Critical Reasoning: Instant Democracy is Never Doable

1. Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm Today: Second Editorial Analysis Due --- Instant Democracy is Never Doable Discuss Midterm Exams & Re-do (In 2 weeks) Final Essay: Do You Have Any Questions? Discussion on Chapter Six & Seven Next Week: Portfolio Assignment #5 Read Chapter Nine, pp. 243- 251, 255-270, pp.272-274 Exercise 9-2, odd numbered problems. 1

2. What is Rhetoric? ·        “Collect” 2-3 artifacts that illustrate different forms of rhetoric. For each, write a description of the artifact selected, identify the form of rhetoric, and explain why this is an example of that particular form. ·  What are Logical Fallacies? ·        “Collect” 2-3 artifacts that illustrate different logical fallacies. For each, write a description of the artifact selected, identify the type of logical fallacy it is, and explain why this is an example of that particular logical fallacy. Portfolio Assignment #5

3. Logical Fallacies 3

4. Psychological & Related Fallacies • Logical fallacies pretend to give an argument with a premise and conclusion, but the premises do not support the conclusion and typically only evoke emotions that make us “want” to believe or “satisfy” some pre-judgment. • There are of course many different kinds of logical errors. There are some recurring patterns of these that are found so frequently that they have been characterized and defined as common “logical fallacies.” • Thus, a logical fallacy is a particular type of logical error that occurs frequently and can be understood in terms of general characteristics or in the form of the supposed argument. 4

5. Chapters Six & Seven: Logical Fallacies CHAP 6: Amber: Argumentum Ad Hominem Tim: The Straw Man / False Dilemma Cassandra: Misplacing Burden of Proof / Begging the Question Jessica: Appeal to Emotion Derek: Irrelevant Conclusions / Slippery Slope CHAP 7: Jordan: Generalizations Dana: Weak Analogy Instructor: Fallacious Appeals to Authority, Popularity, Cause & Effect; Untestable Explanations In your presentation, you must define your fallacy type, give examples, and distinguish it from other logical fallacies that are similar. I encourage you to use Power Point slides in your presentation if possible, but it is not necessary.

6. Chapter Six: Relevance Fallacies (Red Herrings) 6

7. More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair • 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. Cowgirl: “The animal rights people shouldn’t pick on rodeos. They should all come see how much fun all the kids are having. And those dudes who ride the bulls. Are they hot or what? Important Video 7

8. More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair • 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. • So, trying to “clarify” a vague argument by “giving all the facts you have” may indeed be the absolutely WORST thing you can do. 8

9. 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 the person or personality of the individual making the claim. “BOB: Reality consists of more than just what can see and feel. God is real. BIKER: “If you weren’t so removed from reality, I might be more inclined to discuss it with you.” Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 9

10. The Ad Hominem Fallacy • Most ad hominem arguments are negative and typical examples of ad hominem arguments will be negative, but not always. • e.g. Heather is very nice and is always a very positive person, so if she is opposed to the war in Iraq, there must be something terribly wrong with it. • E.g. Ms. Gullible: “The Jehovah Witnesses that come to the door always seem to be the “sweetest” people so there must be something to what they believe.” 10

11. The Personal Attack Ad Hominem • Say you twist the example about Heather around. • e.g. My boss is a very negative person, so although he is opposed to the war in Iraq, that means nothing. He is against everything. • e.g. remember Rush Limbaugh in the video: “If you are going to start agreeing with Rosie O’Donnell, I would suggest rehab and treatment.” (Ridicule & Sasrcasm) Video 11

12. Specific Forms of Ad Hominems • The Inconsistency Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if one can show that a person has made contradictory claims at different occasions, then the claims are thereby refuted, e.g. Hilary can’t be right that Obama is ready to be president as she is saying now. She said exactly the opposite during her political campaign. • The Circumstantial Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if one’s claim is associated to the claimant’s circumstances in life, then the claim is refuted e..g. Of course, Sen. Nelson is for farm subsidies. He is from Nebraska. • Poisoning the Well occurs when an ad hominem is issued prior to allowing someone to make their argument. Interestingly, a speaker might have “the well poisoned against her” by the opponent making a denial of something unsavory about her, such as “Hilary may not be a bleeding heart liberal, but….” Video 12

13. The Genetic Fallacy • The Genetic Fallacy suggests erroneously that a claim is refuted by disputing 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 science or the universe. Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 13

14. Misplacing/Shifting 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. • Another example is when a proponent of a claim suggests that his position is right because you haven’t give a good argument for the opposite claim. Video Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 14

15. The Burden of “Proof”? (But Mr. Dickey, you said ….) • BE VERY CAREFUL! • This terminology is misleading and seems to confuse the issue that we clarified in class earlier about proof and evidence. • Even if you agree to allow someone to say “proof” when they really mean evidence, be sure that you are clear about the difference between the forms of support in deductive and inductive arguments.. 15

16. Begging the Question • Circular Argument / “Petitio Principii” • To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate. • That is, you are assuming your conclusion as a premise. • How does it differ from a valid, deductive argument? • Be careful of a very common misuse of the term in which one confuses “begging the question” with “brings up the question.” 16

17. Chapter Seven: Induction Fallacies 17

18. Generalizations • Inductive generalization Fallacies occur when too little support is given to make the claim reasonable. Various ways this is done is: 1. Hasty Generalization, or Arguing from an insufficient number of cases, e.g. The argument from anecdote. . 2. Generalizing from Exceptional Cases, e.g. The Fallacy of Biased Sample or the Self- selection Fallacy • 3. Accident. Assuming a general principle has to apply to every given circumstance. 18

19. Chapter NineDeductive Arguments:Categorical Logic

20. Categorical Logic • Consider the following claims: 1. Everybody who is ineligible for Physics 1A must take Physical Science 1. 2) No students who are required to take Physical Sciences 1 are eligible for Physics 1A. • Are these different claims or the same claim? • Categorical logic is important because it gives us a tool to work through the confusion with a technique to answer that question clearly. • Such is done through the use of standard logic forms.

21. Categorical Logic • Categorical Logic is logic based on the relations of inclusion and exclusion among classes. • That is, categorical logic is about things being in and out of groups and what it means to be in or out of one group by being in or out of another group.

22. Four Basic Kinds of Claims in Categorical Logic (Standard Forms) A: All _________ are _________. (Ex. All Presbyterians are Christians. E: No ________ are _________. (Ex. No Muslims are Christians. ___________________________________ I: Some ________ are _________. (Ex. Some Arabs are Christians. O: Some ________ are not _________. (Ex. Some Muslims are not Sunnis.

23. Four Basic Kinds of Claims in Categorical Logic What goes in the blanks are terms. In the first blank, the term is the subject. In the second blank goes the predicate term. A: All ____S_____ are ____P_____. (Ex. All Presbyterians are Christians.

24. Venn Diagrams

25. Categorical Logic The Four Basic Kinds of Claims in Categorical Logic can be represented using Venn Diagrams. (See page 256 in textbook.) The two claims that include one class or part of a class within another are the affirmative claims (I.e. the A-claims & the I-Claims. The two claims that exclude one class or part of a class from another are the negative claims (I.e. the E-claims and the O-claims.

26. The Bottom Line? Translating Claims into Standard Form for Analysis • Two claims are equivalent claims if, and only if, they would be true in all and exactly the same circumstances. • Equivalent claims, in this sense, say the same thing. • Equivalent claims will have the same Venn Diagram.

27. Some Tips • The word “only” used by itself, introduces the predicate term of an A-claim, e.g. “Only Matinees are half-price shows” is to be translated as “All half-price shows are matinees” • The phrase “the only” introduces the subject term of an A-claim, e.g Matinees are the only half-price shows” also translates to “All half-price shows are matinees.” • Claims about single individuals should be treated as A-claims or E-claims, e.g. “Aristotle is left-handed” translates to either “Everybody who is Aristotle is left handed” or “No person who is Aristotle is not left-handed.”