Transcript First Week - Millikin University

First Week
Introducing Critical and Ethical Reasoning
 In addition to the readings you received over the summer,
I have used the following sources in this presentation:
• “What’s so good about a college education?” Andrew P.
Mills.
• College Thinking. Jack Meiland
• My Year of Meats. Ruth Ozeki
• The Immortal Profession. Gilbert Highet
• The Grace of Great Things. Robert Grudin
• Good Teaching. Richard Watson
• “Good Enough Never Is.” Colman McCarthy
 If you’d like the complete bibliography for any of these,
please see me.
Larger Context
Why are we doing this?
What’s so good about a college
education?
The Can Opener Answer
What’s inside the can?
What’s wrong with the Can Opener
Answer?
Part I
College equips us to ask questions of value
in a rapidly changing technological and
media driven world
It equips us to be better citizens
College equips us for our leisure
time
College equips us to make
decisions about our own lives
A Better Analogy
What’s wrong with the Can Opener
Answer?
Part II
Why do employers value college?
Attitudes
Values
Skills
College doesn’t prepare you to
do something.
College prepares you
to do ANYTHING
What are the attitudes, values and
skills you are suppose to be
developing?
ATTITUDES & VALUES
Wonder, Curiosity, Skepticism
ATTITUDES & VALUES
Love of Excellence
ATTITUDES & VALUES
Pure Love of Work
ATTITUDES & VALUES
LEARN TO PAY ATTENTION
ATTITUDES & VALUES
Responsibility
ATTITUDES & VALUES
Intellectual Independence
ATTITUDES & VALUES
FUN!
Skills: Critical Thinking
Skills: Critical Thinking
Why should we think critically?
Your beliefs are more likely to turn out to
be true.
You’ll understand your beliefs better
You are likely to be hoodwinked if you
don’t know the justification for your beliefs.
What are the consequences of
learning to think critically?
Positive Consequences
Negative Consequences
Critical thinking can be overwhelming
Millikin Core Questions
Who am I?
How can I know?
What should I do?
Context: University Seminar
Each of you is taking IN140 (IN183),
University Seminar.
One of the learning goals of this course is the
following:
• Students will be able to use ethical reasoning to
analyze and reflect on issues that impact their
personal lives as well as their local, national,
and/or global communities.
Ethical Reasoning and Critical
Reasoning
As we hope to make clear over these two
days, ethical reasoning is a type of critical
reasoning.
Thus, we need to begin by looking at
some of the core elements of critical
reasoning.
Critical Reasoning
An Basic Introduction
Core Commitment of Critical
Reasoning
“A fundamental principle of critical
reasoning is that we should not accept a
statement as true without good reason”
(EMA, p.44).
The statement in question can be about
anything – science, politics, art, religion,
ethics, etc.
Critical Reasoning and Arguments
“When at least one statement attempts to
provide reasons for believing another
statement, we have an argument” (EMA,
p.44).
“All arguments share a common pattern; at
least one premise is intended to support a
conclusion. This pattern is what makes an
argument an argument” (EMA, p.44).
Critical Reasoning and Arguments
Reasoning well about arguments requires
that you be able to engage in both
analysis and evaluation.
Critical Reasoning and Arguments:
Analysis
Analysis: Do we have an argument?
• Does a given set of statements comprise an
argument?
• If it does, what is its conclusion?
Analysis: Is this an argument?
An argument is a group of statements, one
of which (the conclusion) is supported by
the rest (the premises or reasons).
• A statement is an assertion that something is
or is not the case; that something is either
true or false.
Arguments are directional – leading from
premises (reasons) to conclusion.
Analysis: Is this an argument?
 Not every collection of statements comprises an
argument. Therefore, you must analyze a given
set of statements to see if an argument is being
made.
 For any collection of statements, ask:
• 1) Is this an argument (i.e., is the appropriate “pattern”
present – one statement supported by other
statements)?
• 2) If it is, what is its conclusion?
 Consider the following sets of statements…
Set #1
The Vikings are riddled with
dissension and have no team unity.
The Bears are at least a year away as
yet, and the Lions are the only other
team in the division to pose any
threat. But they don’t match up well
with the Packers. The Packers will
dominate the Division again this year.
Argument?
Yes
The point of the passage (i.e., the
conclusion) is that the Packers will
dominate the Division this year. The other
statements in the passage support that
conclusion by providing reasons for
thinking the conclusion to be true
(reasonable, plausible, etc.).
Set #2
The Celtics will take the NBA
championship again this year. Your cousin
Dudley is a big Celtics fan, the
Timberwolves got a new mascot this
season who looks like Rin Tin Tin, and the
Lakers’ cheerleaders are getting new
costumes.
Argument?
No
The statements are disconnected and
there is no point, or conclusion, to the
passage.
The statements about Dudley, the mascot,
and the cheerleaders may, in fact, all be
true. Nonetheless, they are not reasons for
thinking that the Celtics will win the NBA
championship.
Helpful Hint: Indicator Words
When trying to determine if a set of
statements comprises an argument, see if
indicator words are present. If indicator
words are not present, see if the meaning
of the passage would change considerably
if you inserted them.
Common Indicator Words for
Conclusions
Therefore
Thus
It follows that
Consequently
Hence
Which means that
So
Common Indicator Words for
Premises (Reasons)
Because
Since
As
For
In view of the fact that
Given that
Inasmuch as
Another Helpful Hint: The “Why?”
Question
Find what seems to be the conclusion and
ask, “Why?”.
If asking “why?” directs you back to some
of the other statements, then you likely
have an argument. Those other
statements are premises (reasons) given
in support of the conclusion.
Beware of explanations
I threw your tv out of the window because I
was convinced by Dr. Jacobs that it is evil
to waste time watching it.
Argument?
No.
Critical Reasoning and Arguments:
Evaluation
Evaluation: If analysis tells us that we
have an argument, we must decide if the
argument is a good argument. To do this,
we need to ask two questions…
Evaluation of Arguments: Two
Central Questions
What is the relationship between the
supporting premises (reasons) and the
conclusion?
Are the supporting premises (reasons)
true (probable, plausible, reasonable,
etc.)?
One Sort of Relationship:
Deductive Validity
 A deductively valid argument gives logically
conclusive support for its conclusion.
 The test for deductive validity: IF the premises
are true, then the conclusion must be true.
• Entailment
• Strict implication
Deductive Validity
Metaphor: In a deductively valid argument,
there is no “gap” between the premises
(reasons) and the conclusion. If the
premises are true, they guarantee or
necessitate the truth of the conclusion.
Consider the following three examples…
Example #1
Socrates was a man. All men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
Example #2
Rudy can’t possibly be a levelheaded
person under stress because he’s a
redhead, and redheads are not
levelheaded persons under stress.
Example #3
All short men are insecure, and since Fred
is a short man, he must be insecure.
Deductive Validity
Each of the arguments on the prior three
slides is deductively valid.
• Test: If the premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true.
• To check for deductive validity, you assume
the premises are true and you check to see if
the conclusion is necessitated (entailed by,
strictly implied by) the premises.
Validity and Soundness
In the last two examples, you may have
been tempted to complain, “Hey, it is not
true that all redheads are not levelheaded
under stress” or “Hey, it is not true that all
short men are insecure.”
This reaction points to an important
distinction: the distinction between validity
and soundness…
Validity and Soundness
 Deductive validity: If the premises are true, then
the conclusion must be true.
• You assume the premises are true and you check to
see if the conclusion is necessitated (entailed by,
strictly implied by) the premises.
 Deductive soundness: validity + all true
premises.
• The argument must be valid AND you must have
premises that are, in fact, true.
Validity and Soundness
While each of the three arguments we just
examined is deductively valid, each is not
sound.
The last two arguments have a premise
that is not, in fact, true. Hence, those two
arguments, while valid, are not sound.
• Redheads are not levelheaded persons under
stress.
• All short men are insecure.
The Products of Critical Reasoning Need not
Agree with “Common Sense”
Some dittoheads are gun owners. Therefore,
some gun owners are dittoheads.
• Valid?
• Yes
Some dittoheads are not gun owners.
Therefore, some gun owners are not
dittoheads.
• Valid?
• No
A Second Sort of Relationship:
Inductive Strength
Many arguments do not seek to provide
logically conclusive support for their
conclusions.
The premises do not seek to guarantee
the truth of the conclusion.
Instead, the premises aim to make the
conclusion probable or likely.
Inductive Strength
The test for inductive strength: IF the
premises are true, then the conclusion is
probably true.
Strength is a matter of degree. The greater
the probability that the conclusion is true
given the premises, the stronger the
argument.
The “Gap” Metaphor
 While inductive arguments differ in their degree
of strength, there is always a “gap” between
premises and conclusion.
 In any inductive argument, even if all the
premises are true, the conclusion might still be
false. This is because an inductive argument
does not seek to guarantee the truth of the
conclusion, but simply render it probable.
Examples of Inductive Arguments
The following provide some examples of
inductive arguments with varying degrees
of strength…
Example #1
Most of the faculty members at Millikin
University have received terminal degrees
in their fields. Robert Money is a faculty
member at Millikin University. Therefore,
Dr. Money probably has a terminal degree
in his field.
Example #2
Harry is hard of hearing, and has poor
vision. He has had three speeding tickets
in the past two months, several minor
accidents, and one major accident in the
same time period. I say, then, that Harry is
a poor driver.
Example #3
Certain chemicals are known to cause
cancer in laboratory animals, and when
this happens there is a likelihood that
these same chemicals will cause cancer in
humans. It would seem prudent, therefore,
to avoid these chemicals whenever
possible.
Example #4: Deja Vu
The Vikings are riddled with
dissension and have no team unity.
The Bears are at least a year away as
yet, and the Lions are the only other
team in the division to pose any
threat. But they don’t match up well
with the Packers. The Packers will
dominate the Division again this year.
Example #5
Harry has poor hearing and weak eyes.
Further, he has received several speeding
tickets in the past couple of months, during
which time he has also had several traffic
accidents. Therefore, Harry is a rotten
husband.
Checking Truth of Premises
 Regardless of whether the relationship between
the conclusion and the premises is deductive or
inductive, a good argument must have true
(plausible, reasonable, etc.) premises.
 Premises can be assessed in various ways,
including: appeal to empirical evidence, appeal
to counterexample, etc.
• In future sessions, we will examine both of these
ways of assessing premises.
Evaluative Terminology: Review
An argument is deductively valid when, if
the premises are true, then the conclusion
must also be true (no gap).
An argument is inductively strong when, if
the premises are true, the conclusion is
probably true.
Evaluative Terminology
An argument is deductively sound when it
is (a) valid and (b) has, in fact, all true
premises.
An argument is inductively cogent when it
is (a) strong and (b) has, in fact, all true
premises.
Transition to Next Session
From Critical to Ethical Reasoning
From Critical to Ethical Reasoning
In the next session, we will examine how
these core elements of critical reasoning
carry over to ethical reasoning…