Critical Thinking
PHIL 110-01; 110-02
Fall 2014
Main 010
Professor Diane Michelfelder
Office: Main 110
Office hours: W 12-1; F 9:40-10:40, and by appointment
Office phone number: 651-696-6197
E-mail: michelfelder@macalester.edu
What this course is about
Everyday life displays a rich dynamics within which we try to think things
through to logical conclusions; distinguish between solid arguments on the one
hand and stupid ones on the other; determine the value of claims, often for
competing goods, that others are presenting and make efforts to figure out what to
believe or not to believe based on the evidence that is given; gauge the probability
of whether something might or might not occur; and thoughtfully construct
arguments to present to others in a variety of conversational situations. The
purpose of this course is to make you more skilled in these kinds of everyday
reasoning. Part of the course will be focused on understanding the logical
structures of the different types of arguments—for instance, arguments that
involve statistical generalizations or ones where we reason to the best
explanation-- that we frequently employ in the course of everyday life. We will
cover common missteps that people often make in everyday reasoning, including
missteps that people make in making judgments based on probability, so that you
will be able to better recognize these when you see them and to avoid making
them yourselves. We will look at some principles of probability and how these
might be used in making good judgments in situations of uncertainty where risks
need to be calculated as best as possible. The course will also involve in-class
group work that will help develop your skills in evaluating and making
arguments. Toward the end of the course, we will take a step back and take a
critical look at some aspects of critical thinking itself, as well as some recent work
focused on the untrustworthiness of human reasoning processes. To put the
overall purpose of this course as succinctly as possible: the purpose is to narrow
the gap in your own life between thinking and critical thinking so that the more
thinking you do, the more critical your processes of reflection become.
Course learning goals
Because the aim of critical thinking is to deepen your skills at everyday kinds of
reasoning, the primary learning goals for this course are focused on expanding
your capabilities for:








Understanding the logical structures of the primary kinds of arguments used in
the everyday contexts of life;
Analyzing arguments within these classes for their strengths and weaknesses;
Evaluating sources and quality of data;
Recognizing common fallacies in reasoning, including reasoning involving
determining probabilities and the presence of causation;
Understanding and being able to engage in good critical thinking in contexts
of risk and uncertainty;
Constructing good arguments using principles of informal reasoning;
Reflecting on your own critical thinking practices; and
Listening to the arguments of others without prejudging these arguments in
advance.
What you’ll be reading
Walter Sinnott Armstrong and Robert Fogelin. 2014. Understanding Arguments:
An Introduction to Informal Logic. 9th Ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Note:
Please be sure you purchase this edition.
Ian Hacking. 2001. An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
What you’ll be doing
Homework: There will be a total of 10 homework assignments for this course. In
general, homework will be assigned in class on Friday and due on the following
Monday. Assignments must be turned in on time to count toward your course
grade. Each assignment will be worth 10 points.
Tests: This course will have three tests, during the 4th, 7th, and 11th weeks. These
will not be cumulative. Material covered between the end of the 11th week and the
last day of classes will be tested for on the final exam. We will try to set aside a
little time in the class session preceding the test to go over the material that will
be covered. There may also be a review session organized by the class preceptors.
Final exam: The final exam will be take-home. It will give you an opportunity to
show how you’ve developed as a critical thinker, both in terms of your knowledge
of basic principles as well as your ability in applying skills you have refined as a
result of this course.
Course preceptors: Philosophy majors John Katuska ’15 and Cynthia Scott ’15
will be the preceptors for this course. John will be the preceptor for PHIL 110-01,
and Cynthia will be the preceptor for PHIL 110-02. They will be available to
answer questions about your homework assignments and about the course
material in general. They may also hold review sessions and will be involved in
grading homework and tests. You can contact John at jkatuska@macalester.edu.
Cynthia’s e-mail address is cscott3@macalester.edu.
Course and classroom integrity
In this class, we will strive to have an environment geared as best as possible
toward facilitating individual learning and that models best scholarly practices. It
is anticipated that what you will turn in for this course will be your own work and
not that of others. Please know that in reviewing it, I will adhere to the College’s
Academic Integrity Policy as published in the Student Handbook. You might want
to take a moment to familiarize yourself with this policy if you have not already
done so.
Devices
The best device you can bring to this class is your own attentive mind. Through
the gift of your attention, you help support the integrity of the learning
environment. While it is OK to use a laptop to take notes, for the sake of your
own learning and out of respect for others please refrain from googling, tweeting,
doing Facebook, checking incoming e-mails, etc. And, of course, please do put
your cell phones on a setting so they will not make an audible sound if someone
calls or texts you. Try to pretend that you do not have them with you for the time
we are together.
Taking this class implies your acceptance of this policy. Repeated violations will
result in a lowered class participation grade. I recognize of course that if there is
an emergency you may need to take a call. If that’s the case, please let me know
before the class period starts.
How your work will be evaluated:
Your final grade for this class will be based on the following percentages:
Homework assignments
Tests
Final exam
Class participation
15%
60% (20% each)
15%
10%
Because this is a philosophy course, there will be ample opportunity for you to
contribute to class discussions. Your class participation grade will be based
primarily on the quality of your contributions to these discussions. Regular
attendance will also be taken into account. I will expect that each of you will
come to class having done the readings for that day, and be prepared to participate
by raising questions, commenting on the readings, taking part in in-class
exercises, responding to points brought up by others, and the like.
Schedule of readings and assignments
This schedule may change; any changes will be announced in class and also
e-mailed. Reading assignments from the Sinnott-Armstrong & Fogelin text
are indicated as SAF; assignments from the book by Ian Hacking are
indicated as IH. A few reading assignments will not be taken from these
books. They will be distributed to you over e-mail.
Week One
Wednesday, 3 September
Welcome and orientation to the course
Friday, 5 September
Arguments and their purposes
Reading: SAF, pp. 3-13
Assignment #1 given
Week Two
Monday, 8 September
Recognizing arguments; argument markers
and other terms
Reading: SAF, pp. 41-46; bring IH to class for an
in-class exercise
Assignment #1 due
Wednesday, 10 September
Is this argument a good one? Some standards
for evaluation
Reading: SAF pp. 91-99; IH, pp. 1-7
Friday, 12 September
Suppressed premises and fundamental principles
Reading: SAF, pp. 96-104
Assignment #2 given
Week Three
Monday, 15 September
Propositional logic and truth-functional connectives
Reading: SAF, pp. 113-132
Assignment #2 due
Wednesday, 17 September
Testing for validity by means of truth tables
Re-read SAF, pp. 113-132
Thursday, 18 September
Philosophy Department Picnic in Marvin Plaza
4:30—6:00
Friday, 19 September
Conditionals
Reading: SAF, pp. 134-150
Week Four
Monday, 22 September
TEST #1
Wednesday, 24 September
Inductive reasoning
An overview of the basic forms of inductive arguments
Reading: SAF, pp. 179-183; IH, pp. 11-18
Friday, 26 September
What are we looking for in a good statistical argument?
The variety of sampling techniques
Reading: SAF, pp. 183-188 and class handout
Assignment #3 given
Week Five
Monday, 29 September
Bias in statistical arguments
Practice in evaluating statistical arguments
Reading: SAF, pp. 188-193; research study to
be distributed by e-mail
Assignment #3 due
Wednesday, 3 October
The nature of causal reasoning
Necessary and sufficient conditions
Reading: SAF, pp. 215-219
Friday, 5 October
Techniques for evaluating causal arguments
Reading: SAF, pp. 220-228
Assignment #4 given
Week Six
Monday, 6 October
Practice in evaluating causal arguments
Reading: SAF, pp. 228-238
Assignment #4 due
Wednesday, 8 October
Abductive reasoning and inference to the best
explanation
Reading: SAF, pp. 195-204
Friday, 10 October
Arguments from analogy
Reading: SAF, pp. 204-210
Assignment #5 given
Week Seven
Monday, 13 October
Constructing and evaluating analogical arguments
Reading: Class handout
Assignment #5 due
Wednesday, 15 October
TEST #2
Friday, 17 October
Introduction to probability
No reading assignment
Week Eight
Monday, 20 October
Simple probability and the Gambler’s Fallacy
Reading: SAF, pp. 239-246; IH, pp. 23-33
Wednesday, 22 October
Conditional probability
Reading: SAF, pp. 246-252; IH, pp. 47-56
Assignment #6 given
Friday, 24 October
Fall Break—no class meeting
Week Nine
Monday, 27 October
Bayes’ theorem
Reading: SAF, pp. 253-261
Assignment #6 due
Wednesday, 29 October
Personal probabilities
Reading: IH, pp. 151-160
Friday, 31 October
Using Bayes’ theorem to calculate personal probabilities
Reading: IH, pp. 171-188
Assignment #7 given
Week Ten
Monday, 3 November
Separating good bets from bad
Reading: SAF, pp. 263-268; IH, pp.79-90
Assignment #7 due
Wednesday, 5 November
Maximizing expected value
Reading: IH, pp. 98-113
Friday, 7 November
Decisions under ignorance or uncertainty
Reading: SAF, pp. 268-272
Assignment #8 given
Week Eleven
Monday, 10 November
More on the rule of dominance
Reading: IH, pp. 114-126
Assignment #8 due
Wednesday, 12 November
More on other decision rules
No reading assignment
Friday, 14 November
TEST #3
Week Twelve
Monday, 17 November
Slippery slope and other fallacies of vagueness
Reading: SAF, pp. 275-289
Wednesday, 19 November
Fallacies of ambiguity
Reading: SAF, pp. 291-305
Friday, 21 November
Fallacies of relevance
Reading: SAF, pp. 307-321
Assignment #9 given
Week Thirteen
Monday, 24 November
Fallacies of vacuity
Refutation
Reading: SAF, pp. 323-349
Assignment#9 due
Wednesday, 26 November
No class meeting—Thanksgiving break
Friday, 28 November
No class meeting—Thanksgiving break
Week Fourteen
Monday, 1 December
Looking critically at critical thinking fallacies
Reading: Luciano Floridi, “Logical Fallacies as
Informational Shortcuts”; David Bollier, The Promises
and Perils of Big Data, pp.3-20 (available online)
Wednesday, 3 December
Are we really that bad at thinking clearly? (and why it
matters to say that the answer is “yes”)
Reading: Selections from the “You are Not so Smart”
blog. (Specific entries to be determined later).
Friday, 5 December
Are we really that bad at thinking clearly?, continued
Reading: Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow,
Chapters 8, 9, 10, 15 & 16. On library reserve.
Assignment #10 given
Week Fifteen
Monday, 8 December
Coffee, cake, and course wrap-up
Assignment #10 due
Thursday, 11 December
Take-home exams due at noon for both sections
Please turn your exams in to me in my office.