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?