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
No comments:
Post a Comment