Claims and Critical Thinking

1. Claims and Critical Thinking • Claims are either true or false. • Some sentences (even some nondeclarative ones) make claims, but some (even some declarative ones) do other things. • CRITICAL THINKING: The careful, deliberate determination of whether to accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim – and the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it.

2. Skills Beneficial to Everyone • Critical thinking is not about attacking and defeating others; it’s about helping them and you. • Critical thinking is more a set of skills than a set of facts.

3. Skills Involved in Critical Thinking • Careful listening and reasoning • Finding hidden assumptions • Tracing the consequences of claims • Determining the credibility of sources • Recognizing and avoiding various sorts of rhetoric and pseudoreasoning • Analyzing and evaluating arguments

4. Issues • Issue: a matter of controversy or uncertainty. • Issues may be internal (between self and self) or external (between self and others.) • Topics of conversation aren’t issues unless there is controversy or uncertainty that the parties are trying to resolve. • Critical thinking requires identifying the issue, separating it from others and focusing on it. • Issues should be kept straight and dealt with in proper order (efficiently.)

5. Arguments • Arguments are one of the ways used to settle issues. • Arguments attempt to support a claim (the conclusion) by giving reasons for believing it (the premises.) • The issue is “Whether or not the conclusion is acceptable given the premises.”

6. Facts and Opinions • “Fact” indicates that a claim is true. • “Opinion” indicates that a claim is believed. • Clearly, some opinions are factual and some aren’t.

7. Objectivity and Subjectivity • An issue is factual or (objective) if there are accepted means for settling it. • An issue is a matter of pure opinion (subjective) if both sides could be correct. • Objective claims are true or false regardless of our inner states while subjective claims are usually just expressions of inner states. • Controversy alone does not make an issue subjective; equality of persons doesn’t mean equality of opinions. • Disputes may arise over whether certain types of claims (e.g., moral ones) are objective or subjective.

8. Organizing an Argumentative Essay • Make the focus clear at the beginning. • Stick to the issue. • Arrange the elements in a logical order. • Be complete (easier with limited topics.)

9. Good Writing Habits • Outline after the first draft. • Revise, revise, revise! • Let others read and criticize. • Read it out loud. • When satisfied, put it aside for a while then revise again!

10. Essays to Avoid • Windy preamble essays. • Rambling stream-of-consciousness essays. • Knee-jerk reaction essays. • Glancing-blow essays. • Let-the-reader-do-the-work essays.

11. Clarity I: Definitions • A definition can serve different purposes: to stipulate, to explain, to precise and to persuade. • Definitions can be by example, by synonym or analytical (genus-species). • Abstract terms may not be completely definable. • The literal meaning of a term is distinct from its emotive force (the denotation is distinct from the connotation.)

12. Clarity II: Ambiguity • Ambiguous claims have more than one meaning in the context. • In semantical ambiguity, specific words or phrases have multiple meanings. • In syntactical ambiguity, the entire structure of the sentence is at fault. • In grouping ambiguity, it isn’t clear whether we are talking about the members of a group collectively or individually.

13. Composition and Division Fallacies • A composition fallacy occurs when we argue that what holds true individually must hold true collectively. • A division fallacy occurs when we argue that what holds true collectively must hold true individually.

14. Clarity III: Vagueness • A claim is vague if it doesn’t have a precise enough meaning in the context. • Vagueness is a matter of degree. • Fuzzy words (“old”, “bald”, “rich”) can produce vagueness, but you can be vague even without them.

15. Clarity IV: Comparative Claims • Is important information missing? • Is the standard of comparison clear? • Is the same standard being used? • Are the same reporting and recording practices being used? • Are the items really comparable? • Is the comparison an average and, if so, what kind (mean, median or mode)?

16. When Should We Accept an Unsupported Claim? • If it does not conflict with our observations, our background knowledge or other credible claims. • If it comes from a credible, unbiased source.

17. Even Personal Observation Can Be Unreliable • If the observing conditions are bad • If the observer is distracted or impaired • If the instruments used are faulty

18. Other Factors Affecting Personal Observation • Individual powers of observation • Training and experience • Beliefs, hopes, fears, expectations, bias • Memory • Even so, personal observation is usually the best source of information we have; we should accept it unless we have a specific reason to challenge it.

19. Does the Claim Conflict with Background Knowledge • The less conflict, the higher the initial plausibility of the claim. • If there is conflict we can rightfully reject the claim even without evidence from personal observation. • Remember: Some of your background beliefs are surely wrong but you don’t know which. • The broader your background knowledge the better!

20. Assessing the Credibility of a Source: Expertise • Education • Experience • Accomplishments • Reputation (especially among other experts) • Position • All, of course, in fields relevant to the issue.

21. Why Experts Can Be Wrong • Expertise can be bought • The experts may disagree • The subject may be such that none can claim expertise.

22. News Media • Print provides broader coverage than electronic • Newspapers may feel pressure from advertisers and the local public • Headlines are sometimes misleading • Size and location of the story may be disproportionate to its importance • Opinion sometimes gets blended with facts

23. Slanters • These are the various linguistic devices commonly used to attempt to persuade without argument. • They rely on • the emotive force of words and phrases and/or • linguistic manipulations that suggest hidden meanings

24. Words of Caution on Slanters • Slanters are only bad when they are used to mislead. • Slanters can be combined with perfectly good reasoning (so don’t throw the baby out with the bath.) • Sometimes its wise and good to slant.

25. Slanters I: Emotive Force • Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: Its all in how you describe it… • Persuasive comparisons, definitions and explanations: …or how you compare, define or explain it. • Stereotypes: Just read the label.

26. Slanters II: Linguistic Manipulation • Innuendo: “I never said he was drunk…” • Loaded questions: These have unjustified hidden assumptions (innuendo in interrogative dress) • Weaslers: Watering down a claim • Downplayers: The verbal brush-off • Hyperbole: Extravagant overstatement • Proof Surrogates: “Evidence” that isn’t

27. Manipulating the Information I: The News • Most stories are given, not dug up; sources must not be offended. • Since the news media are private businesses, they mustn’t offend either advertisers or audiences. • The result is bias, oversimplification, passivity and an overindulgence in entertainment. • We will get the news we want and pay for.

28. Advertising • General Question: Does this ad give me a good reason to buy the product?” • General Answer: Only if it establishes that I will be better off with the product than without it (or than with the money it will cost). • Keep in mind: • Wants should be distinct from needs • Ads purposefully try to instill desires and fears we previously lacked

29. Three Ways Ads Lacking Reasons Can Persuade • By associating the product with pleasurable feelings • By associating the product with people we admire or wish to be like • By associating the product with desirable situations • Unless availability is all you need to know, buying a product based on a reasonless ad is never justified.

30. What About “Promise Ads” that Supply Reasons? • Claims in ads often come with no guarantees and are notoriously vague, ambiguous, misleading, exaggerated and wrong. • We only get the information the seller wants us to have! • Our suspicions about ads in general justifies suspicions about particular ads. • So even ads with reasons don’t in themselves justify a purchase.

31. What Pseudoreasoning Is • No grounds for accepting a claim are given even though something approximating an argument may be there. • Emotional appeals, factual irrelevancies and persuasive devices are used to induce acceptance of a claim.

32. Types of Psedoreasoning • Smokescreen/Red Herring • Subjectivist Fallacy • Common Belief • Common Practice • Peer Pressure/Bandwagon • Wishful Thinking • Scare Tactics

33. More Pseudoreasoning • Appeal to Pity • Apple Polishing • Horse Laugh/Ridicule/Sarcasm • Appeal to Anger or Indignation • Two Wrongs Make a Right

34. Even More Pseudoreasoning • Ad Hominem • Personal Attack • Circumstantial ad Hominem • Pseudorefutation • Poisoning the Well • Genetic Fallacy • Burden of Proof

35. Some Oldies but Goodies • Straw Man • False Dilemma • Perfectionist Fallacy • Line-Drawing Fallacy • Slippery Slope • Begging the Question

36. Arguments and Explanations • We give an argument to try to settle whether some claim is true. • We give an explanation to try to explain why some claim is true.

37. Argument or Explanation? • Sometimes the writer doesn’t know • They use the same words and phrases (“reason”, “that’s why”, etc.) • The word “explanation” and its derivatives can appear in arguments. • Explanations can be used in arguments. • Sometimes it depends on the context and the interests of those concerned.

38. Explanations and Justifications • A justification is an argument in defense of an action. • Although justifications often include explanations, explanations can also be neutral regarding approval or disapproval. • So not every attempt to explain something is an attempt to justify it; explanations need not imply approval.

39. Kinds of Explanations • Physical • Behavioral • Functional

40. Physical Explanations • These seek the physical background causing the event in question. • The physical background consists of • The general physical conditions (usually unstated) • That link of the causal chain leading to the event which, based on our interests and knowledge, we take as the direct or immediate cause of the event.

41. Three Mistakes in Physical Explanations • Tracing causal chains back too far • Expecting reasons and motives behind all causal chains. • Giving physical explanations at the wrong technical level for the situation and/or audience.

42. Behavioral Explanations I • These attempt to explain behavior in terms of psychology, political science, sociology, history, economics or “common-sense psychology”. • The causal background is historical. • Which factors (political, economic, social, psychological) are important depends on our interests and knowledge; there is no single correct explanation of any voluntary behavior.

43. Behavioral Explanations II • Recurring patterns of behavior require theoretical explanations. • Expect more exceptions to generalizations about behavioral regularities than to generalization about regularities in nature. • These explanations can also be traced inappropriately far and pitched at the wrong technical level for the audience. • Explanations by reasons and motives look forward, unlike physical explanations. • Don’t confuse a reason (argument) for the reason (explanation).

44. Functional Explanations • A functional explanation by puts a thing in a wider context and then indicates the role it plays in that context. • Actual and intended functions can differ. • An item may have more than one function. • Since functions usually depend on reasons and motives, functional explanations are often behavioral explanations “in passive voice.”

45. Spotting Weak Explanations I • Testability: Beware of rubber “ad hoc” explanations! • Noncircularity: Some explanations just describe the phenomena in different words. • Relevance: Does the explanation allow us to make predictions? • Not Too Vague: “He’s rude because he’s out of sorts.” • Reliability: Does it lead to false predictions?

46. Spotting Weak Explanations II • Explanatory Power: The more it explains the better (especially if it’s a theory!) • Freedom from Unnecessary Assumptions: The fewer the better. • Consistency with Well-Established Theory • Absence of Alternative Explanations

47. Explanatory Comparisons • Analogies aren’t so much true or false as either enlightening or unhelpful. • The best comparisons give us the greatest number of close resemblances and the shortest list of important differences. • The hearer must be familiar with both terms of the comparison to understand and evaluate it.

48. Argument=Conclusion+Premises • A claim can be the conclusion of one argument a premise in another. • An argument may have an unstated premise or conclusion. • Premises can support the conclusion dependently or independently.

49. Argument Terminology • A good argument gives grounds for accepting the conclusion; a better argument gives more grounds. • A valid argument is one which, if we assume the premises to be true, the conclusion cannot be false. • A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. • A strong argument is one which, if we assume the premises to be true, it is unlikely that the conclusion will be false.

50. Deduction and Induction • Deductive arguments are valid or intended by their authors to be valid. • Inductive arguments are neither valid nor intended by their authors to be valid.