Commonplaces (Continued)
As analysts of argument, we ask
– Has the situation been accurately described?
– Is there a countervailing (an offset of equal force) consequence
– Do other considerations outweigh the ones that have been stated
-continuing-
We discussed Principle v. Pragmatism, now let’s discuss Quantity vs. Quality.
Quantity – the greatest good, for the greatest number, at the least cost
Quality – the value of the unique
Example: School Boards
Basic instruction will do the most for the most students at the least cost
Honors Programs – unique opportunities
Which is more applicable to the case at hand?
Is it principle or pragamatism, quantity or quality?
Inferences from Form or “Quasi-Logical” Arguments
Relies on the structure, a seeming resemblance to deduction
They reflect probabilities and require a warrant
Type 1: A dilemma
We can either stay in Iraq or get out.
Indefinite commitment or leave behind anarchy
(There really are more than two alternatives. > False Dilemma > It is not a disjunctive syllogism)
disjunctive-syllogism
(logic) A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other must take place.
Type 2: Argument from Hypothesis looks like the Conditional Syllogism (If > Then)
But the hypothesis is not certain, here.
Type 3: Reasoning from Comparisons
Example:
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
There is no precise way to answer this because it is subjective.
Example:
If Team A is better than Team B and Team B is better than Team C, is Team A better than Team C?
The situation itself is not conducive to a transitive relationship because any of these teams can be one of the other teams on a given day.
Example: Argument from Sacrifice
Of course you have to give me an A on this paper: I worked 20 hours on it.
Reward is not relative to sacrifice/effort.
= = =
Conclusion: 1) Commonplaces and 2) Arguments from Form both resemble deduction but are not deduction.
They depend on interpretation and agreement that they apply to a given situation.
= = =
pick up at Lecture 18: Hybrid Patterns of Inference
Reminder: Lecture 19 will be Validity and Fallacies I and Lecture 20 will be Validity and Fallacies II
There are only 24 Lectures in this program.
Lecture 18: Hybrid Patterns of Inference
This lecture will examine three hybrid patterns
1 reasoning with rules
2 reasoning about values, and
3 dissociation
Prof. David Zarefsky
Argument Schemes
Reasoning with rules (if then statement)
Form: if conditions X arise, then Y is required, permitted, or forbidden
Example: If you drive faster than the speed limit, you might get a ticket.
The rule functions as a commonplace.
The statement of facts is used analogically.
Reasoning with Rules is a hybrid of Commonplaces and Analogies.
It facilitates case-based reasoning.
Brown v Ed
Segregated schools are unconstitutional.
Rule: if a practice violates equal protection, it must be changed
Facts: Schools were legally segregated on the basis of race
Claim: Unconstitutional
Warrant: segregated schools have conditions that the 14th Amendment was trying to prevent
Application of the rule to the facts of the case need judgment calls.
Is the case like that of the rule?
Do the essential similarities outweigh the essential differences?
Is the rule being applied unthinkingly or with a misplaced literalism: have we exalted the letter over the spirit?
Pick up at 9:49
I. Reasoning with Rules (common in Law and Ethics) is a hybrid that combines
– Commonplaces
– Analogy, and
– Reasoning from whole to part
II. Arguing about Values
Peg the different values on a values hierarchy.
Example: Is honesty more important than friendship?
How do you defend values when values are in conflict?
– One value may subsume (include/absorb) the other.
– One value may give us a greater benefit than another value
– One value may be preferred because forgoing it is irreparable.
– One value may better promote a higher value both parties share
– One value may be better supported by authoritative texts (the Bible)
– One value may be better supported by respected people (Nobel Prize winners)
– One value may lead to better consequences (the pragmatic defense)
III. Dissociation
Analytical Step 1: Take an unambiguous concept term (equality)
and divide it into two concepts (absence of discrimination and equal outcomes)
One is valued more than the other (equal outcomes is valued more than absence of discrimination;
I don’t care if you do not like me, you must respect me)
Analytical Step 2: Identify your adversary with the less desired concept and identify your position with the more desirable concept
Apply two terms that are opposed to each other (but one is preferred over the other) to the previous unitary term (equality)
– right vs fact; fact preferred over right
– theory vs result; result preferred over theory
– reality preferred over appearance
– spirit of the law preferred over the letter of the law
– truth preferred over opinion
Abraham Lincoln dissociated Equality into 1) economic equality (the right to upward economic mobility) and
2) political and social equality.
“I don’t believe in perfect equality, but in the right to eat the bread that his own hands earned.”
Dissociation re-frames the issue, putting it into a new light, putting it in a more detailed light.
= = =
Inferences from example relate parts to wholes.
Inferences from analogy involve comparisons.
Inferences from sign establish correlations.
Inferences from cause trace influence.
Inferences from commonplaces apply social knowledge.
Inferences from form rely on an argument’s structure.
= = =
Are the inferences valid?
Chapter 19: Validity and Fallacies I
Validity is derived from form only. A valid argument needs truth.
Syllogism: an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion
Example:
All dogs are animals. [Premise – the term dogs is in the conclusion]
All animals have four legs. [Premise – the term four legs is in the conclusion; the middle term animals is not in the conclusion]
Therefore all dogs have four legs. [Conclusion]
Categorical syllogism
All doctors are courteous.
All lawyers are courteous.
Therefore all doctors are lawyers.
I would say this is a different construction. In the first example dogs are a type of animal but in the second example, the argument does not describe the second term of the first premise, i.e., All courteous people try to be pleasant in their interactions with others.
The professor’s disagreement is that you can draw a population circle of all courteous people and the sub-circles of layers and doctors do not have to overlap.
This categorical syllogism is NOT VALID.
A categorical syllogism is invalid if the middle term is undistributed.
A categorical syllogism is invalid if either of the end terms is distributed only once.
If/Then Syllogism [conditional syllogism]
Valid if the antecedent is affirmed OR if it denies the consequent.
Invalid if the antecedent is denied but the consequent is affirmed.
Do not take a true conditional statement and invalidly infer its converse.
Example:
If the lamp were broken, the room would be dark.
Then say,
The room is dark, so the lamp is broken.
because the room would be dark has more than one antecedent, for example, the lamp may not be switched on, it may not be plugged in.
Converse errors are common in everyday thinking and communication and can result from, among other causes, communication issues, misconceptions about logic, and failure to consider other causes.
Disjunctive Syllogism
The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is: Either A is true or B is true.
Thus, if A is true, B is false, and if B is true, A is false.
A and B cannot both by true.
Example:
The breach is a safety violation, or it is not subject to fines.
The breach is not a safety violation.
Therefore, it is not subject to fines.
A or B
A, then -B
or as in the example
A or B
-A, then B.
= = =
All arguments are not formal arguments. In informal reasoning, there still needs to be a reasoning process.
In logic, an inference is the process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
An inference is said to be valid if it’s based upon sound evidence and the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
= = =
Inferences can be made from examples, analogies, sign, cause, commonplaces, and forms.
= = =
Pick up Lecture 19: Validity and Fallacies I at 6 minutes and 31 seconds.
Lecture 19: Validity and Fallacies I, continued
Four Categories of Guidelines
Inferences from Example
Pitfalls to Avoid for Inferences from Example:
Hasty generalizations
Unrepresentative Samples
The Fallacy of Composition
The Fallacy of Division
Inferences from Analogy
Inferences from Sign
The sign and signified generally occur together.
There are not obvious countersigns.
The same sign does not herald opposite things.
The relationship is not mere coincidence.
Sign is not confused with cause.
Inferences from Cause
Pitfalls to Avoid for Inferences from Cause
Confusing Sign with Cause
Failing to identify a common cause.
Confusing temporality with causality (no post hoc fallacies)
Confusing cause with effect
Ignoring multiple causes or multiple effects
Inferences from Commonplaces
p/u At 10:55
Deficiencies of Clarity
– Equivocation
– Ambiguity (terms)
– Amphiboly (phrases)
– Vagueness
– Heap (not knowing when a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind)
– Slippery slope (any difference in degree turns into a difference in kind)
Vacuity
– Circular Reasoning
Example 1
freedom of speech is for the common good because the unrestrained expression of opinion is in the best interest of all concerned = freedom of speech is for the common good because freedom of speech is for the common good
Example 2
The Bible is the inerrant word of God because God speaks only the truth. How do we know? Repeatedly in the Bible God tells us the Bible consists of his words.
– Begging the Question (Have you stopped beating your wife? The question that is begged? Were you ever beating your wife in the first place?)
– Red Herring (ignore the question: introduce an irrelevant matter that ignores the question at hand)
– The Non Sequitur (on the face, no connection)
– Straw Man (when one’s argument responds to a claim that has not been made and is not in dispute)
– The Self-sealing Argument
Such an argument is objectionable because it provides no one who is skeptical with any reason to believe it. Usually, a skeptic would want a theory (T) to prove itself — to show that it gets the right result in a situation where a competing theory (T’) does not. Note that here we have what we can call a crucial test: if the test comes out one way, it favors T and not T’; if it comes out in the another way, it favors T’ and not T. The problem with self-sealing theories (or arguments) is that there is no such test for them: any apparently problematic data can be accommodated within them Thus, there is no reason given the skeptic for believing in them.
Another way to think of this is by analogy with tautologies, or sentences which are true in every possible situation. A self-sealing theory will be true in every possible circumstance — any attempt to falsify it fails. Thus, it is similar to a tautology, such as “I am here or I am not here.” Sentences such as this one are also true in every possible circumstance, but it is for this reason that they tell us nothing that we didn’t already know. They give us no information, and so can be said to have no content.
An argument that is self-sealing is vacuous and it is usually offered when trying to shore up a position that is false. One way to avoid the objection of falsity is to make one’s argument impervious to criticism; however, in doing this, you deprive the argument of all content.
Commitment to self-sealing arguments is antithetical to the type of attitude conducive to critical thinking. To be a good critical thinker, you need to be open-minded and non-dogmatic. Commitment to self-sealing theories and arguments engenders closed-minded dogmatism.
Pick up at Lecture 20
Lecture 20: Validity and Fallacies II
This lecture continues the discussion of general errors in reasoning that was begun in Lecture 19 with the treatment of vacuity. We examine deficiencies in relevance and discuss fallacies. The lecture concludes by reviewing two challenges to understanding fallacies. One suggests that arguments are valid or fallacious depending on their context; the other suggests that fallacies should be understood as errors of procedure rather than form.
Deficiencies in Relevance
Ad Hominem – against the person
Appeal to Authority (outside expertise or has no basis for reaching the conclusion)
Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Effect) Popularity by itself is not a warrant
Appeal to Tradition can be used to block consideration of change without engaging the argument
Appeals to Ignorance (assumption a claim is true because it cannot be shown to be false or vice versa)
Appeals to Inappropriate Emotion
Threats
pick up at 9:23
Many of these fallacies are not always.
Consider: Deficiencies in Relevance, Appeals to Ignorance Fallacy
There are lots of times when we have to make a decision based on ignorance, without knowing everything we need to know.
Create a presumption: in the face of uncertainty, the decision should be weighted one way or the other.
Argument from Ignorance Situation: making a decision with respect to secretive terrorists.
= = =
Consider: Deficiencies in Relevance, Ad Hominem Fallacy
Three types: 1) bad character 2) the circumstantial ad hominem “how can you tell me not to smoke when you smoke two packs a day?” 3) the biased (prejudice, vested interest) type if the statesman holds stock in certain military public companies, his/her vote may already have been bought.
pick up at 18:22
Skip for now
22. Arguments among Experts
Wow, that’s how you became an Argumentation Specialist!
I think as usual I will start from the end,
23 Public Argument and Democratic Life
24 The Ends of Argumentation
Then I will pick from the middle.
This system ain’t’ no good for novels (even if sometimes I will use it anyway) but very good for lengthy TV series and list of essays.
Scientific Argument
to observe, describe, to explain, and to predict
to account for individual phenom
to develop theory
= = =
scientific generalizations are inductive not deductive, science is probability-driven, so scientific generalizations can be wrong
= = =
Philosophers of Science identify science in two ways. There is normal vs revolutionary science.
Most science is normal science. Hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis testing in science is NOT deductive reasoning, it is a quasi-logical argument.
= = =
In contrast to normal science, there is “Revolutionary Science.” occurs when a fundamental theory/paradigm is called into question and can no longer be assumed–trying to establish a new warrant, because anomalies develop–maybe the theory is not right in the first place; examples: Copernican Revolution, Galileo.
Revolutionary Science: Theory Y/Paradigm Y should replace Theory X/Paradigm X.
This dispute is not primarily about facts but primarily about the explanatory power of theories and the interpretation of facts.
Paradigm disputes can go on for years.
= = =
Specialized knowledge is required for certain circles.
Pick up at 23:11
Steefen said
Many of these fallacies are not always.Consider: Deficiencies in Relevance, Appeals to Ignorance Fallacy
There are lots of times when we have to make a decision based on ignorance, without knowing everything we need to know.
Create a presumption: in the face of uncertainty, the decision should be weighted one way or the other.
Argument from Ignorance Situation: making a decision with respect to secretive terrorists.
= = =
Consider: Deficiencies in Relevance, Ad Hominem Fallacy
Three types: 1) bad character 2) the circumstantial ad hominem “how can you tell me not to smoke when you smoke two packs a day?” 3) the biased (prejudice, vested interest) type if the statesman holds stock in certain military public companies, his/her vote may already have been bought.
pick up at 18:22
These are some notes I made when the ehrmanblog was down for about a week for upgrades.
= = = = =
Beyond having a list or fallacies when going into an argument, one could also say a valid argument is one that has the goal of resolving disagreements. This goal can trump the identification of a fallacy.
For example, before the Civil War in the United States, the southerners held that state rights were sacrosanct but when slavery was threatened when it came to the Western States and slavery and the northern states’ objection to slavery there, the southern states appealed to the federal government.
One could charge that the southern states were being inconsistent as prior cases claimed states were arbiters of disagreements, but now they sought the federal government to be the arbiter of this disagreement.
Example of a non-sequitur not being a fallacy:
Person A: Fixing the problems with Social Security will just introduce new problems.
Person B: Does the Sun come up in the morning? [Here, person B does not agree with Person A. Of course, there will be new problems, but
that should not deter us.]
or
Person B: Why trade a headache for an upset stomach. [Here, person B agrees with Person A.]
Fallacious arguments as procedural violations, not form violations:
Pressuring an opponent defeats the purpose of a debate because the objective of the debate may be to have a discussion, exploring the details of policy.
Diverting an argument to an opponent’s prejudice thereby reducing the goal of fairness and objectivity for the discussion.
What makes an argument unreasonable.
There are argument analysts even though the arguers should analyze as well.
Pick up at Lecture 21: Arguments between Friends
Lecture 22 (continued)
Managerial Argument uses incrementalism, cost-benefit analysis, satisficing (can you live with this result), means to achieve the stated objectives of the organization
Ethical and Religious Argument (what is right should be done)
Controversies in What Is Right:
Should someone tell the truth even if it destroys the self-worth and self-esteem of another valued person, or vice versa?
Social justice or ritual observance?
What is just from the standpoint of social justice? How does the standard of justice get derived?
Should someone conduct scientific research to answer questions about the unknown even if it tramples on some of our values about the sanctity of life and the preservation of potential life or should our value for the sanctity of life take precedence over our desire to find out about the unknown?
Lecture 23: Public Argument and Democratic Life
The public sphere is the place for arguments about matters of interest to people as citizens, for example, deliberations about public policy. There are several ways to devise arguments that can appeal simultaneously to different political presumptions. A robust public sphere to negotiate tensions inherent in democratic argument is crucially important, and this lecture speculates on the current state of the public sphere.
Arguments in the Public Sphere
They are addressed to, and offered on behalf of, a general audience.
They affect the community at large.
= = = =
future and policy
= = = =
The Public Forum
The Town Meeting
or a metaphor
legislative bodies, talks shows, internet discussion groups
= = = =
Examples: healthcare, responding to terrorism
= = = =
Key Characteristics
Where do the warrants in public argument come from?
Answer: the social and political beliefs of the general public, commonplaces
1) Widely shared beliefs and values (social knowledge)
We all want what is best for our children
The market mechanism generally works
A higher power governs our destiny
2) Naive theories of attribution
If things go right, attribute that to one’s own efforts
If things go wrong, attribute them to factors beyond one’s control
3) Naive theories of motivation
pick up at 10:37
You earned the money, it yours, you ought to have control over it.
Ideology vs Collectivism but it also is personal attribution for favorable outcomes.
The money belongs to you and that becomes a warrant.
Personal attribution for favorable outcomes.
I need to pick up at 12:00.
Argument in the public sphere gives you a heterogeneous audience.
People in a heterogeneous audience have different presumptions.
Condensation Symbols
A condensation symbol is “a name, word, phrase, or maxim which stirs vivid impressions involving the listener’s most basic values and readies the listener for action,” as defined by political scientist Doris Graber.
What is your positive term in an argument you are having? For example, “Death Tax” is a positive term against there being an estate tax.
“Family” is a positive term that is often used. “The Children” is a positive term. “Protected” and “Secure” are positive terms.
“Happy” and “fun” are positive terms. (I am not attracted to the terms “happy” and “fun,” however.)
Appeal to the majority of presumptions. Use positive terms that fit the audience/situation.
= = =
Finished Lecture 23: Public Argument and Democratic Life. Go back and finish Lecture 21 Arguments between Friends, then finish up with Lecture 24: The Ends of Argumentation.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)