Wednesday, 9/28: Soundness, validity, enthymemes

Reminders:

1) Quiz due tonight (Wednesday night)! Check Canvas this p.m.

2) Submit homework assignments via lecture page on Canvas. (Yes, the reverse of what we originally told you. But your life will be easier now: you'll submit everything via the lecture page.) 

PLAN FOR TODAY

1) Brief review, validity and soundness, deductive vs. inductive
Focus on common mistakes in homework 

2) Brief intro to modus ponens (not Otis ponens... he bites)
We will revisit this (and other inference rules) in lecture, but learning MP will help you make arguments with hidden premises valid

3) Examples from the homework, Lesson 3.1 (just one or two)
Small group discussion & class discussion
Look at the examples I've picked but remember, I take requests

4) Examples from homework, Lesson 3.2
Focus on Part B, your answers to the question
Small group discussion & class discussion: evaluating arguments
Refer to the two tips I list below & review the method for running a reductio 



Lesson 3.1

Stuff to cover:

TWO OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TERMS YOU WILL LEARN IN THIS CLASS. YES I AM YELLING. 

1) Validity (sufficiency): Assuming the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true
*FORM, NOT CONTENT
*TRUTH VALUE OF PREMISES IS IRRELEVANT

This is a valid deductive argument:

P1) If the moon is made of green cheese then I'm a monkey's uncle
P2) The moon is made of green cheese
C) I'm a monkey's uncle

Side note - How to be friends with philosophers, Part 2
In Part 1, I complained about the common and improper use of the phrase "begging the question."
*Eye twitch*
Like "begging the question," while you're in this class you should treat "valid" as a technical term
Valid refers to the logical relationship between the premises and conclusion in a deductive argument. 
Given this, the following phrases make no sense:
"That's a valid point"
"That premise is valid"
"You have a valid concern"
Exception: You may say "That is a valid inference."


2) Soundness: The argument is valid and the premises are actually true.

*SOUND ENTAILS VALID
Related: there is no such thing as an invalid, sound argument

No need to evaluate an invalid argument for soundness. 
Think of it like that sign at the amusement park:

Validity is like being 42" tall. 
If you're 42" tall, we'll check to see if you have any other conditions that preclude getting on the ride.
Similarly, if we determine an argument is valid, we'll check to see if it's sound (if the premises are true).
Invalidity is like being less than 42" tall.
If you're less than 42" tall, it's pointless to check whether anything else prohibits you from riding. You can't get on the ride.
Similarly, if we determine an argument is invalid, it's pointless to check for soundness; it can't be sound (by definition).



Terms, continued:

Deductive arguments: Valid +/- sound, or invalid
GUARANTEED CONCLUSIONS

Inductive arguments: Strong vs. weak, invalid by definition
PROBABLE CONCLUSIONS

REPEAT AFTER ME: INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID BY DEFINITION



Valid argument forms: examples
(Don't be scared of formal logic!)

Note: We are not going to go over these in discussion (except modus ponens) but you should refer back to these pictures when you are trying to figure out a) Whether an argument is valid, or b) How to make an argument valid.

Invalid inferences (aka, formal fallacies): examples

Method for determining validity/invalidity:
1) Assume all the premises are true
2) See if the conclusion MUST be true*
*Tip: try to find a counterexample, i.e., an instance in which all of the premises are true, but the conclusion is false. If you find a counterexample, boom. The argument is invalid.



Homework Qs for class discussion

Part A

Is this argument valid or invalid? Sound or unsound?

4. All limimus eat pamumas. Frank is a limimu. Therefore, Frank eats pamumas. 

Part B (Groups):

(a) Is the argument valid or invalid? 
(b) If it isn't valid, explain why not 
(c) If the argument is inductive, say whether it is a strong, medium, or weak inductive argument (your answer to 'b' will help you decide).

11. Every time I come home, the downstairs neighbors' dogs bark. When I come home tonight they'll bark.

12. If you're not sure how to do this homework assignment you should see your TA. If you plan on seeing your TA but can't make their office hours, you should see if they can meet you at another time. Mary isn't sure how to do this homework and can't make office hours, therefore Mary should see if her TA can meet at another time.

13. Everyone likes ice cream. Some people like Donald Trump. Therefore, some people like ice cream and Donald Trump.

14. Some people like ice cream and some people like Donald Trump. Therefore, some people like both ice cream and Donald Trump.*


*Let's talk about the form of this argument

P1) Some animals are cats
P2) Some animals are dogs
C) Therefore, some animals are both cats and dogs  

Good reasoning?



Lesson 3.2

Stuff to cover:

Enthymemes (hidden premises)
Making inductive arguments deductively valid
(Related: Principle of charity <-- This term should be familiar)


Tip #1: To make an argument with hidden premises deductively valid, MODUS PONENS IT.
Many (most, for our purposes) arguments can be reconstructed in modus ponens form, e.g.:

7. Aspartame is bad for you because it isn't natural.

P1) Aspartame isn't natural

P2) If something's not natural, it's bad for you  <-- enthymeme

C) Aspartame is bad for you


Tip #2: You can use any of the four valid inference rules I explained above (MP, MT, DS, UI) to construct a valid argument. STICK WITH THOSE. BE WARY OF OTHERS.


Reductio ad absurdum, or reductio, for short
(Latin: "Reduce to absurdity")

Running a reductio:
1) Assume ("for the sake of argument") all the premises of an argument are true
2) Show that absurd and/or contradictory results follow.

If you show that an argument has absurd implications (a successful reductio) you show there's good reason to doubt the conclusion



Keep Tip #1, Tip #2, and the method for running a reductio in mind when we evaluate these arguments:


Homework, Part B

Increasingly, moral philosophers and others agree that the practice of factory farming animals for meat is morally wrong (and indefensible). If you disagree, suggest a reason or argument in defense of the practice then make your argument valid by supplying the hidden premise (enthymeme). If you agree that factory farming isn't morally defensible, support your conclusion with a short argument and make your argument valid. Be prepared to present your arguments in your recitation section.

GROUP EXERCISE

1) Fill in the missing premise that makes the argument valid 

2) Evaluate the truth value of the premises

Arguments for

Argument 1:  I like it.

(P1)  Meat tastes good and eating it gives me pleasure.

(C)   Eating factory farmed meat is morally permissible.

Argument 2:  We need to eat meat.

(P1)  We need to eat meat.

(C)   Therefore, eating factory farmed meat is morally permissible.

Argument 3:  Other animals eat meat.

(P1)  Animals eat other animals and we don't say it's morally wrong.

(C)   Therefore, it's morally permissible for humans to eat meat.

Argument 4:  The historical argument

(P1)  Historically humans have always eaten meat.

(C)   It is morally permissible to eat factory farmed meat.  

Arguments against

Argument 1: Wrong to kill innocents

P1) It is wrong to kill innocent animals

C) Therefore, factory farming is wrong

Argument 2: The Golden Rule

P1) We wouldn't treat people like that

C) Therefore, factory farming is wrong

Argument 3: Suffering is wrong

P1) Factory farming causes animal suffering

C) Therefore, factory farming is wrong 

Argument 4: It's unhealthy

P1) Factory farming creates health risks for humans

C) Therefore, factory farming is wrong

***Extra credit (one bonus point) for the ambitious. The answer to the question at the end of this case is "no." The answer is no because you can run a reductio on the computer scientist's argument. Explain. 

A computer scientist announces that he's constructed a computer program that can play the perfect game of chess: he claims that this program is guaranteed to win every game it plays, whether it plays black or white, with never a loss or a draw, and against any opponent whatsoever. The computer scientist claims to have a mathematical proof that his program will always win, but the proof runs to 500 pages of dense mathematical symbols, and no one has yet been able to verify it. Still, the program has just played 20 games against Gary Kasparov and it won every game, 10 as white and 10 as black. Should you believe the computer scientist's claim that the program is so designed that it will always win against every opponent?

Lesson 3.0 Homework solutions

Hey everyone,

Here are my answers for the Lesson 3.0 homework. Please note that they contain only argument formalizations and diagrams of the arguments (I've omitted assessments of the premises' strength, and the overall strength of the arguments). Also, note that #7 is not included because I included my solution to #7 in the previous post.

Please see me if you have questions. Thanks!

Wednesday, 9/21: Logical fallacies (continued), diagramming arguments

Class business:

 

Reminder re: Quiz #2

Email me if you got question #4 wrong; I will give you credit for it.
 

 

Review: Lesson 2.4 (and 2.3): Logical fallacies, continued

 

Bad reasoning in action:

 

- Internal inconsistency

-Begging the question (circular reasoning)

-Confirmation bias (fallacy of confirming instances)

-Slanting by omission

-Straw man

-Red herring

(Moving the goal posts: A version of red herring)

Bad, but maybe not as bad: 

 

-Vague wording/vague terminology
(Questionable vs. unacceptable: A matter of degree)

Probably okay, but careful!

 

-Argument from authority
Considerations:
1) Is the expert you cite in support of your position an expert in the relevant field?
Example: When I worked in veterinary medicine, some of my least favorite clients were human nurses and doctors. I mean, they could be the best clients; some of them were awesome. However, when they were bad, they were terrible. That's because they assumed their expertise in one arena (human medicine) would translate to another arena (veterinary medicine).
Ask me how it goes when a human surgeon attempts surgery on the family dog. Yeah. That happened.
Upshot: In many cases, it's a good idea to rely on experts. In many cases, an argument that relies on expert knowledge to bolster a premise/conclusion is stronger for it. BUT make sure the experts you're citing know what they're talking about with respect to the topic at hand.
2) Consensus among experts in a particular field
Example: There's like, one or two scientists with lots of letters after their names who deny the reality of climate change or, relatedly, the fact that human activities have caused it. 99.999999% of their peers disagree. Which experts should you trust?

-Common knowledge
Usually, the fact that a premise/conclusion is widely accepted (common knowledge) is an indication that it's credible/true.
However... [insert list of commonly held but false beliefs]:
DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Homework review, Lesson 2.4

 

Questions?


Part A Example

What fallacy (if any) does this meme exemplify, and why?

 
Part B: Memes... how people convey information on the Internet

 

*A lesson in meme-ology*, or "How to make a meme"

Step 1) Go to your preferred meme generating website. Ami likes https://memegenerator.net/
I prefer https://imgflip.com/memegenerator 
There are probably tons of them, so, whichever you prefer. 

Step 2) Make your meme

Step 3) Copy-paste link OR save image and insert in Word (or other) doc.

Note that for some assignments, you'll have the option of finding a meme, rather than making one.
You have two options here: Either search one of the meme generator sites, or do a general search.
I like to search Google images, because that gives me results from a variety of sources.

Relatedly, if you have trouble coming up with a meme for a homework assignment, sometimes it helps to search for examples.
You can usually modify the idea/structure of an existing meme to suit your needs.

Examples (including examples from the class) & small group discussion

 

Let's play, "What's wrong with this reasoning?"

a) Identify the fallacy

b) Explain why you think the meme is an instance of that fallacy

c) Explain the problem with the sort of reasoning the meme uses, in general. That is, explain what's wrong with arguing in this manner (regardless of the issue and your stance on it).

 

 

Example 1: 

 

 Example 2:

 

 

Example 3:

 

 

Lesson 3: Diagramming Arguments

Things to keep in mind

 

Types of premises

Linked 
2+ premises that support a conclusion. Not effective support for conclusion in isolation.
Examples: Universal instantiation, conditionals, disjunctive syllogism

Convergent
Each premise provides independent support for the conclusion

Serial
"Chain of dependence"
Major premises provide direct support for the conclusion
Sub-premises support major premises


Criteria for acceptable, questionable, unacceptable premises (or conclusions

Acceptable
Logical/analytic truth, supported w/reasonable sub-premise(s), report/eyewitness testimony (from a reliable source), common knowledge, authority of expert

Questionable
Vague language, you don't know enough about the issue, not sure what a universal audience would think
NOTE: When you classify a premise as questionable, you should explain what information you would need to better evaluate it. Sometimes, the problem will be vague wording - you can't necessarily figure out what the argument is until the arguer clarifies. However, sometimes the knowledge you lack is easily accessible. And, in that case, there is a thing called Google... 

Unacceptable
Begs the question (circular reasoning), internal inconsistency, objectionably vague (as in, I have no idea WTF you're talking about)


Are there (informal) logical fallacies present?
See list above
NOTE: The fact that a fallacy is present does NOT mean the argument's conclusion is false! All you can say is that the argument in question fails to adequately support the conclusion.

 

Diagramming arguments - a very simple example

When it rains, it pours. It's raining. Therefore, it's pouring.

Conclusion: It's pouring

Premise 1: When it rains, it pours  

My assessment: Questionable. Don't know enough about the issue. Might be true someplace where rain = monsoon? 
Of course, if we assume we're in NW Ohio, the premise is simply false.

Premise 2: It's raining  

My assessment: Acceptable (eyewitness testimony)


Overall assessment: Medium strength? The conclusion follows, assuming the premises are true. But we should doubt the conclusion if the premises are questionable/false. 
(Note: We haven't talked about validity yet. What we expect you to do in the homework/on the exam is to assess the quality, i.e., probably truth of the premises and decide whether they reasonably support the conclusion.)

Diagram:
Don't be jealous of my art skillz

(Those are supposed to be linked premises)

 

Examples from homework (groups):

Requests?


Here are some that I found challenging:


2. [T]he DNC claimed to be “the victim of a crime – an illegal cyber attack by Russian state-sponsored agents who seek to harm the Democratic Party and progressive groups in an effort to influence the presidential election.” The Russian government has also officially denied involvement. However, since propaganda is now legal in the United States, the fact that there is no factual basis to blame Russia suggests that the DNC is using dirty tricks that could inflame a new Cold War to keep unwanted attention from its own actions.


8. In recent years, there’s even been a movement to redefine dolphins as more than mere animals. At its 2012 conference, the American Association for the Advancement of Science featured a session in which scholars, ethicists, and conservationists made the case that dolphins have such clever minds and rich emotional lives that we should designate them as “nonhuman persons” and dramatically expand their rights.
There were no similar sessions devoted to extending the rights of chickens. But perhaps there should have been. Like dolphins, chickens can identify and remember individual members of their social groups, are capable of social learning, and communicate using a complex set of vocalizations—all traits that have been cited as evidence of dolphins’ superior smarts and sophistication. Therefore, whatever moral status we give to dolphins should also be given to chickens.






HOMEWORK SPOILER (aka, your reward for reading this far):
Here's my answer to one of your homework questions. You might have a different solution. Sometimes, that's okay. The most important thing is that you be able to JUSTIFY your solution/assessment of the argument.



P1) ? Not enough info... I'm not a bodybuilder/exercise science major?
P2) Questionable: Some reason to believe this, but I only know enough to give medium credence to the assertion. What I can say is that if all the complaints listed are true, it follows that the study has major limitations.
P3) Acceptable, relies on reasonable sub-premise
P4) Acceptable (common knowledge re: importance of control groups)
P5) and P6): Questionable, b/c not enough info to evaluate. I would need to know a) What method was used, and b) The reasons to think it unreliable. 
However, assuming the method was unreliable, it follows that we have reason to question the study.

Overall: Medium strength. I have at least one serious reason to doubt the study in question establishes what it purports to establish. However, I'd need to do some research in order to see if all the premises support the conclusion. 


Finally, for those of you who are curious about #8 (regarding chicken intelligence), here are a couple of links you might find interesting.

1) A very accessible/short video.

2) A scientific study that will make you question not only your assumption that chickens are bird brains, but your assumptions about other "dumb" animals with which you're unfamiliar:  

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/5/3/0386/htm 

Phil 1030 Discussion 9/14/16: More biases, burden of proof, premise acceptability

Wednesday, September 14, 2016  

Announcements:

 

Quiz due by midnight tonight!

Make sure to check Canvas this afternoon (lecture page)
More time allotted for this quiz. Thanks for your feedback, and keep it coming!

Takeaway points from Lessons 2.2 and 2.3

I want you to know the definitions of, and be able to provide examples of, the following terms:

Biases:
-Confirmation bias (fallacy of confirming instances)
-Slanting by omission

What makes a claim (logically) acceptable or unacceptable?
-Falsifiable vs. non-falsifiable claims
-Burden of proof
   Related:
   -Reasonable person <-- surprisingly tricksy
   -Common knowledge
   -Universal/specific audience
-Internal inconsistency
-Begging the question (i.e., circular reasoning) <-- YOU WILL PLEASE THE PHILOSOPHY GODS AND USE THIS TERM CORRECTLY!!!!11!
-Vague wording/terminology
-Argument from authority
-Analytic truth (truth by definition)

Lesson 2.2: Biases, continued

Confirmation bias causes us to focus only on confirming evidence for our view while ignoring or trivializing any disconfirming evidence. Confirmation bias can also lead us to evaluate evidence within a misleading context.
When we engage in confirmation bias we commit a fallacy called the fallacy of confirming evidence: we weight examples that confirm what we already believe more heavily than examples that challenge our pre-existing beliefs.
Relatedly, slanting by omission is when important information (relative to the conclusion) is left out of an argument.

Group exercise: What's wrong with the reasoning in these memes?

(Confirmation bias, i.e., fallacy of confirming instances; slanting by omission? Other?)

Examples from the class:

1) 

2)

 3)

4) My example:

5) Another example (from the Internets):

One important tool to avoid confirmation bias is the idea of falsificationism: There are an infinite number of ways to confirm a hypothesis so instead we should seek to disconfirm it. That is, we should try to disprove claims and hypotheses instead of trying prove them.
In fancy-talk we refer to an instance of a falsification as a counterexample. A counterexample is a case in which all the premises are true but the conclusion is false, e.g.:

P1) Every cat I've ever met is cute
C) All cats are cute*

*Note that this is a reasonable inductive, as opposed to deductive inference. We'll talk about that distinction later.

Counterexample
This cat is not cute:

Here's an example of a counterexample to a deductive argument:

P1) If the cat is on the mat, the cat is asleep
P2) The cat is asleep
C) The cat is on the mat

Counterexample
The cat is asleep, but the cat is on the sofa. The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow, even though the premises are true.

Bad arguments, ctd.: Non-falsifiable claims

Group exercise: "Prove I'm not wearing an invisible hat."

a) Come up with an example of a non-falsifiable claim, that is, a claim for which there is no disconfirming evidence (counterexample).

b) Explain the problem with this sort of claim. (Hint: assume you're in an argument with someone who disagrees with you.)

 

Lesson 2.3: Burden of proof, premise acceptability 

Burden of proof refers to the obligation of either arguer or challenger to provide further support for their primary claim (or its negation).
Q: How do we figure out who bears the burden of proof?
First of all, recall that arguments can be decomposed into premises and conclusion(s). A burden of proof can concern any of the premises or the conclusion.
A: The concept of burden of proof as it applies to conclusions; i.e., main claims -

Two Heuristics for Determining Burden of Proof

Heuristic 1: Will the intended (specific) audience accept the claim without further support? If yes, then the burden falls on the opponents to the claim. If no, then the burden falls on the arguer.

Heuristic 2 (better): Would a universal audience (i.e., a group of reasonable people) accept the claim without further support? This is a much better standard of burden of proof for constructing your own arguments because usually we aren't trying to convince people who already agree with us on issues, we're trying to convince a general audience.

Group exercise, burden of proof homework questions

Who bears the burden of proof? The claim-maker or the challenger? Explain your answer.

6. It's wrong to raise dogs for food.

7. It's wrong to raise pigs for food. 

8. Gay marriage should be legal.
Hint: You should answer this question after specifying a) a particular place, and b) a particular time. With respect to (a), let's say we're in the U.S. With respect to (b), compare polling data and legal doctrine in 2001 and 2016:

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Who has the burden of proof in 2001? In 2016? Why?

Group exercise: Begging the question/unacceptable premises

I want you to come up with an example of a question-begging argument. But first, let's get clear on what the term means, and why question-begging arguments are problematic.

-Begging the question, definition

Hey, you wanna be friends with philosophers? 

DO NOT USE THE TERM "BEGS THE QUESTION" IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:

 

YOU: I can’t understand why all the news media give so much coverage to Kanye. It’s ridiculous.

ME (philosopher): I’m sure they do it just to sell papers and magazines.

YOU: Yeah — which begs the question, why do people want to read about him?

ME (ANGRILY!!!!!!): That’s not begging the question. That’s simply raising the question.

My reaction when people use this term the wrong way:
https://youtu.be/31g0YE61PLQ

Begging the question = def. The original (and TRUE!) meaning of the phrase is "circular reasoning." In other words, in your argument, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove.

The classic example comes from an unsophisticated religious argument for the truth of the contents of the Bible. A caricature of the argument goes like this:

How do you know what's in the Bible is true? 'Cuz it's the word of God. How do you know it's the word of God? 'Cuz it says so in the Bible.

Now, come up with your own examples!

**More info:
 If you're stumped as to what "begging the question" amounts to, there are some good examples here (but you can't use them in class!): http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html


Edit: Here are some good examples from my 9:30 class

-"Everything is different because things aren't exactly the same"  <-- This argument is circular, and there are so many other problems with it that I don't know where to begin
-"Paranormal activity is real because I've experienced what could only be called paranormal activity."
-"America is great because America is good." -Hillary Clinton

And here are some good examples from my 11:30 class

- "Joe is stupid because Joe is an idiot."
- "Jane is a really good manager. I know that's true because Jane is a really good leader."
- "I know he's a liar because everything he says is false."

Analytic truths: Acceptable premises!

 

Group exercise: My husband claims that he can conceive of a round square. (This is actually a big point of contention between us, which should make you wary of marrying a philosopher.) 

Prove him wrong! That is, prove that the statement "This is a round square" is necessarily false (an unacceptable premise).

Note: in answering this question you'll need to cite/define the term analytic truth, i.e., "truth by definition." For example, the claim "Cows are female" is an analytic truth because, by definition, a cow is a female bovine. 
The claim "Cows are female" is an acceptable premise because it's true by definition. With that in mind, what's wrong with the round square claim? 

Phil 1030 Discussion: Quiz #1 Review & Intro to Biases (9/7/16)

What is the plan for your PHIL 1030 (Intro to Logic) discussion class on Wednesday, 9/7? I know that's the question burning like a red-hot poker in your brain. Or maybe not so much. But here's the plan, anyway...

1. Attendance (I should know all your names by now... I hope????)
2. Review Quiz #1

3. Biases: 
-Review
-Examples
-Discussion questions (groups)
-Homework review & questions


Quiz Review
 

a) Did you have enough time for the quiz, in your opinion?

Were the questions fair, in your opinion, or did you feel thrown for a loop?

Other questions/concerns?

b) Review
*Note that I haven't indicated the correct answers, but I have formalized the arguments (highlighted) for you where necessary. This should give you an idea of the correct answers to some questions. 

1. What is the definition of critical thinking?

Not believing Fox News

Knowing that our government representatives are just the puppets of our reptilian overlords. Wake up, sheeple!!!!111!!!

A systematic method of evaluating arguments, evidence, and reasons.

Not believing the liberal media.

Thinking outside the box.

2. What is the definition of an argument as we have used it in this course? 

Contradiction.

An unpleasant confrontation. 

A set of reasons and evidence supporting a claim.

A type of mint.

3. If you reconstruct the argument into standard form. Are the premises linked, serial, or convergent?

You shouldn't be too hard on your students. This is probably the first time they've done any argument analysis. Besides, critical thinking can be tough for anyone.

P1. Critical thinking can be tough for anyone.
P2. This is probably the first time they’ve done any argument analysis.
C. You shouldn’t be too hard on your students.

Linked.

Serial.

Convergent.

4. If you reconstruct the argument into standard form. Are the premises linked, serial, or convergent?

Do you really expect me to believe that the dog ate your homework? You don't even have a dog. I know this because your apartment building prohibits pets.

P1.ii. Your apartment building prohibits pets.
P1.i. You don’t even have a dog.
C. Your dog didn’t eat your homework.

Linked.

Serial. 

Convergent.

5. If you reconstruct the argument into standard form. Are the premises linked, serial, or convergent?

You need to stop talking. Insulting the TAs and making them cry isn't nice at all. As my momma says, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

*P1.i. Insulting the TA’s and making them cry isn’t nice.
*P1.ii. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
 C. You need to stop talking.

Linked.

Convergent.

Serial.

6. Which best describes Sidgwick's insight?  

Find a way to convince your audience that your worldview is correct.  

Begin your arguments with premises that your audience accepts.

Support your position with the strongest facts and evidence.

Always make sure your arguments are logical.

7. Type the name of the psychological effect that occurs when an arguer presents facts and evidence to prove another wrong, especially in emotional issues.

Example: Try talking me out of going to grad school for philosophy.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/grad.htm 

8. If you reconstruct the argument into standard form. Are the premises linked, serial, or convergent?

The Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

P1. The NSA has become…

P2. Drone strikes have…

P3. Obama is spending…

C. The Obama version…

Linked.

Serial.

Convergent.

Biases


Review
Examples
Homework

Definitions:

1. Bias = def.  An inclination or a prejudice that can interfere with our reasoning.

-The result of psychological elements such as our attitudes, desires, fears, and motivations.

-Merely having a bias doesn't mean you're going to make a mistake in reasoning. That depends on the kind and strength of the bias.

Legitimate bias = def.  Simply having a point of view, but not allowing that point of view to distort reasoning.

Example: I'm a feminist. However, I recognize that men can experience certain types of pressure, and even discrimination, because they are men.

Illegitimate bias = def. A point of view that interferes with one's judgment or reasoning and causes the arguer poorly or dishonestly represent reasons and evidence, or to make weak logical connections between premises and the conclusion.

Example:I'm a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or whatever...). I think anything that comes out of a non-Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or whatever)'s mouth is probably mistaken.

There are different strengths of bias:

A vested interest = def. When the arguer stands to gain in some important way if their conclusion is true. (I.e., there is a personal benefit to the arguer if their position turns out to be true or is believed to be true.)

Example: I've created a new drug that I think cures AIDS. I'd like it (and I'd certainly benefit) if clinical trials confirmed this hypothesis. 
*Note: The fact that I have a vested interest doesn't mean that I'll manipulate the data to get the conclusion I want. That said, the presence of incentives such as fame, monetary gain, etc. is certainly something for others to keep in mind when they analyze my findings. 

A conflict of interest = def. (roughly) “A vested interest on steroids.”

More precisely: A set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends. Conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships.

Example:

https://newrepublic.com/article/135564/dnc-one-big-corporate-bribe 

                                         The DNC is One Big Corporate Bribe

Summary:

Primary interest (for any political official, regardless of party): Represent the interests of your constituency, i.e., the people who voted for you and for whom you're supposed to speak.

Secondary interest: Financial gain, favors, etc. from influential & wealthy donors, e.g., JP Morgan, Exxon-Mobil, Monsanto, and so on --> Motivation to promote interests of wealthy donors.

Q: Whose interests do you think will win out?
Q: Explain the conflict of interest here/why it's objectionable?  

Discussion Q: Can you think of another example of a conflict of interest? Specifically, can you think of a conflict of interest that might compromise a person's professional judgment?

Biases, ctd...

(Side note: Two general ways we can think about errors in reasoning.

1. “Processing errors” – Errors in how we think (incl. biases, e.g., conflicts of interest, biased fairness, group bias)

2. False beliefs – Beliefs formed on the basis of erroneous information. E.g., I think the meeting is at 11:00 because John told me so. But John was mistaken about the time.)

Biased fairness = def. When people are presented with the exact same situation but are situated in different positions. They think they're being objectively fair but their particular role in distorts reasoning.

-Individual self-interest impacts judgments about fairness.

Example from class: Lawsuits and legal fees.

Discussion Q: Can you think of another instance of biased fairness? 
 

Group bias = def. When we believe a position on an issue not because of its merits but because of our affiliation with a group and that group's position on the issue.

-Loyalty to a group often precludes giving due weight to the evidence on both sides of an issue.

 

Group biases can skew your interpretation of the facts, In fact, they might even drive you to claim that feelings determine facts (!?!). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLPVyYacr8Q

Homework (Lesson 2.1):

 

A. Choose any 4 of the following articles. Decide whether there is an legitimate or illegitimate bias. If it is an illegitimate bias decide whether it is a vested interest or a conflict of interest. Be prepared to discuss your answer in recitation.

1. Funding for climate  change denial research: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/ (Links to an external site.)

2. Vaccines, Wakefield, Autism: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/01/surprise-surprise-andrew-wakefield-was-p/ (Links to an external site.)

3. Perception of food: http://narrative.ly/lessons-from-a-local-food-scam-artist/ (Links to an external site.)

4. Cash for Kids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal (Links to an external site.)

5. Oil and Gas Tax and Regulation and Campaign donations: https://thinkprogress.org/senators-who-voted-to-protect-oil-tax-breaks-received-23-582-500-from-big-oil-74158cde760a#.yw56tjoa8 (Links to an external site.) see also: http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/oil-gas/52766c4910a846f2813a1dda212b7027?cycle=2012 (Links to an external site.)

6. Anti-Marijuana Legislation and Alcohol Lobby: http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-industries-getting-rich-off-the-drug-w/1 (Links to an external site.)

7. Immigration Legislation and Private Prisons: http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law (Links to an external site.)


B. In the news recently there has been a hullaballoo regarding conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. As you should know by now from the course, when events and issues are related to politics biases will overwhelm most people's ability to gather and process information. In short, their capacity to think critically is compromised.
Here are two different articles covering the issue, one from the right (Links to an external site.) and one from the left (Links to an external site.). Read them both and answer the following:

a. How do biases affect the contents and arguments in each respective article?

b. Based on both articles, do you think there was an conflict of interest or vested interest, or neither? Be prepared to defend your answer in recitation.

In the unlikely event that we run out of things to discuss, here's another example worth investigating that I stumbled on this week:

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08/meat-and-moral-psychology.html?mid=fb-share-scienceofus

                                 The Lie That Many People Who Eat Meat Tell Themselves

Summary of findings in this article:

1) "We develop a moral belief [e.g., regarding if/when it's okay to eat animals] for whatever reason, and then build a rationalization around it, like some pretty but flimsy facade."
[Note:There are obviously exceptions to this) 

2) "For meat eaters, a common rationalization has to do with intelligence: Many meat eaters say they eat dumb animals, but not smart ones, in part because dumb animals don’t enjoy the same moral standing as higher forms of life... For carnivores taking this tack, pigs are an inconvenient truth: They are as smart as dogs, and yet most Americans who eat pigs would never eat a dog. (In parts of China and elsewhere, dog meat is savored.) If you argue that intelligence is the benchmark you use to decide which animals to eat, it doesn’t make logical sense to say that it’s morally permissible to eat pigs but not dogs. And yet a lot of people do argue that, or something like it."

3) The study reports that "People alter their judgment of animal intelligence to be in line with their actions, for example, when they are made aware that eating animals is inconsistent with the animal’s moral standing. Generally speaking, in other words, meat eaters are more likely to change our interpretation of the situation — naw, pigs aren’t actually that smart — than change their behavior. Their reasoning is, well, motivated. (Motivated reasoning is a human universal... [it's not something that] applies only to meat eaters.)"

Discussion Q: What's going on here? That is, what does this study demonstrate with regards to human biases and reasoning?