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?