Philosophy 1100
Title:
Critical Reasoning
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu
Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm
Today:
Turn it your Editorial Analysis #2
Midterm Exam Discussion
Final Essay Discussion
Chapter 6 Discussion
Next Week:
Read Chapter 7
Let’s assign discussion leaders
Portfolio Assignment #5
Re-submit your Midterm Exam
1
Student Portfolios:
Assignment #5
Try something creative. Find a song lyric, a
poem, a you-tube video, a cartoon, etc. (or
create your own) that you can discuss in
terms of one of the previous concepts in the
class. The item need not have been created
to specifically address critical thinking. But
discuss it in a fresh, imaginative way that
shows how the piece may indeed be relevant
to critical thinking. Be creative. Be
imaginative.
·
· Write a brief assessment of the relevance of
your anecdotes chosen in Section Four of
your portfolio to that topic.
Your Final Essay –
The Second Amendment
A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the People to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.
But wait, is this an issue or a topic?
Your Class Essay Issue:
How should the …. be clarified in the
Second Amendment?
Heads: Ambiguity and
the 2nd Amendment
Tails: Vagueness and
the 2nd Amendment
“What is The Final Essay
Supposed to Look Like?”
•
You will not be evaluated on your writing style or your writing
skills!
•
You will be graded on only one thing: Do you present a
good logical argument?
•
You will present a claim that responds critically in an
interesting and bold way to the issue.
•
I am not interested in off-the-cuff, casual, flippant,
and/or subjective opinions for which you cannot give
good reasons. I am VERY impressed by students who make
good arguments for points of view that I do not agree with!
•
Only basically two rules:
• At least 3 full pages and not longer than 5
• You will use sources only as needed to provide evidence
for YOUR premises. This is NOT a research paper!
Tips for Proofreading Your Essay & Argument
•
It is always a good idea to review (and possibly
diagram) your own argument carefully when proofreading an essay.
•
Read through your argument’s design.
•
What is your primary claim? Does it make sense?
Is it absolutely clear and not vague or ambiguous?
•
Do the premises support that conclusion?
•
Are all premises and evidence either strong in
themselves or are they appropriately supported by
other premises?
•
Have you avoided relying on rhetoric and logical
fallacies?
Chapter Six:
Psychological and
Related Fallacies
7
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.
8
The “Argument” From Outrage
•
This fallacy consists of inflammatory words (or
thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some
sort. According to our text, it substitutes anger
for reason or judgment.
•
Increasingly on TV, overt anger is being replaced
with a “milder” form of “argument from outrage,”
substituting a sense of incredulity (with a
generous mix of facial expressions, etc) for overt
anger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2-9sPeSoA
•
The fallacy involved is basically the same –
suggesting that the “other side” are “fools” or
have a suspicious agenda.
9
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
One particular dangerous type of the “argument
from outrage” is scape-goating – blaming a
certain group of people or a single person
(“illegal aliens” -- notice the dysphemism, Bill
Clinton, George Bush, President Obama.)
•See Limbaugh quote in the text. (p.184)
•
Scape-goating sends us on a “witch hunt”
looking for “who to blame” rather than to
determine what is reasonable to believe or how
to solve the problem.
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
10
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
Trying to scare people into doing something or
accepting a position is using scare tactics.
• Democrats claimed in the 2004
Presidential election that George Bush was
using 9/11 and terrorism as a scare tactic.
• Both Democrats and Republicans claim
that the other side is using scare tactics on
the issue of Social Security.
11
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
Many current controversial issues are very
prone to the use of scare tactics, e.g. samesex marriage, global warming, abortion,
failing banks, and on and on.
•
How can you tell the difference between a
“scare tactic” and when a good reason to
believe happens to be “scary?”
•
Question for in 2008 used as scare tactics
to push emergency legislation that would
not have otherwise passed?
12
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The “argument from pity” and the “argument
from envy” are also fallacies.
•
Whatever feelings one has for a victim of
some situation or injustice is not in itself an
argument for a claim although it can well be
a justification for behavior on our part,
including increasing our passion to search
out and champion a logical argument for a
position that will benefit the individual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06qgaJ2A3Zs
13
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
Apple polishing occurs when an appeal to
our pride is made by a proponent of a claim.
“Come on, relax. Have a beer. Don’t worry
about your parents. The one thing I like most
about you is that you think for yourself and
don’t let your parents tell you what to do.
Video
A guilt trip occurs when an appeal to our
shame in taking an opposite position is
made.
14
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
Our hopes, desires and personal
needs can delude us and make us
vulnerable to the fallacy of wishful
thinking.
•
If a desire for acceptance within a group
motivates us to accept a position without
a logical argument, we have become
victims to the fallacy of peer pressure.
•
Peer pressure can be quite subtle and is
often very strong. People feel peer
pressure even with strangers.
15
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The group think fallacy occurs when one
is motivated to accept a claim without
argument because of membership in a
group.
An example of this is nationalism –
my country right or wrong.
“Ron is not guilty of anything. He is a
member in good standing of TKE
fraternity. He is one of us and we
support him.”
16
•
Rationalizing is the process by which a false
pretext is used (or a false reason given) to
satisfy our own desires or needs.
•
In Psychology, this is referred to as a defense
mechanism and may be pathological.
•
Video
Rationalizing generally is done “after the fact”
or after a behavior or decision is completed.
In a logical decision making process, the
decision and action typically comes after
consideration of the premises.
17
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The “argument” from popularity suggests
that if everyone or a majority “knows” or
believes something, it must be true. Two
variations of this are:
•The “argument” from common
practice defends a position on the
basis that it is common.
•The “argument” from tradition defends
a position on the basis that has always
been done that way.
18
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
The relativist fallacy consists in
thinking a moral standard of your own
group is the “right” way but it doesn’t
“apply to everyone.”
•
The subjectivist fallacy consists in
thinking that something is true
necessarily because someone thinks it
is true. It also applies whenever
objective standards of analysis are
ignored in favor of suggesting that one
can believe whatever they like.
19
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy
that asserts that a wrongful act on one
person’s part can be justified based
on a previous wrongful act of the other
person.
Two pretty good examples:
Video
Video
20
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
21
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.
22