| Basics of Logic with Arguments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Philosophy involves careful and critical thinking. It involves being skeptical and not being gullible. It is dialectical thinking. Philosophy is the desire or love of wisdom. Those who would seek to be wise need to avoid being unwise and avoid being stupid. It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. -Mark Twain ON STUPIDITY VIDEO: Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity 5:58 READ: Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity Entire Quote More on Dietrich Bonhoeffer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietric... Shorter video on The Theory Of Stupidity by Dietrich Bonhoeffer 4:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGTyHPhw7oE VIDEO:The Five Laws Of Stupidity 15:37
Why do so many people think they are so smart when they are not?This phenomena has been titled the Dunning-Kruger Effect
2 simple
and short presentations and BOTH worth watching on this effect VIDEO: DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT 13:27 Philosophy involves arriving at beliefs in a careful manner. How? READ: The Fixation of Belief -Charles Sanders Peirce (Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), 1-15. http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html) Peirce identified four ways in which people fix their beliefs: tenacity, authority, a priori and science. He commended science as the only method that is self correcting. It is the method of careful and critical thinking. Note: in 1904 E. E. Pierson remembered Lewis Campbell, a respected citizen of DeWitt County, telling him of the 1858 speeches that Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas delivered in Clinton. According to Campbell, Lincoln said, “Judge Douglas cannot fool the people: you may fool people for a time; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” ---Source Seeking after or loving or desiring Wisdom should make a person humble. Socrates gained a reputation for being wise when all he did was to admit that he did not know when others were claiming to know things that they did not actually know. His claim of ignorance brought about his reputation for being so smart. He knew what he did not know and admitted it. He inquired of those who claimed to know things just what did they know and how did they know it and this led to revealing that most of their claims were incorrect or not well grounded. The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. -Socrates
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. -Aristotle Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance. --Will Durant The more you know, the more you know there is to be known. Philosophy strives to arrive at the best possible positions on the most basic questions using dialectical reasoning which involves using argumentation. Philosophers take positions and defend them using arguments. ARGUMENTS: PROOFS or ARGUMENTS VIDEO: What is Philosophy? 10:34 A proof in Philosophy is an argument. An argument is a series of claims. Some of the claims are used to support another claim. The claims that are supporting are called the premises of the argument and the claim supported is the conclusion of the argument. The premises are the reasons and evidence to support the conclusion. LOGIC There is a branch of Philosophy that looks at the method of critical thinking itself. It is called Logic. Logic looks at arguments and how well premises support conclusions in a general sense. Logic distinguishes types of arguments or proofs. The Basic Criteria to Evaluate an Argument looking at the Basic Problems with argument: 1. Premises are false 2. Premises are irrelevant 3. Premises contain the conclusion –Circular Reasoning-petitio principi 4. Premises are inadequate to support the conclusion 5. Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support So with each and every argument Philosophy wants to carefully and critically examine the reasoning and determine if any of these problems are present. If there are any of these problems, then the argument or proof has flaws in it and such an argument would not or should not convince a rational person to accept its conclusion. This is not because someone simply does not believe in the conclusion or wants to reject the conclusion because of their belief system who will simply refuse to accept based on emotions or past history but the rational careful thinker does not accept the conclusion because the argument is not rationally compelling of acceptance of its conclusion. VIDEO: HUMOR Arguments by Monty Python 3 minutes LOGIC is employing reasoning in the evaluation of thinking: using reason in deciding what to think and to do. LOGIC involves examining the relation of evidence to conclusions and employing techniques for the control of thought in the evaluation and formation of arguments.
Argument: Premises Evidence Reasons - Self Controlled Thought - lead to - warrant method for fixing beliefs - support ____________ __________ ________ ___________________ Conclusion Position Beliefs Habits of Acting
Logic is the study of arguments. Critical thinking is using logic in formulating and evaluating arguments. Critical thinking examines the relation of premises to conclusions the relation of evidence to conclusions the reasoning used in fixing beliefs
Reasoning is the process of self-controlled thought which establishes the most acceptable method for fixing beliefs which are one's habits of acting.
Reasoning is constructive and creative analytical and critical theoretical and practical Functions: Criticism Assurance Persuasion- prove Secure Knowledge justify Explanation refute Communication POWER: to force or compel or direct belief (conclusions) based upon evidence or reasons. ARGUMENTS SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY Deductive sound unsound valid true premises false premises Inductive strong weak invalid true premises false premises irrelevant suppressing evidence VIDEO:How to Argue - Induction & Abduction: Crash Course Philosophy #3 10:17 The uses of reasoning and Logic: A. PROBLEM SOLVING I. The Problem II. Formulating Proposals III. Elaborating the Alternatives IV. Evaluating the Proposals V. Testing the Decision B. DECISION MAKING I. Defining the Problem II. Clearly Stating the Ultimate end or ends III. Providing a set of alternatives as means to the end IV. Attaching a set of consequences to each of the alternatives V. Deciding which alternative of the set is the best means to the end ANALYSIS and EVALUATION of ARGUMENTS or REASONING Basic Questions: · Is it an argument? · What is its conclusion? · What support is offered for the conclusion? · How strong is that support? Possible Problems with an argument: 1. Premises are false or questionable 2. Premises are irrelevant 3. Premises Contain the Conclusion –Circular Reasoning 4. Premises are inadequate to support the conclusion 5. Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Six Step Method for the Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments STEP ONE: What is the argument? Identify it clearly What are the premises? What is the conclusion? Clarify the meaning of the text. Distinguish the argument from a
VIDEO: HUMOR Arguments by Monty Python 3 minutes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Clearly indicate the main conclusion or principal thesis in these 5 samples: (1)Is this an Argument: "I can see the front board the lights are on" If so, which is the conclusion? Which is a premise? (2)Is this an argument? If so, which is the conclusion? Which is a premise? 8 children were killed in that house. The killer has been diagnosed as a psychopath who could not resist the urge to kill the children thinking they were emissaries of the devil. He will most likely be deemed not guilty by reason of insanity. (3) Is this an argument ? If so, which is the conclusion? Which is a premise? Imar says "Cole is a better pitcher than DeGrom." Lucy says "its DeGrom!" (4) Is this an argument? If so, which is the conclusion? Which is a premise? "Chocolate is the best flavor in ice cream." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STEP TWO: Analyze the Argument 1. Read argument carefully. 2. Formulate synopsis.` 3. Recast the arguments - clarify meaning - eliminate rhetoric. 4. Eliminating Rhetoric - Here are some rules of thumb that can help: l. Look for and focus on the argument. Use contextual clues and premises and conclusion indicators as guides to the conclusion and premises. 2. Set aside phrases, sentences and even paragraphs that are extraneous to the bare argument - such items as background information, explanations, asides, repetition, elaborations, rhetorical trappings. 3. Separate each statement that belongs to the argument as a distinct premiss (or conclusion), marked with its own number tag (Pl, P2, P3, etc., and Cl, C2, etc., as necessary). This requires breaking up compound sentences so there will be just one single point made in each set-out premise or conclusion. 4. Reformulate the premises and conclusion(s) if it is necessary in order to have all the points stated in straightforward and clear language. This especially requires transposing rhetorical questions into assertive sentences. Employ the informative use of language alone. 5. Double check to make sure that no changes you make alter the meaning. Your restatement of the argument should not add new ideas, nor take away, nor give any new twists or shadings to the sense of the argument in the original passage. To follow these suggestions you will usually need to do some detective work. Using the context and what is actually said in the passage as your clues, you will have to deduce from them what is actually meant. 5. Supply Missing Premises. Missing Premises - By a missing premise, we mean a proposition which, though unstated in the argument, nevertheless is needed to link a stated premise with a conclusion. In looking for the missing premises, we are seeking what must be taken for granted in order to connect the stated premise with the conclusion. Intermediary premises - as is always the case when making explicit something implicit in an argument - we are obliged to pick the weakest possible candidate that will do the job. Otherwise we risk attributing to the arguer a position it does not have to accept, and thereby setting up a strawperson. Observe the principle of charity. 6. Arrange Premises in a Schema, cast the argument, employ a diagram. 7. State Conclusion(s). Clearly, Fairly - Observe Principle of Charity. Avoid Hedging or Strawperson. 8. Identify Vagueness - try to resolve it. 9. Identify Ambiguity – the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness. Amphiboly- An amphiboly occurs when the construction of a sentence allows it to have two different meanings. i. semantical- Claims suffer from semantic ambiguity when they contain a word (or words) with multiple meanings “"We saw her duck” ii. syntactical-“There was nothing in the safe” Eric Trump 8-10-22 “The chicken is ready to eat”. 10. Identify equivocation - note its use in "shifting ground" and "hedging." the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication. “ The emperor shall bring down a mighty kingdom” 11. Identify overall standpoints - views adopted to place an opponent at a disadvantage; Disinterested Mature Person Reasonable person Radical Voice in the Wilderness Plain person World weary cynic Expert Official Indignation Uplifter/Debaser 12. Recheck and Rewrite. STEP THREE: Critique of the Premises Logical criticism applicability/ relevancy adequacy / sufficiency Substantive criticism
A. 3 basic attacks on Premises ( listed in order of strength) 1. Relevance - irrelevant reasons, appeals, etc. ... · Ignoratio Elenchi · Non Sequitur Show that one could accept the premises and yet reject the conclusion without being inconsistent because the premises are not totally relevant 2. Sufficiency - hasty conclusions. Show that premises are not strong enough to support conclusion. 3. Acceptability - problematic premises
Principle I - each Premise of an Argument should be defended unless exempt by context.
Principle II - The less crucial and less controversial a premise is the less serious the failure to defend it. B. Be sure to check for:
STEP FOUR: Criticize the Inferences. Validity - soundness or unsoundness Invalidity - degree of support 1. Determine the form of the argument. Examine the relation of the premises to the conclusion. Could you accept the premises yet reject the conclusion? Then it is an inductive argument. 2. If the argument is neither deductive nor inductive, then the argument is unsatisfactory and does not have a form which satisfies the support relation. At this point we are justified in rejecting the conclusion of the argument on the basis of the evidence offered. This is not to say, however that there is no satisfactory argument which might be offered for the conclusion; it is just to say that the argument we are examining is not such an argument. 3. If the argument is deductive or inductive, examine the premises to determine their truth value. 4. If there is at least one false premise, we are justified in rejecting the conclusion on the basis of the evidence offered in the premises. As in the case of the support relationship, this is not to say that there is no evidence, no true premises, which might be offered for the conclusion; it is just to say that such evidence has not been offered in the argument we have been examining. 5. If all the premises are true and the argument is deductive (valid), we then know that the argument is sound and, moreover, will thus have a true conclusion. We are justified in accepting the conclusion on the basis of the evidence offered. 6. If the premises are true and the argument is inductive, we must go one step further and ask whether certain other conditions have been satisfied. If they have, we are justified in accepting the conclusion on the basis of the evidence offered and if not, then we are justified in rejecting the conclusion on the basis of the evidence. Consider: --number of cases. --positive analogy between premises and conclusion. --negative analogy among premises. --relevant factors. Evaluate the overall strength of the argument. What is the probability that the conclusion would be true given that the premises are true? STEP FIVE: Consider Alternative Arguments (Approaches & Considerations) 1. Counter examples and refutations "just like arguing that...." 2. Counter dilemmas 3. Reduction Ad Absurdum 4. Alternative approaches 5. New hypotheses and theories STEP SIX: Overall Evaluation- subjective appraisal of the entire argument Clarity of structure Clarity of expression Acceptability of premises Relevance of premises Strength (sufficiency) of evidence Consideration of alternatives Refutation of alternatives
Bonhoeffer on Stupidity (entire quote)Written by Averett Jones on December 31, 2019 at 11:04 am Sources: http://southsidemessenger.com/bonhoef... From Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was hanged by Adolf Hitler in 1945. Taken from a circular letter, addressing many topics, written to three friends and co-workers in the conspiracy against Hitler, on the tenth anniversary of Hitler’s accession to the chancellorship of Germany… ‘Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous. ‘If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is in essence not an intellectual defect but a human one. There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid. We discover this to our surprise in particular situations. The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect, but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or that they allow this to happen to them. We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem. It is a particular form of the impact of historical circumstances on human beings, a psychological concomitant of certain external conditions. Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. It would even seem that this is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings. ‘Yet at this very point it becomes quite clear that only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person. This state of affairs explains why in such circumstances our attempts to know what ‘the people’ really think are in vain and why, under these circumstances, this question is so irrelevant for the person who is thinking and acting responsibly. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity. ‘But these thoughts about stupidity also offer consolation in that they utterly forbid us to consider the majority of people to be stupid in every circumstance. It really will depend on whether those in power expect more from people’s stupidity than from their inner independence and wisdom.’ -Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from ‘After Ten Years’ in Letters and Papers from Prison (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works/English, vol. 8) Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.
|