Philosophy 1010 Class #3 - 6/24/2010

1. Philosophy 1010 Class #3 - 6/24/2010 Title: Introduction to Philosophy Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Reading Assignment for Next Week: Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text With Readings Chapter 3.

2. Watch any movie listed below. Write a 3 paragraph (100-150 word) mini-essay discussing one or two scenes in the movie and how the scene(s) illustrate(s) a philosophical view on the nature of man that was discussed in Chapter Two and/or in class today. Movie List: Schindler’s List (1993), River’s Edge (1986), Leaving Las Vegas (1995), Blade Runner (1982), Who is Julia? (1986), A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001), Momento (2000), Total Recall (1990), The Bourne Identity (2002), Bend It Like Beckham (2002), My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002), The Long Walk Home (1990), Dark City (1998)

3. Philosophy Applied: Schindler’s List Schindler’s List tells the true story of the German businessman Oskar Schindler who comes to Nazi-occupied Poland in hopes of using the abundant slave labor force of Jews to manufacture goods for the German military to make himself a fortune. By the end of the film, he saves the lives of more than 1,100 Jews by sacrificing his personal fortune. While watching these film segments, consider views on human nature that we have talked about so far, including those of: Sigmund Freud, Thomas Hobbes, Moritz Schlick, Aristotle, Jean-Paul Sartre (Hint: Pay close attention to the following tracks on the DVD: Track 6, 7, 10, 13)

4. Logic and Critical Thinking: An Overview

5. The Fundamental Principle of Critical Thinking is The Nature of an Argument • Making a claim is stating a belief or opinion -- the conclusion • An argument is presented when you give a reason or reasons that the claim is true. -- the premise(s) • Thus, an argument consists of two parts, and one part (the premise or premises) is/are the reason(s) for thinking that the conclusion is true.

6. Two Kinds of Good Arguments • A good deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily (I.e. has to be) true. • Such an argument is called “valid” and “proves” the conclusion. • For example – Julie lives in the United States because she lives in Nebraska. • All men are mortal. • Socrates is a man. • ____ • Socrates is mortal. • A sound argument is a valid, deductive argument in which the premises are in fact true.

7. Two kinds of good arguments • A good inductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true, but not always. The truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. • Such an argument is called “strong” and supports the conclusion. • For example: Craig lives in Nebraska and he loves football, so he is a Nebraska Cornhusker fan. • If offered to me before class today, I would • have made a bet with my wife that each of you would • sit in the same seat in class that you did last • Wednesday. If she would have taken the bet, would I • have won more money than I would have lost?

8. How Do We Evaluate an Argument? Two ways (and only two ways) logically to evaluate a claim – 1) Do the premises support or prove the conclusion? 2) Are the premises true? -- It would be illogical for you to argue, for example, “I don’t want to believe that” or “You just can’t say that”, or “Where did you come up with that?” etc.

9. How Do Premises Support Conclusions? • For an Inductive argument, premises support (never prove) a conclusion based on how good the premises provide evidence for the conclusion. • Consider the argument: • (P1) If it’s raining outside, the grass near the house gets wet when the wind is not blowing strongly from the North (which doesn’t often occur). • (P2) It’s raining outside. • _________________________ • The grass near the house is wet. • Note: It would not be a contradiction to suggest that the conclusion is false but the premises are true.

10. How Do Premises Support Conclusions? • For a Deductive argument, premises prove a conclusion based on the logical form of the statement. • Consider the argument: • (P1) If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. •         (P2) It’s raining outside. •             _________________________ •         (Conclusion) The grass is wet. • In this case, the premises support the conclusion fully simply by what the premises say. It would be a contradiction to suggest that the conclusion is false but the premises are true.

11. How Do Premises Support Conclusions? “If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. It’s raining outside. Thus, the grass is wet.” We often use variables to represent statements to analyze arguments. In this case, say for example, R = It’s raining outside; W = The grass is wet. and “->” as if/then, 1) Thus we have an argument of the form: R -> W R _____ W This is the rule of modus ponens.

12. How Do Premises Support Conclusions? • “If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. The grass is not wet. Thus, it is not raining.” • R -> W • ~W • _____ • ~R • This is the rule of Modus Tollens.

13. So what kind of an argument is this? • A good God would not permit evil to exist. • There is evil in the world. • ____ • Thus, a good God does not exist. • Say G = A good God exists, E= There is no evil in the world. • Is this argument of the form: • If G  E • ~ E • _____ • ~G • If so, it is a valid deductive argument.

14. “If it’s raining outside, the grass is wet. If the grass is wet, then our toddler will slip and fall. Thus, if it is raining outside, our toddler will slip and fall.” • R -> W • W -> S • _____ • R -> S • --this is called a Hypothetical Syllogism • “Either it is raining outside or else our toddler will want go outside. Our toddler does not want to go outside. Therefore, it is raining.”                    • R v G • ~G • _____ • R • --this is called a Disjunctive Syllogism

15. How Does Sometimes Our Thinking Crash?

16. Rhetoric • We are often influenced by rhetoric, language that is psychologically persuasive but does not have pertinent logical force. • There are many kinds of rhetorical deceptions or “devices”, including: • hyperbole, • proof surrogates, • image rhetoric, and • euphemisms

17. Subjectivism • The view that “one opinion is as good as another,” or “whatever is true is only what you think is true” is subjectivism. • For some things, this makes sense. Does Miller taste great? • To tell if something is subjective, ask yourself: “If Curtis says “A” is true and Alicia says “A” is not true, can they both be right? • One cannot give an argument either for or against a subjective position. • Do you really want to say that whether God exists is subjective? What about other philosophical issues? Is what is real dependent on what your friend thinks it is?

18. Logical Fallacies Video

19. The Naturalistic Fallacy • This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to derive a normative statement (what you “ought” to do) from a descriptive statement (what “is” the case).   • For example, a student argues that the instructor should excuse him from taking the mid-term exam because he was sick. • Another example would be argue that the U.S. military should remain in Iraq because they are already there. • Another example could be to argue that simply because God exists, you should act morally.

20. The Ad Hominem Fallacy • Maybe the most common of all logical mistakes. • The Ad Hominem Fallacy mistakes the qualities of the argument itself with the qualities of the person making the claim. Most Ad Hominem arguments are negative. • In an ad hominem, a person attacks the proponent of an argument rather than analyzing the argument itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emz5hpxkrw

21. The Straw Man • The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when a claim is made that distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misinterprets an opponent’s position such that it becomes easy to refute and perhaps even trivial and thus your claim looks better in comparison. • On Meet the Press, Sen. Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina argued that Democrats opposing President Bush’s actions in Iraq want to lose. • In one of the presidential debates, Gov. Richardson in response to Sen. Hilary Clinton’s promotion of herself as an “experienced” candidate for the Presidency asked, “So what is wrong with being a governor?” Technically, this was a “straw man” characterization of Sen. Clinton’s argument. He could have avoided creating a straw man by asking something like “Is being a governor less relevant experience than being a Senator?”

22. The Red Herring / Smokescreen • A red herring occurs when a topic or claim is introduced that is irrelevant to the claim at issue with the intent only of distracting the argument. • Similarly, a smokescreen is when topics or claims are introduced that are irrelevant to the original issue with the specific intent to make the issue appear to be too complex or complicated to resolve. • Example: Senator, wait, before you vote on Bill 88. do you realize that Delaware passed a bill on the same subject in 1932, but it was ruled unconstitutional for twenty reasons. Let me list them here.... Also, before you vote on SB 88 you need to know that .... And so on.

23. Wishful Thinking • Our hopes, desires and personal needs can delude us and make us vulnerable to the fallacy of wishful thinking. • We should always be able to recognize when analyzing an argument what we want to believe and be sure that our desires are not overriding our critical thinking and making us come to conclusions simply because of what “we want to believe.” • We may want to believe, for example, that God exists so that we might feel more secure or happy. We must thus separate that wish from the reasons that can serve as premises for our claim that God exists.

24. The Post Hoc Fallacy • Believing that one event caused another just because they occurred at about the same time is the fallacy of Post Hoc. • Example: • Billy’s grades began to dip exactly at the same time that he stopped going to church, so I’m sure that it was not going to church that caused his grades to drop.

25. The Genetic Fallacy • The Genetic Fallacy suggests erroneously that a claim is refuted by identifying its origin or history. • e.g. The constitution is a bogus document since it was primarily written with the intent to protect the property of the wealthy. • e.g. God does not exist because the whole idea of God originated with superstitious people who had no knowledge of all that we now have in science about the universe and the human race. • e.g. Religion is an “illusion” because it originates from repressed, infantile needs (Sigmund Freud)

26. Begging the Question • Begging the question is assuming as true the claim that is at issue and is to be supported. • For example, God exists because the Bible says so and we should believe what the Bible says because it was written by God. • Another example: • An old gold miner’s joke: • One gold prospector asks the other: Why do you get two pieces of gold for every one I get. The second answers “Because I am the leader.” The first then replies but why are you the leader? The second responds: “Because I have twice the gold you do.”

27. The False Dilemma • The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available. • e.g. Either we keep all of our current forces in Iraq until victory or we just pull out now and let the terrorists win. • e.g. You don’t believe in allowing prayer in public schools? So what are you an atheist?

28. The Slippery Slope • The Slippery Slope Fallacy asserts that we can’t let one thing happen because it could lead to something else where there is no argument that the first action does in fact lead to the second. • e.g. Making people register hand guns is just the first step to making guns illegal. • e.g. Marijuana use has to be illegal because it can lead to harder drugs. • e.g. We may have made a mistake invading Iraq, but now that we are there we have to finish the job.

29. Misplacing the Burden of Proof • The burden of proof in an argument rests on the person making the claim. It is her responsibility to give the premises and the reasons to believe her claim is true. • To try to shift the burden of proof onto the person who is listening to your argument and trying to make him show that you are wrong is called misplacing the burden of proof. • A particular example of this logical error is the appeal to ignorance which suggests that we should believe something because no one has proven or shown it to be wrong.

30. 4 Steps to Evaluating an Argument • Be sure you understand the argument. What is the claim? What are the premises for the claim? • Determine if the argument is deductive or inductive and apply the appropriate test for validity or strong support. • Identify and weed out any logical fallacies, rhetoric, subjectivity, or irrelevancies. Clarify any vagueness or ambiguity. • Examine the truth of the premises. If the argument is inductive, evaluate the evidence.

31. So what kind of an argument is this? There is evil in the world. A good God would not permit evil to exist. ____ Thus, a God who is good does not exist. Is it Deductive or Inductive? Is it a valid argument? Are the premises true?

32. Pop Quiz (worth 15 points)

33. Chapter 2 • On Human Nature: A Metaphysical Study • What is it to be Human? • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5n50vs6VMo • What is a Person? • What is a Self? • What is a Soul? • What is a Person Worth? • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgf5H57IP8

34. The Traditional Western View • The Prevalent View Regarding the Nature of Man Makes Four Basic Claims: • That the self is conscious and has a purpose • That the self is distinct from the body, but somehow is related. • That the self endures through time. • That the self has an independent existence from other selves

35. Writing Assignment Worth 5 points in Participation Category. Pose a new philosophical question in response to what we have discussed tonight – either on the nature of critical thinking or in regards to the nature of man. Rather than trying to answer the question, list and discuss what other relevant questions might need to be answered or at least clarified in order that you may even have a chance to answer this one.