1. “Still I Look to Find a Reason to Believe”

2. Philosophy 1100 Hand in Today’s Work: Syllabus Quiz
Title: Critical Reasoning
Instructor: Paul Dickey
Address:
Website:
Quia Class Website
Hand in Today’s Work:
Syllabus Quiz
Reading Assignment for Next week
Chapter 3 of your text. (skip pp for now)
Due 6/22: First Editorial Essay! I will discuss requirements of essay later (If I haven’t
by 9:00 p.m, please ask me …… ) 2

3. Editorial Analysis Paper
1) Two editorial analyses papers will be 15% of your total grade. Each paper will count 7.5% of your total grade. The paper should be 2 to 3 pages.
2) I recommend that you select your editorials or “articles” carefully from one of these sources.
3) There are five steps to the required analysis. Each step must be discussed appropriately. (Divide your paper into five separate paragraphs, if you choose.) 3 3

4. Student Portfolios: Assignment #2 What is an Argument?
What is an Argument?
·         “collect” from your daily experience 2-3 “artifacts” that describe what an argument is and/or give examples (regarding, as you choose, ones related to life choices, relationships, job, politics, and so on).
·         For each, write a description or explanation of the artifact selected and its relevance to the class topic (1 paragraph)
·         Write a brief assessment of the relevance of your anecdotes chosen in Section One of your portfolio to that topic.

5. What is Critical Thinking, Anyway?
Chapter One
What is Critical Thinking, Anyway? 5

6. What is a Claim?
A claim is sometimes called an assertion, an opinion, a belief, a “view”, a thought, a conviction, or perhaps, an idea.
A claim must be expressed as a statement or a complete, declarative sentence. That is, it is propositional. It cannot be a question.
What is an Objective Claim vs a Subjective Claim? An objective (but not a subjective) claim is true or false independent of what people think! But be careful. 6

7. Arguments & Subjectivism
The view that “one opinion is as good as another,” “it’s true for me though it might not be true for you” or “whatever is true is only what you think is true” is known as subjectivism.
For some things, this makes sense, e.g.
Miller taste great.
My grandson is cute.
The waiter at the restaurant was nice.
Your text refers to these as “subjective claims” and says that “some people” (but presumably not critical thinkers may call these “opinions.”) 7

8. Subjectivism
To tell if something is subjective, ask yourself: “If Susan says “A” is true and Tiffany says “A” is not true, is it reasonable to say that they both are right?
One cannot give an argument either for or against a subjective position.
But be careful. Is it reasonable to argue that the most significant beliefs in our lives are subjective – whether God exists, whether you are living your life morally, or whom you should love? 8

9. Subjectivism
The critical thinker always prefers objectivity to subjectivism whenever it is appropriate and necessary.
A critical thinker is not subjective about issues that can be evaluated by objective standards and evidence.
However, few issues or ideas if any have no subjective component.
Even different heart specialists may prefer different techniques for no accepted medical reason.
Simon Cowell dresses well. 9

10. But there is another VERY important
distinction that must be made about
claims. Perhaps even more important.
What is a Factual Claim?
In its clearest form, a claim asserts that something is true or false.
That is, it asserts a fact. This kind of claim is known as a “factual claim” or a “descriptive claim.” 10

11. What is a Normative Claim?
Value statements can also be claims though. In such claims, a fact is not asserted in the same sense that it was in factual claims.
For example, the claim “You should come to class” is not true or false (at least in the same way that the claim “P1100 class is held in Room 218” is).
Thus, some claims are “normative claims” or “prescriptive claims.” They express values and how one should act based on values. A value statement is a claim that asserts something is good or bad. 11

12. Now, Critical Thinking is Absolutely Relevant to Both Factual & Normative Claims
As we shall see in this class, it is necessary that we identify very clearly which kind of a claim we have before we can properly evaluate any argument for it!
Thus, please note we are taking a position against the subjectivist and saying that even moral judgments can be analyzed by the principles of critical thinking. 12

13. What is an ISSUE?
Can you have a rational argument about something if you don’t’ know what you are talking about or if one person is talking about something different?
So what does it mean to be talking “about” something?
What is the difference between an issue and a topic?

14. What is an ISSUE? Consider the following:
Honda Accords are good cars to buy. They are cheap to fix. Their parts are easily found.
How many claims are there?
But what is the ISSUE?
Thus, an ISSUE is the Question we are asking. That is, we need to determine what claim we are asking about whether or not it is true.
Then, we must identify the ARGUMENT “in support of” the issue. Once the claim though is identified, we can also see that we are giving an ARGUMENT “for” that claim being true or false. 14

15. The Fundamental Principle of Critical Thinking is The Nature of an Argument
Making a claim is stating a belief or opinion -- the conclusion
An argument is presented when you give a reason or reasons that the claim is true. -- the premise(s)
Thus, an argument consists of two parts, and one part (the premise or premises) is/are the reason(s) for thinking that the conclusion is true.

16. An Argument is . . .
An attempt to support a claim (or conclusion) by giving reasons (or premises) for believing it.
Not to be confused with the confrontational act of attempting to persuade.
Please note: We are reserving the use of “argument” to refer to the combination of claim & premises and not using it as it often is in daily speech to refer to premises only. 16

17. Arguments & Cognitive Bias
Consequently, your text discusses several “cognitive biases” that have been proposed by psychologists as explanations for why people act as they do (which is often counter to the principles of critical thinking that we will discuss.)
Please observe that psychologists are primarily interested in “factual” or objective claims and issues and we as philosophers are interested in “normative” (but NOT “subjective” ones). 17

18. Class Workshop
Are there any questions either over what we discussed last week or the reading assignment?
Class Workshop:
Exercise 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6,
1-7, 1-11, 1-15, 1-16. 18

19. Examples of Cognitive Biases
Belief Bias. We tend to evaluate arguments as better if we agree with the conclusion already.
Availability Heuristics. We tend to evaluate probabilities based on how often we hear of certain outcomes.
Bandwagon Effect. We tend to try to align our judgments with others.
Negativity Bias. We tend to pay more attention to negative information.
In-group Bias. We tend to view individuals in our own group more sympathetically as those outside the group.
Overconfidence Effect. Generally speaking, a majority will consider their actions and judgments “better than average” which is logically impossible. 19

20. Truth and Knowledge What do we mean when we say something is true?
What do we mean when we say we know something?
What Can’t Critical Thinking Do?
Questions?

21. Chapter Two Two Kinds of Reasoning21

22. Two Kinds of Good Arguments
A good deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily (that is, has to be) true.
Such an argument is called “valid” and “proves” the conclusion.
For example – Lebron James lives in the United States because he lives in Nebraska.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
____
Socrates is mortal.
A sound argument is a valid, deductive argument in which the premises are in fact true.

23. Two Kinds of Good Arguments
A good inductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true, but not always. The truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Such an argument is called “strong” and supports the conclusion.
For example: Dan lives in Nebraska and he loves football, so he is a Nebraska Cornhusker fan.
If offered to me before class tonight, I would
have made a bet with my wife that each of you would
sit in the same seat in class that you did last week.
If she would have taken the bet, would I
have won more money than I would have lost?

24. How Do Premises Support Factual vs. Normative Conclusions?
In regard to evaluating Inductive support for Factual vs. Normative Conclusions, I would suggest the following two tips to keep in mind
1) Only Factual Premises support Factual Conclusions. That is, if the conclusion is factual (or descriptive), ALL premises must be factual.
2) A Normative Premise is always needed to support a Normative Conclusion. That is, if the conclusion is normative (or prescriptive), there must be at least one normative premise. Of course, there may or may not be factual premises!

25. What is “Balance of Considerations?”
But many arguments do not appear to be simply either Deductive or Inductive. They appear to be some kind of a hybrid form. Take the Jamela example in the text. Perhaps many arguments have elements of both? Or is there a third kind of argument?
Also, when we considered an argument per se, we considered only premises for the conclusion. What about premises against the conclusion? Aren’t they also just as relevant? Didn’t we say that critical thinking involved being fair-minded and considering all points of view? So, what gives here?

26. What is “Balance of Considerations Reasoning?”
Textbook seems to raise this issue but then fails to address it satisfactorily.
So can we help our authors out here? Your instructor’s view is:
1. No, there is no “third kind” of reasoning.
2. What often appears to be “one argument” is frequently a combination of arguments. Critical thinking must first deconstruct a “buffet” of arguments into individual arguments and analyze them one at a time.
3. And then finally, we must make a judgment not only on individual arguments but on a “complex theory” or “web of belief” comprising our best analysis of many individual arguments, perhaps in a hierarchy of arguments.

27. Seriously Evaluating an Argument27

28. How Do We Evaluate an Argument?
There are generally two requirements (and only
two) logically to evaluate a claim –
1) Do the premises support or prove the conclusion? Or is the argument valid
(if deductive) or strong (if inductive)?
2) Are the premises true?
-- It would be nonsense for you to object with, for example, “I don’t want to believe that” or “You shouldn’t say that”, or “Where did you come up with that?” “That’s not what my girl friend says,” “You didn’t explain why it is true,” etc, etc. When evaluating an argument, don’t get distracted!

29. Consider this “Argument”
Premise: No one can check out books from the MCC library without either a student or a faculty I.D..
Claim/Conclusion: My wife cannot check out a book at the MCC library.
Does this seem like a good argument? Why or why not? 29

30. Consider this “Argument”
The party that collects the most money from wealthy donors will win the presidency and the Republican party will collect much more money that will the Democrats.
Does this seem like a good
argument? Why or why not? 30

31. What is the Structure of the Argument?
So the structure of an argument is sometimes not obvious and may need careful clarification.
Particular clarification is often needed in regards to two different (but related) situations:
1. “Double-edged” arguments which have multiple conclusions. Perhaps one conclusion immediately serves as a premise for a “second wind” conclusion. (Example in book) (also frequently found in news editorials where an argument is given that there is “something wrong” and this is immediately followed up with “we should do something about it.”
2. “Embedded” arguments where the premises themselves are raised as issues and thus we need to provide premises to support them. In this case, what we have is one argument “within” another.

32. How to Decipher a Complex or Confused Argument: A Recipe
1. Find the conclusion! Only by doing so, do you have any chance at all to identify premises appropriately. If you can’t identify a conclusion, you might ask if this is an argument at all. Sometimes it helps to ask: what is the issue? Determine if the claim is factual or normative.
2. Identify secondary claims which may serve as reasons (premises) for the conclusion. Ask yourself THE BASIC QUESTION – If these claims are true, do they make the conclusion more likely or certain to be true or do they not? Determine if argument is deductive or inductive.
3. Sort out the “window dressing” which does not provide support and eliminate it. Put all this aside.
4. Identify premises themselves that need to have their own “reasons to believe.” Repeat steps #2 and #3 until “your cake is baked properly.”

33. The 5 Necessary Steps of Your Editorial Analysis Essay
1) Summarize the article as it is written honestly and objectively in your own words. Do not INTERPRET anything. “Just the facts, ma’am. Just the facts.” … Joe Friday (Dragnet)
Identify the logical argument, including all its parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Are the claim and premises clear and unambiguous? (Hint: A claim can always be stated in a single sentence.) Do there seem to be multiple conclusions?
Is the argument deductive or inductive? If inductive, what is the evidence given for the primary claim? If deductive, is the argument valid? Is evidence given for the premises or are they just asserted? Is it factual or normative? Are there unstated premises?
Identify any rhetorical devices, analogies, irony, etc. Identify any subjectivity. Is this unresolvable subjectivity or can it be clarified to reduce the subjectivity?
5) Is the argument strong? How could the argument have been made stronger? 33 33