Go ahead, you pick the
subject. I’ll even let you pick either
side of the issue. I’ll take the other
side. But, should warn
you. I’m loaded for bear. You will be engaging a lean mean fighting
machine in this battle. I’m mentally
riff. Why, I’d reject your ad hominen attacks, expose your begging the question, tear
down your straw men, meet your generalizations head on with counter-instances,
make fun of your terminological obfuscations and rebuff all your ipsedixitisms. In
short, argue with me now and I’ll eat you up and spit you out in little
pieces. You are probably wondering how I
became such a well-honed arguing machine.
It’s because I finally read a book by Jerry Cederblom
and David Paulsen, Critical Reasoning. (Belmont California,
Wadsworth/Thomas learning. 2001). Now
I’m equipped to win any side of any argument.
I can even argue with myself now and always win. I don‘t even need to believe something
to win an argument any more, so watch out if you tangle with me! But just to make this a fair fight I’ll even
share my arsenal of definitions I’ve simplified from the book. So to make this more even, here are my
simplified definitions of some terms to prepare you for the first round. Learn these well if you want to spar with me! (Of course I’m just kidding here—I don’t want
to argue at all, I just read the book in an afternoon and these are my rough
notes in case anyone is interested.)
Critical Thinking Terms
Fallacy
of Absent Control
No
control study--- “Every time I wash my car, it rains” Is this a controlled
study or an observation that it frequently seems to happen just because it
usually happens.?
Ad
Hominem
Attacking the Person. Pointing out bad
associations, personal characteristics, or motives of the opponents.
The
impact: “only bad people disagree with me” is often supplemented with an “all
good people agree with me.”
Affirming
the Antecedent
1) If A, then B.
2) A.
Therefore, B.
For
example: If we raise tuition then fewer students will be able to come. We are raising tuition. Therefore fewer students will come here.
Ambiguity
A
term has more than one meaning in that context.
Crucial
ambiguity
An
ambiguity is crucial if, depending on how an ambiguous term is interpreted, in
the context of a premise statement, the truth-value of the statement changes
between True and False. If we changed
this policy we’d get a better student
here.
Analogical
Reasoning
“X
is like X’, and X’ has quality Y (or something like it), so X will (probably)
have quality Y too. The big question is whether X is so much like X’ that it’s
reasonable to expect their other qualities to be similar too.
Example:
IWU is like Taylor University. IWU is
has a great spiritual atmosphere. Taylor
will have such an atmosphere too.
and / but
Combines
a simple statement with a more complex one with the assumption that is the
simpler one is true the more complex one will be true too—or false. Simple
statement and complex statement
(implying both are true even though only the simple one is obviously true.
Antecedent
“Iffy” part of an “if-then”
statement.
Appeal
to Diffuse Authority
X
is true because John F. Kennedy believed it.
Or X is true because Mother Teresa believed it. Appeal to famous or non-relevant authority.
Appeal
to Force
Truth
is a respecter of power. Agree with me
or I’ll fire you only makes one believer—the threatened person. Actually firing the person makes lots of
other agree with you. People tend to
accept statements from powerful people.
When someone practices this on you, duck or beat them up.
Appeal
to ignorance
Strategy
of showing that something must be true because you can’t prove it is
false. “There is life on other planets”
Can you prove that there isn’t? (Same for arguments for God).
Appeal
to Pity
Strategy to get a person to accept a proposition
because by not accepting it they would harm or hurt another. “Come and be saved tonight or your
Grandmother will go to bed crying.” Buy
this sweeper form me or my kids will starve.
Argument
One
or more statements (premise) are given to defend as true another statement
(conclusion).
Argumentum
Ad Homily
Explain
something with a popular generalization accepted by all. Example: we lost the Basketball game because
“You can’t win ‘em all.”
Begging
the Question
When the premise
is simply a restatement of the conclusion. Example: Reducing taxes gives relief to
families therefore we should give relief to families by reducing taxes.
(Principle
of) Burden of proof
“Hey
you are the one making the statement here—you
have got to prove it, I don’t have to disprove it.
Causal
Reasoning
Inference that A was the cause for B. “I ate that Big Mac then I threw up” is an
example of causal reasoning, but not good causal reasoning.
(Principle
of) Charitable Interpretation.
Help
the other guys (debaters, salesmen, authors) give you their best
shot—reconstruct their arguments in premise-conclusion better even than they
have.
(Fallacy
of) Composition
The
(false) notion that what is true of the parts will be true of the whole. “America’s Olympic basketball team is made up
of all-star players, we’ll beat everybody in the
world.” Not necessarily true—they all
might be great payers, but together as a team they may stink. What is true of all of the parts is not
necessarily true of the whole composition.
(Missing)
conclusion
An
unstated conclusion which the “peddler: hopes you will infer.
Conditional
Statement
An if-then statement. The if part is the antecedent, the then part the conclusion.
Conditioning
the marketplace:
All the stuff that softens up the marketplace of
ideas to accept the proposition. Nice music
playing, pretty girls in shorts smiling happily, sponsoring help for the hungry
concerts… anything that softens up the folk to receive the proposition.
Confidence
strategy :
Proposing the proposition with such confidence that
it seems right to the uninitiated. Dressing for
success, speaking with clarity and humor, acting certain, saying “well,
obviously to any thinking person…” or “as anyone can see…” Making it look true by your bearing and
demeanor.
Conjunction
One
of many “logical operators” that makes more complex statements out of simpler
ones—for example, “and”, “or”, “not”, etc.
Consistent
When
it is possible for a series of statements to all be true at the same time.
Consumers
of Propositions
In
the business of persuasion it is like economics—there are “peddlers” of
propositions and “consumers” of propositions.
The peddlers “sell” their propositions to the “consumers.”
Controlled
experiment
A
scientific experiment to discover if A factor causes B result where there is a
second group where the A factor is not present—example a the
control group placebo.
Counter-instance
Giving an instance showing that a generalization is
not universally true. “All white people are hard
working. But what
about Jake Goofus?” Citing Jake is a counter-instance.
Critical
Reasoning
Not
merely disagreeing with a proposition, but using a method of understanding and
evaluating the proposition.
Deductive
Argument
i.e. “valid” argument. An argument stated in a way
that if the premise is true the conclusion will also be true.
Denying
the Antecedent
An
argument based on “Jabberwock” thinking: 1) If A then
B. 2) Not A. Therefore, Not B.
Example 1) If John Kennedy was
executed by the Cubans he’d be dead. 2)
Kennedy was not executed by the Cubans.
Therefore John Kennedy is alive.
(note: it is called “Jabberwock”
in honor the 19th century mathematician and logician Charles Dodgson--AKA Lewis Carroll--author of Alice in Wonderland,
and the poem Jabberwocky.)
Denying
the Consequent
Defeating an argument by tearing down the consequent
argument. Example: 1) If A, then B. 2) Not B. Therefore, Not A.
Example: 1) If we raise tuition 2)then we will
have fewer students next year therefore we shouldn’t raise tuition. Denying the consequent is simply disproving fewer students
will sign up if tuition is reduces. I
other words not B, therefore the conclusions are invalid.
(fallacy of) Division
An argument requiring that what applies to the whole
will apply to each (or even most) of the parts. “The average number of children per family is
2.2.”
Domino
argument
Long chain of cause-and-effect inference. If we allow the government to restrict
abortion, they will then restrict family planning, and then they will….”
Fallacy
A
pattern of thinking that seems persuasive but shouldn’t be. False.
False
dilemma
Or False Dichotomy. A statement that may hide a premise that
makes it harder for an idea-consumer to see the premise needs further
defense. “Hey that is shrieking, not
music” assumes that sounds are either music or not music—which is the hidden
premise… but there are other options…maybe it is neither music nor shrieking.
Follows
Saying
that C conclusion follows from A arguments. If the
argument is valid then C conclusion follows A
arguments. If, on the other hand the
argument is not valid, then C conclusion does not follow from A argument… this is called a non sequitur (Latin, “It doesn’t follow.”)
General-to-particular
Reasoning
Non-deductive reasoning starting with the general
(most) and moving to a particular (this). Most
men like sports; my husband likes sports.
Hasty
Generalization
Accepting a generalization on a sampling that is too
small or was selected in some biased way.
Hedgehog
strategy
Simply
act like the principle of burden of proof
is true and thus move squabbles and disputes into more constructive
encounters.
Holy
cow
A
concept regarded automatically as good and thus is immune to criticism. “Democracy is the best form of
government.” “We need more women in
leadership.” A premise doesn’t need
defended if it is proven true, OR if it is accepted as true by all.
Inductive
Argument
An argument where the premises do not guarantee the
conclusion, but predict a high probability on it.
For
example: The vast majority
of APS students come from non-Wesleyan
homes. Jason is an APS
student, therefore Jason is a non-Wesleyan.
An inductive argument may be often true… even almost-always true.
Inference
indicator
A
word or phrase showing the next statement is the inference of an argument:
“thus”, “therefore”, “so”, and “consequently.”
(“Since,””After all,” and “In view of the fact
that” commonly indicate that an upcoming statement is a premise.)
Ipsedixitism :
A
statement asserted but not defended.
Latin “dixit” (he says) and “ipse” (himself).
Irrational
argument :
An argument with one or more premises that do not
make its conclusion any more probable.
Logic
The study of the principles of rational inference. That is, what this is.
Negation
Turning a statement into the opposite truth. “The moon is made of Green
Cheese.” Negation inserts a “not” -- “The moon is NOT
made of Green Cheese.”
Particular-to-General
Reasoning
Staring
with particulars—samples, evidence from a small group, an individual stuff—and
moving to conclusions about a larger population.
Peddler
of Propositions:
In the marketplace of ideas those who sell their
propositions.
Positive
Correlation
The
percentage of A’s that are B’s is higher than the percentage of A’s which are not B’s produces a positive
correlation. The study showed a
positive correlation between campus involvement and later leadership in the
community. That is, those with campus
involvement who later were involved in the community were more common in the
study than those with campus involvement who were not involved in the
community.
Process
of elimination
Also,
“disjunctive syllogism”
1) A or B
not-A
Therefore B.
Either
we go to the beach or mountains for vacation.
We can not go to the beach.
Therefore we shall go to the mountains.
Process
of specification:
1) A or B
A
with conclusion not-B.
Either
we go to the beach or mountains for vacation.
We will go to the beach.
Therefore we will not go to the mountains.
Reconstruction
Putting
together a structured argument form a collection of sentences issued by the
peddler. IN other
words, constructing a logical argument form another’s statements in order to
examine it logically.
reductio ad absurdum
“Reduce
to the Absurd” Showing that an argument is true by showing that its premises
are not logically consistent with a rejection (negation) of its
conclusion. In other words, if one
accepts the premises they can’t reject the conclusion. The way reductio shows this is combining
the premises with the negation of the conclusion—presto! You have shown the
person that accepts the premise and rejects the conclusion is guilty of self-
contradiction.
Rhetorical question.
Using a question to express a statement. “Do you want the government controlling what
you do in your Uterus?”
Rhetorical
exclamation
Asking
a question back in order to answer a question—leaving to the question-asker to
figure out what the answer means.
Sharon: “Would you like a cold Diet-Coke?” Keith: “Is the Pope Catholic?”
Selection
of evidence :
An extra-logical
device (lying and evasion and also extra-logical) where a peddler offers only
the facts that tend to support the proposition. “Here are 26 reasons why we should move our
headquarters from Marion to Indianapolis.”
Self-Contradiction
A logical absurdity --a statement that cannot
(logically) be true.
Slippery
Slope Argument
The
domino theory is a cause-and-effect argument. This is similar but slippery
slope purports to have a logical connection more than a cause-effect one. Slippery slope: “I can’t let you turn in that
paper late because if I do then every student in the class will then turn in
late papers and deadlines will then mean nothing at all.
Sound
Argument
A valid (deductive) argument with only true
premises.
Straw
man
Dismissing a proposition by substituting another in
its place (the straw man) then tearing down the straw man substitute and
pronouncing the original proposition dead. It is
only effective when the straw man looks so much like the original proposition
that listeners buy it.
syllogism
An
argument composed of three statements in connections. Example: All X are Y, No X are Y, Some X are
Y, or Some X are not Y. For example
consider “A)students” “as B)leaders” and
“C)Wesleyans.” Some A are B, No B are C, and Some A
are not C, respectively. “Some students
are leaders. No leaders are Wesleyans. Therefore, some students are not
Wesleyan.”
Tautology :
Any
statement whose truth-value is True regardless of the truth-value any other
statements—it is true in all possible situations. For instance, “There are no women presidents
of Christian Colleges ,or there is at least one women
president of a Christian College.
Terminological
obfuscation:
Disguising simple ideas in complicated terminology
in order to conceal the true significance (or lack of significance) from the
ordinary consumer. Example: this term itself---
why not say confusing things with complicated words… “Terminological
obfuscation,” Jeez!
Truth-Value
A
statement is either true or false—that is its truth-value.
tu quoque
(“You
Too”) A kind of ad hominem argument. Dismissing the proposition
because the person doesn’t “live it” themselves. The truth of a statement is not dependant on
the personal life of the person proposing it.
Example: mother warning daughter not to smoke when mother smokes.
Validity
An
argument is valid (deductive) if and only
if there are no possible circumstances under which all the premises would
be true, and the conclusion would be false.
That is validity means every
time and in all circumstances when A and B are true C also follows
These are my notes from reading the book Critical Reasoning
by Jerry Cederblom and David Paulsen (Belmont
California, Wadsworth/Thomas learning. 2001—I was interested while reading the
book but I lost interest soon after laying it down—but nevertheless here are my
notes)
Keith Drury September 2001