Critical Reasoning...Propaganda, fallacies and loaded language
alikh86
what_is_critical_reasoning.pptxWhat is “critical reasoning” anyhow?
What is “critical” about reasoning? What is “reasoning”?
Why isn’t this course about fact v. opinion? What are assumptions?
What is “critical” about “Critical reasoning”?
Compare the following statements:
“That part is critical to the functioning of the nuclear power plant.” What does “critical” mean here?
“Mary is critical of the hat that John is wearing.” What does “critical” mean here?
“Tom wrote a critique of that movie.” What might “critique” mean here?
“Critical” as necessary or important or essential
In statement #1 on the previous slide, critical implies that something is necessary or important or essential.
“Critical reasoning” is necessary or important to thinking as well as to argument, although thinking is broader than argumentation.
“Thinking” includes the ability to ask questions and to hold a dialogue with oneself, while “argumentation” provides evidence that supports a conclusion or position.
“Reasoning” usually refers to “argumentation”, that is, the methods by which we reach and support our conclusions, and not simply how to win a debate, and not simply a quarrel or fight.
Both thinking and reasoning can be considered essential tools for decision-making in life, on many levels – personal, political, within many academic disciplines, as consumers, etc.
“Critical reasoning” does not mean a “negative” judgment or simply “criticism”
“Critical” in the second statement on the first slide, where Mary is “critical” of John’s hat, implies a negative judgment, or criticism of John’s hat.
“Critical reasoning” does not simply mean making negative judgments or criticizing people’s positions.
However, “critical reasoning” does involve the use of “judgments” when we evaluate arguments in order to see how well the evidence supports the conclusion.
“Critical Reasoning” does include “critique”
Insofar as a “critique” analyzes and evaluates something, as in the case of a film or book, “critical reasoning” does include “critique”.
However, in “Critical reasoning” we analyze and evaluate arguments.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant, in the 18th century, introduced the word “Critique” as a means to delineate the conditions and limitations of our possible experiences. Insofar as “experience” can be seen as one of the bases of our beliefs and positions, Kant’s sense of “critique” also plays a role here – what counts as “experience”? How far does our “experience” extend? Does “experience” alone determine how strong our evidence is?
Kant also wrote an essay, called “What is Enlightenment?” which we might read near the end of the course, because it outlines one view of the importance of “critical reasoning”, understood as the possibility of independent thought based on our rational capacities.
More about “Reasoning”
As mentioned on a previous slide, “reasoning” includes methods of argumentation.
These methods are determined by a field called “logic”, rather than by “rhetoric”.
In English classes, many students learn the “rhetorical basis” of persuasive essays, and they are often taught about appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos (which are drawn from Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric).
In this class, we are interested only in “logos”, and we are not simply trying to persuade another person to accept our position. We are trying to provide evidence that the position we propose is convincing, in terms of how “true” or “plausible” or “warranted” it is, and, if the evidence “demonstrates” that a different position is more plausible, then we should switch positions.
We will learn about two different types of argumentation or reasoning (later in the course): deductive and inductive
An argument need not only have 2 sides. It may have many sides.
“Reasoning” and “Critical Reasoning” are not just about “facts”.
Although, in argumentation, we try to provide strong evidence that supports a conclusion, evidence is not confined to “facts”.
As we learn in chapter 3 of our text, there are many types of evidence, each of which has its own way of being evaluated.
Among these types of evidence are value claims, cause and effect reasoning, statistics, reasoned speculations (which are a type of opinion), analogies, among others
As we will learn, statistics and cause and effect reasoning cannot simply be reduced to “facts”. Data from which statistics are drawn does not “speak for itself”.
So what is a “fact” anyway?
How do you define “fact”? How do you define “opinion”?
The New York Times article assigned for this first week of class discusses the problems of trying to define “fact” and “opinion”.
The article criticizes the following definitions of fact and opinion that many American students are taught, and which can be found in many places on the internet: “Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven”. “Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.”
The author’s first criticism of the above definitions: “First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof – two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though on one can prove it. Conversely, many of the thins we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought the earth was flat. It is a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t. In that case, E=MC squared is a fact for a physicist but not for me.”
So what is a fact anyway? Continued
Let’s look at the author’s first criticism and raise some questions:
There is a distinction between what is real (metaphysics) and what we know and can know (epistemology). To which do we refer when we use the term “fact”? Do we assume that everything that might be real is potentially knowable, even if we do not know it yet? For example, can we assume that we will eventually know or prove that there is there is life elsewhere in the universe? However, how then can we also have knowledge about “values”?
The example that “the earth is flat” might be a poor one, because there is evidence that most people actually had the belief that the earth was round. However, take another example: Is Pluto a planet? That it is a planet was once a “fact”. However, it is no longer considered a planet: it has been reclassified as a “dwarf planet”. Why was it reclassified? Did our knowledge of (that is, the data about) Pluto change? Did the reality of Pluto change? Or did we simply change our own definitions and classifications of “planets”, and, if so, why? Try googling “Why is Pluto no longer a planet?”
If our own definitions of “planets” can change, does that mean we contribute to how we interpret the “data” of what is external to us? Does that mean, in some ways, what we count as “fact” is subjective? Can “facts” rest on a collection of “opinions” by a group of people, such as a scientists?
So what is a “fact” anyway (continued again)
Author’s 2nd criticism: “But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions….But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both.” For example, that George Washington was the first president can be true, therefore, a fact, but if I believe that it is a true, then is it also an opinion of mine?
The author then goes on to discuss how this relates to morality, but this is not the focus of our discussion here. (See later slides on reality and value assumptions.)
This second criticism raises some interesting questions: What counts as a “belief”? Is the “truth” simply a belief that has evidence for it? Is the “truth” necessarily “certain”? See, for instance, the first quote on the first page of your syllabus:
“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain. Now scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure – that it is possible to live and not know.” This was stated by Richard Feynman, physicist who contributed to quantum mechanics, won the Nobel Prize in 1965, and who worked on the first atom bomb.
Feynman does not use the words “fact” or “truth” or “belief”, but does use the words “statements” and “consistent”. “Consistency” is a principle of logic. We evaluate arguments partly on how “consistent” they are – does the arguer contradict herself?
What is an assumption?
All assumptions are beliefs. They are beliefs that usually are taken for granted, and, therefore, sometimes they are unstated, that is, implicit or hidden.
What are “beliefs”? The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, in his book, “Being and Nothingness” describes “beliefs” as having two faces: On the one hand, we sometimes say that a belief is “just a belief” or “only a belief”, as if to imply that there is either no evidence for it, or that it is a merely personal and subjective. This is also how some people treat “opinions”. On the other hand, we sometimes say “I firmly believe”, as if to imply that my belief either does have evidence to support it, or that I find it certain, whether or not other people share the same it.
Does a “belief” imply the possibility of doubt?
The philosopher, Charles Sander Peirce, treats doubt as the basis of inquiry (unlike Aristotle, who treats “wonder” as the basis of inquiry). We inquire or investigate in order to overcome the unease or anxiety that accompanies doubt.
Peirce delineates several ways in which we might try to overcome this doubt, among them, he includes an appeal to authority, an appeal to tradition, etc. We might try to find an expert, for example, who has the answers to our doubts. Peirce finally includes the scientific method as a way to resolve our doubts, although he does not necessarily mean by scientific method what we mean today.
What is a belief?
Notice that Peirce does not say that inquiry, even scientific inquiry, establishes the truth or facts. Rather it is one of several means by which to “fix our beliefs” so that we can overcome doubt. This seems to be the best we can do. It seems that our beliefs then are no longer doubted, but that they might still be fallible – capable of future revision.
Although Peirce prefers the scientific method of resolving doubts, he does not dismiss the other methods. Do you agree with him?
However, he argues that the scientific method is based on the “hypothesis” that there is an external world that is completely independent of our minds. This is a claim about reality. It has implications for how we conceive knowledge, because, if there is a reality completely independent of our minds, then 1) how can our minds access that reality? And 2) is knowledge then a set of statements that correspond to that reality? These types of questions are pursued in other philosophy classes.
Reality v. Value Assumptions
Reality assumptions are beliefs “about” what reality is like. That is, they are beliefs that describe what a person or group of persons think is (or was, or will be) really the case, or is (or was, or will be) really happening, or describes what really exists in the past, in the present, or in the future. They use words such as “could”, “can”, “is”, “will”, “would”. They can also use words such as “probably”, because reality assumptions need not be certain.
Reality assumptions need not be facts, although they may be widely shared.
Value assumptions are beliefs that prescribe (instead of describe) what should or should not be the case. The key word here is “should” (or “ought”). Sometimes they include an “evaluative” function, where they evaluate what is good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair, but usually in light of what should be the case.
Are all value assumptions “opinions”? The author of the NY Times article argues that there can be “moral facts”. This is a question that would be pursued in an ethics class. What is important here is that value assumptions can be widely shared. They need not belong only to an individual. For example, do most Americans believe that the United States “should” be democratic (whether or not they believe it is “really” democratic)? If so, this is a shared value assumption, even if there are some exceptions.
Both value assumptions and reality assumptions can be controversial.
We often assume that value assumptions are always controversial (and this assumption is a reality assumption), because we often think of “hot button” issues, such as abortion, capital punishment and gun control.
However, reality assumptions can also be controversial. For instance, look at the examples of reality assumptions on p. 2 of the document “Reality and Value Assumptions” for which a link is provided under “Week 1” on Blackboard Learn.
“Some people assume that anyone can change” (a reality assumption) and therefore any prisoner can be rehabilitated (another reality assumption). Other people assume that there are individuals who are `career criminals’ with no hope of being rehabilitated. (a reality assumption that disagrees with the previous one). These are controversial reality assumptions & none of them are necessarily facts.
In the above example, notice that two reality assumptions are arranged into a short argument, of which the conclusion is “Any prisoner can be rehabilitated”, while the evidence or premise is “Anyone can change”.
What reality assumption as regards the ability of people to change is omitted for the “other people” in the above example? “Some people cannot change”????
How can both reality and value assumptions be controversial?
Why are assumptions important?
Assumptions are important because we can build entire arguments from assumptions. See the example on the previous slide.
Assumptions are important because they are often controversial, and that is where the issue of contention (the point of disagreement) arises in many sides to an argument.
Assumptions are also important because they are often hidden or unstated. Therefore, the point of disagreement might remain unstated and might be omitted from an argument.
This then also becomes important in reconstructing somebody’s argument - - what have they taken for granted, but omitted from their argument? And in evaluating that argument – what evidence has been overlooked and what assumptions (often taken for granted) remain unstated?
Assumptions are important because a set of assumptions could contribute to a person’s or a group’s “worldview”, both that of our own and that of other people.
By becoming aware of our own unstated or implicit assumptions, we can start to ask questions about them, which is the starting point of thinking.
Thinking is not the same as holding an opinion or having a belief, but we all do have beliefs, and, as we become aware of them, we can ask questions and think.
15
Value assumptions can also play a role in science
Notice the two quotations on the first page of the syllabus, from Robert Oppenheimer, a physicist who worked on the atomic bomb:
“If you are a scientist you believe that it is good to find out how the world works; that it is good to find out what realities are; that it is good turn over to mankind at large the greatest possible power to control the world and to deal with it according to its lights and values.”
“A great discovery is a thing of beauty; and our faith – our binding, quiet faith – is that knowledge is good and good in itself.”
These statements both contain value assumptions in their use of such words as “good”, “beauty”, and insofar as the use of these terms implies that scientists “should” find out how the world works and “should” pursue knowledge through which realities are discovered.
These statements also contain reality assumptions in that they describe what scientists do.
Do you agree with Oppenheimer’s value and reality assumptions?
Some comments & warnings about assigned readings in this course
The assigned reading, “Reality and Value Assumptions” contains some language that sometimes confuses students: “Reality assumptions are beliefs about what is true and factual about the world….”
This above quote does not mean that reality assumptions are facts or that they are true; it means that they are beliefs about what someone thinks is factual or true, often simply because they are taken for granted, or taken as “natural” or “normal”
In the readings and power points for Week 2, we will introduce different examples of reality and value assumptions and of hidden assumptions. We will learn that reality assumptions are often called descriptive assumptions or descriptive claims. We will also discuss a variety of approaches to “value conflicts”; and what might make an assumption “warranted” or “unwarranted”.
All these assigned articles are drawn from different text books. I use several different textbooks when 1) some texts clarify some concepts better than others; 2) some texts raise important issues that other texts do not; and/or 3) to demonstrate some variations in approaches to the concepts of this course – this might sometimes be confusing, but it is important to realize that such variations exist.
