

biases? Recognition heuristic

Germans were in average better at telling whether San Diego or San Antonio is bigger than Americans! Why? Because more Germans had only ever heard about San Diego and never of San Antonio than vice versa….

Persuading, convincing,

manipulating

• To persuade: to cause someone to believe or do something (using reason or other methods)

• _{To convince: to bring someone to embrace a belief or}

resolution by supplying sufficiently strong reasons

• _{To manipulate: to control someone's beliefs and actions}

Methods of persuasion/manipulation in

advertisement

• _{Appealing to senses (smell, touch, sight)} • Suggesting lifestyles (family, youth, energy)

• Identification (celebrities, models)

• Creating and addressing fears

• Subliminal messages

• Imagination

• Product placement

• Repetition, frequency (recognition effect)

• Misleading comparison (30% off)

Supermarket psychology

Media

Unbiased public service of investigation and factual reporting:

• Advertising value

• Customer taste and expectation

• Entertainment value

• _{Legal and cultural restrictions} • Vested interest groups

Questions to ask

• _{How independent is it?}

• Who is it addressed to? (how educated, demanding, fair-minded, interested)

• _{Which presuppositions does it make?} • How balanced is the view?

Further advice

• _{Read active: engage with the argument, find criticism,}

analyze

• Try to understand the structure of the arguments

• _{Read critical: ask about words used, framing} • See what is not there!

Week 6 meeting 2

Fallacies

Three types of fallacies

(Vaughn/Lau)

• _{Fallacies of inconsistency: contradicting or self-defeating}

claims

• Fallacies with irrelevant premises: appealing to extraneous information

• Fallacies with inacceptable/insufficient premises: assuming something without good reason

Inconsistency/Selfcontracition

“I don’t speak a word of English.”

“I always lie”

Fallacies with irrelevant

premises

• _{Genetic fallacy: Arguing that a claim is true or false}

solely because of its origin

• Composition/Division: Arguing that what is true of the

parts must be true of the whole or vice versa

• _{Ad hominem (appeal to person): rejecting a claim by}

criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself

Example: fallacy of division

“A supermarket chain wanted to buy up my block. They offered each party 1 Million $ for their flats. One of our neighbors declined and the deal fell through... At least now I know that my flat is worth a million or more.”

Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Genetic fallacy

“Arthur Conan Doyle (Author of Sherlock Holmes) probably had a drinking problem. His father was an alcoholic.”

Fallacies with irrelevant

premises (2)

(Vaughn Ch.5)

• Equivocation: the use of words in two different senses in

an argument

• _{Appeal to popularity (ad populum): arguing that claim}

must be true/false merely because a substantial number of people believe so

• Appeal to tradition: arguing that a claim must be true

Equivocation

“I love you, all the world loves a lover, you are all the world to me, so you love me too”

Appeal to tradition

There is a long tradition that arctic Inuit have hunted Seals. It is therefore not reasonable to interfere.

Equivocation

There is no reason to pass an affirmative action policy to make people more equal. We are all naturally so different that people will never be equal.

Fallacies with irrelevant

premises (3)

(Vaughn Ch.5)

• Appeal to ignorance: arguing that a lack of evidence

proves something

• Appeal to emotion: the use of emotions as a premises in

an argument

• Red herring: the deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue

during an argument

• Straw man: the distorting, weakening, or

oversimplifying of someone’s position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted

Red herring

A: is making an argument that eating red meat is bad for your health

B: supports the argument by saying that eating meat implies cruelty to animals

Appeal to ignorance

“ Bigfoot does not exist. There simply has been not a single conclusive prove of his existence.”

Straw man

“After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was

surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending.”

Appeal to emotion/

ad misericordiam/wishful thinking

Saying under tears: “I so much hoped and expected to get an A in this exam. You should give me an A”

Fallacies with unacceptable

premises (1)

• Begging the question: the attempt to establish the

conclusion of an argument by using that conclusion as a premise

• False dilemma: incorrectly asserting that only two

alternatives exist

• Slippery slope: arguing without good reasons, that taking

a particular step will inevitably lead to a further, undesirable step or steps

False dilemma

“You are either with us or you are against us”

Slippery slope

“If you allow using the pill after, you are on a road to

allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and why not legalize killing of infants and murder in general!?”

Is slippery slope necessarily

a fallacy?

“Where they burn books they will ultimately burn people also”

Begging the question

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."

Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."

Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"

Fallacies with unacceptable

premises (2)

• Hasty generalization: the drawing of a conclusion about

a group based on an inadequate sample of the group

• Faulty analogy: an argument in which the thing being

Hasty generalization

“ Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs dropped out of university and became very successful. I can afford to drop out too.”

False analogy/

equivocation

No one objects to a physician looking up a difficult case in medical books during a medical examination. Why, then, shouldn't students taking a difficult examination be

Steps in analyzing arguments

(slightly adapted)

1. Make sure you understand the argument

2. Identify conclusion (claim)

3. Identify premises

4. Fill in gaps and delete irrelevant parts

5. Determine if it is deductive or inductive

6. Evaluate it’s validity (or strength)

7. Evaluate it’s soundness (or cogency)

6/7a. Point out any fallacies

8. Draw a diagram or the argument’s structure