1) Return exams & some comments regarding Exam #1*
*Not a review.
A few of your classmates had unavoidable conflicts on Friday and arranged in advance to take the exam after break.
Also, we have new material to cover.
So, I won't be discussing the answers to Exam #1 in class on Wednesday.
I am happy to discuss exams during office hours (see below).
2) Informal fallacies, continued
a) New fallacies
Group exercises: What's wrong with this argument?
b) Review (examples from last week)
Homework questions?
3) "Grading" me
Perhaps not the best timing, given that I've just returned your exams... But in the last 10-ish minutes of class I'll ask you to fill out informal mid-semester evaluations of me & this class.
Please take the time to fill out the form, which is anonymous, and to leave comments. Your input is very important to me. I will adjust the format of the class (within reason) in light of students' feedback.
1) Comments regarding Exam #1
-Many students did quite well, and the grade distribution was just about what we expected.
-If you are unhappy with your grade, I have a few suggestions:
1. Don't panic
-Logic is hard
-It is very easy to do very poorly on a logic exam.
This is because many of the answers are non-negotiable. I tried my best to give you partial credit - and generous partial credit - where possible. However, in many cases, given the nature of the subject matter, there wasn't much (or any) "wiggle room." An inference is either valid or invalid. Either you formalize the argument correctly, or you don't. These mistakes add up and, with no partial credit possible, grades can plummet.
-The semester ain't over til it's over
-This was just the first exam. You've got another exam, a final project, several quizzes, the usual slew of homework assignments, and extra credit opportunities to come...
-The first exam is usually the hardest
-In general, students tend to do slightly better on subsequent exams simply because they know what to expect.
2. Come see me
Come see me in 340 Shatzel Hall.
I'll be in 340 Shatzel Hall; come see me.
Come to office hours in 340 Shatzel Hall.
Make an appointment to meet me in 340 Shatzel Hall.
Did I mention that you ought to stop by 340 Shatzel Hall?
Come to my office in 340 Shatzel Hall.
There's candy.
(There is no candy. But you should still come see me.)
-Please note that if I wrote "Come see me" on your exam you are not in trouble, nor are you required to come see me. However, I strongly recommend that you see me during office hours to discuss your exam.
In general: I am happy to discuss any and all questions/concerns related to the exam in my office. HOWEVER, I REQUIRE THAT YOU COME TO MY OFFICE TO DISCUSS THE EXAM. That means no emails.
3. We'll make you a deal
Here's the deal. If you failed the first exam, Ami and I guarantee that you will pass the class (i.e., we will bump your grade up at the end of the semester) if and only if your performance improves over the course of the semester. Specifically, we require that:
-You attend all lecture and discussion classes (legitimate excuses notwithstanding)
-You submit all homework assignments for the remainder of the semester
-You pass all quizzes for the remainder of the semester
-You pass Exam #2
-You receive a passing grade on the final (project)
Note: These terms are non-negotiable.
You will pass the class - perhaps with room to spare - if you meet the terms of our agreement.
If you violate the terms of the agreement, the deal is off.
Look for an email from Ami regarding this policy.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Final note: In the future, at least try the bonus questions!
2) Informal fallacies, continued
Important to keep in mind:
If an argument is fallacious (that is, if contains a logical fallacy - an invalid inference, or premises that do not adequately support the conclusion of the argument) its conclusion is not necessarily false.
If you identify a fallacy (formal or informal) in an argument, you have good reason to doubt whether the arguer has established the conclusion to be true. But it could be true.
Upshot: be highly suspect of fallacious arguments, but don't dismiss them entirely. At least, don't dismiss them right off the bat.
(Your argument might be invalid, despite the irrelevance of a cat pushing a watermelon out of a lake to that conclusion.)
New material
In groups of 3-4, determine -
a) The common flaw in the arguments listed below, and
b) give your own example to illustrate the problem.
I will update the blog after class on Wednesday to include the names of these fallacies.
I will also cite student examples that accurately illustrate the flaw in reasoning.*
*Incentive: Groups that give me a blog-worthy example earn a bonus point (for each member) on the next exam
Mystery fallacy #1 (+ variation on mystery fallacy #1):
A. Everybody agrees that moving US troops into Crimea would be a bad idea. We shouldn't do it.
B: Most people agree that vitamin C cures the common cold. Therefore, you should take it.
C: A lot of people agree that Hondas are better than Fords, therefore they are.
D. In the spring of 2015 over 105 million Americans ate at McDonald's. The food at McDonald's must be awesome.
Fallacy #1: Ad Populum (appeal to the people)
This fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to popular opinion to support their claim.
Exceptions are cases where popular opinion is relevant (e.g., fashion).
Variation: Bandwagon Effect (very closely related)
Often used in advertising through images of beautiful/happy people using a product... “You can be like us too!”
Student examples (from class):
-Everyone at school is eating Special K to lose weight. I want to lose a few pounds, so I should buy Special K.
-4/5 consumers prefer Colgate toothpaste; I ought to switch to Colgate.*
*NOTE: This example originally said "4/5 dentists prefer... but I've amended it, because that could be considered a legitimate appeal to authority.
Mystery Fallacy #2:
A: The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
B: His healthcare policy is un-American: It needs to be repealed.
C: A true American wouldn't cut funding from our troops. Why do you hate America?
D: Give Bob a lighter sentence because he's an orphan that grew up in hardship. Have a heart!
Fallacy #2: Appeal to Emotions
When the arguer tries to elicit feelings of pity, outrage, compassion, pride, nationalism, etc., instead of providing reasons for or against a position.
Charities use this a lot in their advertising.
Political ads use it a lot too (appeal to nationalism).
Debatable cases: when human emotions are an important factor in the issue.
My example: Eliciting righteous anger/compassion on behalf of a good cause.
Here's MLK Jr. (aka, The freaking MAN), paraphrasing Dante’s Inferno:
“The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”
Student examples (from class):
-OMG that ASPCA commercial with Sarah McLaughlin singing is soooo sad. Did you see the kittens reaching out of their cages with their little paws? You should totally give the ASPCA some money.
Mystery Fallacy #3:
A: If you don't get rid of your suspected chemical weapons, we will bomb you.
B: If you don't do your homework, I will beat you.
C. The Pope (c. 1600) to Giordano Bruno: "I'm not saying you have to take back what you said about Copernicus being right and the Catholic Church being wrong. I'm just saying that if you don't recant, we'll burn you at the stake."
D. Letter to Ami: "Dear Professor Palmer, when considering my grade in your class, please keep in mind that my mother is the Dean (your boss)."
Fallacy #3: Ad baculum (appeal to force)
When the arguer essentially presents a threat of force instead of a reason for accepting a position.
Student examples (from class):
-If you don't donate to the ASPCA, we're gonna kill all the puppies and kittens*
*Also, we may or may not have psychopaths in our class
Mystery Fallacy #4:
A. Albert Einstein believed in the existence of God. Unless you think you're smarter than Einstein, you ought to believe in God, too.
B. President Mazey (of BGSU) is voting for Trump/Hillary. That's enough to convince me to vote for Trump/Hillary, too.
C. Larry the Cable Guy says that Prilosec (a prescription antacid medication) works wonders. If you have heartburn, you ought to talk to your doctor about Prilosec.
D. If you're depressed, you ought to try meditating. My yoga instructor says it cures depression.
Fallacy #4: Appeal to Unqualified Authority; aka Arugmentum Ad Verecundia; aka, Argument From Reverence/Respect
When someone supports his/her claim by appealing to a non-expert on the subject.
E.g., Celebrity endorsements: Jenny McCarthy on vaccines, Oprah on pop psychology and medicine.
*Differences between legitimate and illegitimate experts can sometimes be subtle, e.g., doctor versus medical researcher. Consider the merits of:
A) a plastic surgeon (M.D.)’s commentary on the merits of vaccines, versus
B) the opinion of an M.D. with a PhD in epidemiology (the study of disease and how it spreads).
Student examples (from the class):
-Obama says eating spaghetti relieves headaches. So if you have a headache, you should eat spaghetti.
Review***********************************************
Think way, way, wayyyy back to last Wednesday...
1. Ad hominem (against the person) & reverse ad hominem
1a. Circumstantial ad hominem & reverse circumstantial ad hominem: cites a person's motivation as reason for dismissing (or embracing) his/her argument*
*Closely related to the concept of a vested interest
E.g., "Liz works with rescued farm animals. Of course she's going to say eating meat is morally wrong."
Catskill Animal Sanctuary
1b. Genetic fallacy & reverse genetic fallacy: cites the source of an argument as reason to dismiss or embrace the argument*
*This one applies to groups/organizations/texts - not just people
E.g., "Sure, the conservative media say that Hillary's a liar. But we all know we can't trust the conservative media."
1c. Tu quoque (too-kwoh-kwe): The hypocrite fallacy.
Donald Trump's attempt at tu quoque prior to the second presidential debate:
1d. Poisoning the well, aka, preemptive ad hominem: Discredits a source/person before the source/person has a chance to present an argument
2. The naturalistic fallacy. You commit this fallacy when you equate natural with good. Three varieties:
2a. Naturalistic fallacy, version 1: cites naturalness as a reason to think a drug, or whatever sort of product is healthier, safer, or more effective.
Example:
Today's word of the day is panacea.
Panacea = def. A cure-all; a cure for everything. As in:
According to certain natural medicine & homeopathy enthusiasts, coconut oil is a panacea.
Note: probably don't trust a doctor who spells "blood sugar stabilizer" "blood sugar stabalizer..."
The problem:
2b. Naturalistic fallacy, version 2: If something's natural, it's morally good. If something's unnatural, it's morally bad.
E.g., "It's natural for humans to eat meat. Therefore, it's morally permissible."*
*As discussed in class, it's easy to run a reductio on this claim.
2c. Naturalistic fallacy, version 3: Argument from tradition, or argument from ancient authority.
"We've always done or thought X, so we should keep doing or thinking X (efficacy)."
E.g., "Women gave birth naturally forever, so..."
OR
"We've always done or thought X, so we should keep doing or thinking X (morality)."
E.g., "We've always thought women belong at home, so..."
End review*******************************
If time (unlikely!) work on some homework examples in groups:
a) Identify the logical fallacy, and
b) explain why the premises are irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion:
1. A: You need to do more squats if you want to make gainz.
B: Yeah, but you never squat. All you do is chest and biceps.
2. A: Dude, no, Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Go read it on Snopes.
B: Snopes? You expect me to believe something run by liberals?
3. For almost all of human history marriage was between a man and a woman. Therefore, it's wrong to allow gay marriage.
3) Informal mid-semester course evaluation
I would appreciate you taking the time to fill out my anonymous & informal mid-semester course evaluation.
Please focus your responses on the discussion component of the course, i.e., my teaching. Feel free to add comments regarding the lecture portion of the course in the last comments section.
Place completed evaluations in the envelope provided.
Thank you!!
No comments:
Post a Comment