sign in sign up
<<
Home , Appeal to novelty, Appeal to tradition, Naturalistic fallacy

PHI 1100: & Critical Thinking

Sessions 23 & 24 May 5th & 7th, 2020

Evaluating : Sufficient Evidence, Reasonable Inferences,

Respectful Argumentation 1 A good persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. Ø Here are four basic criteria which will all be satisfied by a good argument: I. The premises are true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners.

So far, we have discussed that involve: • the use of language to present false or misleading evidence • the use of statistics to present false or misleading evidence, insufficient evidence, or to make faulty inferences – This week we’ll go into more detail about fallacies involving the use of language to present 2 insufficient evidence or to make faulty inferences. A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises.

• Fallacies that fail to satisfy this criterion of a good argument make faulty inferences: – they draw a conclusion that isn’t guaranteed (or extremely likely) to be true even if the premises are true.

Ønon sequitur (Latin for ‘it doesn’t follow’) = when an argument draws a conclusion that just isn’t supported by the reasoning they have provided.

]P1] Dorothy is wearing red shoes today. [C] Obviously, red is Dorothy’s favorite color.

» Many of the fallacies we’ll consider this week can be classified as subtypes of non sequiturs, • which draw particular types of conclusions from particular types of inadequate evidence. 3 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences Ø hasty generalization = drawing conclusions about all members of a group or all instances of a phenomenon, after observing just a small sample of examples. This involves making inductive inferences from insufficient evidence. • Many stereotypes arise from hasty generalizations, and thereby believing them violates the requirement of total evidence.

– Drawing conclusions on the basis of an inaccurate stereotype would be making a deductive inference from a false premise: [P1[ All Xs are Y. {P2] This individual is an X. [C] Therefore, this X is Y.

If P1 is false (i.e., the stereotype does not describe all members of the group accurately), • then the conclusion that a particular individual

fulfills the stereotype is not guaranteed to be true. 4 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences

• = inferring that something is good just because it is “natural” (or bad because it isn’t natural) – (As mentioned when we discussed & weasel words, it’s often unclear on what qualifies something as natural vs. artificial: • the boundaries between these two categories aren’t clear cut, so it’s unclear which category a particular thing might belong in. – e.g., the active ingredient in aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) can be extracted from some plants, but it’s most often synthesized by chemists in a lab; does that make it artificial, even though it occurs in nature?)

[P1] Genetically modified foods are not found in nature. [C] Genetically modified foods should be banned.

[P1] Viruses are part of nature. [C] Therefore, we shouldn’t try to kill the coronavirus or interfere with its spread.

• Implied rule: The extent to which something is ”natural” is irrelevant to assessments of its value. 5 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences Ø = inferring that something is good just because it aligns with customs, traditions, or historical precedent (or bad because it is new, different, unorthodox, unprecedented…) – Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean that’s how things should be, nor that things should continue that way in the future. Many appeals to tradition basically express people’s fear of the unknown. [P1] For most of human history, editing genetic code has been impossible. [C] Therefore, we should ban all gene-editing technologies.

Ø = inferring that something is good just because it is new & different An irrational attraction to whatever is new is no better (logically speaking) than attachment to tradition. Implied rules: The oldness/newness of something is irrelevant to assessments of its value. 6 Fallacies that involve making faulty inferences

Ø false analogy = claiming that two things that have something in common (no matter how trivial) are thereby basically identical

[P1] Ethylene glycol is a chemical. [P2] Ethylene glycol is extremely dangerous. [P3] Dihydrogen monoxide is also a chemical. [C] We must avoid dihydrogen monoxide at all costs.

– Two things – like ethylene glycol (found in antifreeze) and dihydrogen monoxide (H2O, commonly known as water – can share some characteristics, but that doesn’t make them equivalent to each other or interchangeable.

Implied rule: When discussing a complex phenomenon, acknowledge its full complexity instead of reducing it to a single characteristic.

7 Ø false dichotomy = claiming that there are only two options, positions, or interpretations for a topic, instead of recognizing that there are other alternatives (including both, somewhere in between, or none of the above)

[P1] You’re either a cat person or a dog person. [P2] You don’t like cats. [C] Therefore, you’re a dog person.

– A lot of false dichotomies show up in political discourse, in which people gravitate towards black-and-white, us vs. them thinking; • sometimes this involves proposing “purity tests” by which people must prove their allegiance to one side or the other (and are not allowed to remain on the fence or have a moderate stance).

[P1] You aren’t in favor of all aspects of a capitalist economy. [C] Therefore, you are a communist.

[P1] You prefer a public option for health insurance over completely abolishing the private health insurance industry.

[C] Therefore, you are a practically a Republican. 8 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true.

II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true.

We can think of evidence as “sufficient” when: a) an adequate amount of information has been provided b) this information is relevant to the conclusion c) this information comes from reliable sources d) this information is appropriate for the argumentative context

– Let’s check out some common fallacies which involve the use of insufficient evidence, including: » not providing enough evidence » providing irrelevant evidence » providing unreliable evidence » providing inappropriate evidence 9 Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence

Ø = attempting to use one’s limited personal experience, or hearsay about someone else’s experience, as justification for a general conclusion – We could describe this as a subtype of hasty generalization. [P1] The G train came right away the one time I rode it. [C] The G train is totally reliable.

As we discussed when we learned about the problem of induction, • one’s own personal experience (e.g., having only come across white swans) may not provide adequate insight to draw accurate generalizations (e.g., about the color range of swans). – Same goes for another person’s experience you learn about via testimony. – Implied rules: Don’t rely upon your own personal experience alone.

• Seek a wider set of evidence reflecting other people’s experience, 10 many instances of observation under various circumstances, etc. Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence

Ø confirmation bias = ignoring or suppressing evidence that challenges the view defended in the conclusion; ”cherry-picking” particular sources &/or pieces of evidence that support a specific narrative, instead of presenting a more complete & accurate picture of the relevant evidence

– Implied rule: The “requirement of total evidence”: • in order for either a belief or a conclusion to be justified, it should be based on consideration of all the evidence, not just part of it. 11 Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence

Ø (a.k.a. circular argumentation) = when an author presupposes the truth of the conclusion within the reasoning they provide in defense of that conclusion. – Hence, the reasoning goes in a circle: it starts from where it intends to end (the truth of the conclusion), instead of providing distinct starting points that lead to inferring the conclusion.

[P1] Nature exhibits intelligent design by a divine creator. [C] A higher power exists.

• This argument begs the question, because [P1] contains an assumption that the patterns we observe in nature must have been created intentionally instead of arising through natural processes • Implied rule: Choose premises that could be believed to be true by individuals who haven’t yet committed to the truth of the argument’s conclusion. 12 Fallacies that involve not providing enough evidence

Ø = using premises that claim that making one change will inevitably lead to drastic undesirable consequences – This amounts to making bad inductive inferences about what will happen in the future (and/or lying for the purposes of fear-mongering): • guesses about what the future will bring are conjectures rather than , so these premises can’t be regarded as reliably true.

[P1] If we legalize marijuana, next thing you know it’ll be legal to sell heroin to kids. [C] Therefore, marijuana use should be illegal.

[P1] If you start using meth, you’ll end up turning to prostitution in order to pay for your drug habit. [C] Therefore, you shouldn’t start using meth.

videos: bit.ly/2YpRf8k, bit.ly/2KVgPdu

13 Fallacies that involve providing irrelevant evidence

Ø = presenting information that has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion, – usually for the purpose of distracting readers/listeners by drawing their attention towards something provocative that might shape their opinion of the argument’s topic. • These appear most frequently in political discourse, as a means of steering away from substantive issues (like a candidate’s qualifications, electability, or policy proposals) & towards ones that (regrettably) can shape public opinion or earn votes (like the candidate’s looks, hobbies, etc.)

[P1] Elizabeth Warren has an adorable golden retriever. [C] Therefore, she would make a great president.

[P1] Michael Bloomberg is super rich. [C] Therefore, he would make a great president.

– Implied rules: Stay focused on the topic addressed in the conclusion.

• Don’t engage in diversion tactics. 14 Fallacies that involve providing inappropriate evidence

Ø = supplying evidence intended to provoke an emotional response instead of persuading readers/listeners through reasoning – scare tactics = an appeal to emotion in which one attempts to persuade someone that a conclusion is true by instilling fear

You’ve probably learned about the rhetorical value of pathos: Greek for appealing to your audience’s emotions. • Though pathos can be highly effective as a persuasion tactic, Ø philosophers strive to keep emotion out of arguments in order to achieve persuasion through rational means alone (i.e. logos, in the language of classical rhetoric).

[P1] Many innocent baby sea animals were harmed in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. [C] We should not use oil as an energy source. 15 Ø appeal to emotion = supplying evidence intended to provoke an emotional response instead of persuading readers/listeners through reasoning

Implied rule: Arguments should be completely devoid of emotionally-provocative content.

– This is an expression & extension of a philosophical outlook known as • normative rationalism = we should decide what to believe by reasoning alone, instead of allowing emotion to cloud our judgment.

ØSome philosophers (those who reject normative rationalism) think there are valid exceptions to this rule: – Recall that sentimentalists believe that our understanding of right/wrong is based upon emotional reactions » Especially in ethical reasoning, emotional appeals might be the only way to accurately convey why something is right/wrong. • (E.g., arguing that murder or sexual assault are wrong without mentioning the emotional trauma they cause 16 would arguably miss the point.) Fallacies that provide inappropriate evidence • appeal to authority = try to support a conclusion by pointing to someone (often a celebrity) who believes the conclusion to be true – (Even if that person is an expert, one individual’s endorsement alone is not enough to prove the truth of a conclusion; • the consensus of experts in a relevant field is a more reliable (but still fallible!) indication of truth.

[P1] Shaquille O’Neal says the Earth is flat. [C] We’d better be careful not to fall over the edge.

Implied rule: Your argument should contain reasoning beyond “because so-and-so said so”. • Strong arguments can contain testimonial evidence, but they are very likely to back up testimony with other forms of evidence & provide independent reasons to believe that the conclusion is true. 17 Fallacies that draw conclusions from inappropriate evidence

Ø appeal to popularity (a.k.a. the bandwagon fallacy) = arguing that something is true/false, good/bad, or right/wrong to do simply because many people believe it’s true/false, good/bad, or right/wrong. This fallacy assumes that the more people who believe something, the more likely it is to be true, – but (unfortunately) something can be widely believed but completely false, – and unpopular ideas can turn out to be true. [P1] Hundreds of millions of people believe that there is a higher power. [C] Therefore, there definitely is a higher power.

[P1] Practically everyone believes that murder is wrong. [C] Murder is wrong.

(Both of these also commit non sequiturs: even if [P1] is true, the conclusion isn’t absolutely guaranteed to be true. 18 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners.

We already learned about red herring = presenting information that has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion, • usually for the purpose of distracting readers/listeners by drawing their attention towards something provocative that might shape their opinion of the argument’s topic Committing this fallacy is disrespectful, because in doing so one refuses to play by the ground rules of argumentative discourse: – deliberately derailing a conversation or a debate by changing the topic shows that one is not really committed to rational persuasion, but rather just wants to ”win” by any means necessary. » This and the rest of the fallacies we are about to see violate rules of etiquette that philosophers have proposed, • in order to engage with each other’s ideas 19 in calm, generous, and fair ways. Fallacies that involve disrespecting one’s readers, listeners, or opponents

Ø = critiquing the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of their argument

Implied rule: direct your attention to what is being said, not who’s saying it.

Ø = accusing someone who criticizes you of being a hypocrite (contradicting themselves), instead of actually responding to the substance of their criticism – Even if your critic is being a hypocrite, pointing that out doesn’t qualify as a counterargument or rebuttal of an opponent’s criticism. Implied rule: If someone points out a flaw in your argument, don’t lash out at them; assume that they mean well and try to respond

calmly to their critique so you can maybe strengthen your stance. 20 Ø appeal to status / personal authority = insisting that you must be correct on a topic because you have some sort of credential in a particular field (e.g., experience, a degree, a job title, etc.) – This is often used as both an intimidation tactic & a distraction tactic. Implied rule: Credentials don’t protect you against being wrong! No matter who you are, you need to offer a strong argument to make your conclusion persuasive.

Ø / raising the bar = changing the standard for what qualifies as successfully defending one’s conclusion or responding to criticism, in order to deny that an opponent has done a good job supporting their stance. (video: bit.ly/2xtpgte) – This often involves insisting that an opponent’s conclusion could only be true in light of a specific piece of evidence (which might be impossible to provide); • Even after an opponent manages to provide this evidence, a goalpost-mover might continue to deny that the opponent’s conclusion is well-supported. Implied rule: Don’t change the rules of the game so you can ”win”!

Be a good sport & acknowledge when opponents are making good points. 21 Fallacies that involve disrespecting one’s readers, listeners, or opponents

Ø strawman argument = mischaracterizing an opponent’s argument in order to make their stance seem weaker & more vulnerable to criticism …so called because it involves constructing a false substitute for a real argument, like how a scarecrow stands in for a human – Implied rules: Interpret & respond to other people’s arguments according to the Principle of Charity: • engage with the strongest, best-reasoned version of an argument. – Don’t put words into your opponents’ mouth to mislead listeners about what your opponent is saying; – Take your opponent at their word, instead of distorting their view for your personal gain.

22 Way back when we studied normative ethics, we became aware of a distinction between two approaches to being a good person:

Ø duty / rule-based approaches to good behavior (deontology) say that being a good person is a matter of fulfilling one’s duty to obey rules which specify the right thing to do Ø virtue / character-based approaches to good behavior say that being a good person is a matter of developing good character, which leads to doing the right thing Ø Now we’ve seen how these two approaches appear in normative epistemology, as different ways of understanding what it is to be a good thinker: Ø duty / rule-based approaches to good thinking say that being a good thinker is a matter of obeying rules of argumentation & not committing fallacies. Ø virtue / character-based approaches to good thinking say that being a good thinker is a matter of developing good intellectual character, which leads to making good choices 23 Ø …two approaches to normative epistemology provide different ways of understanding what it is to be a good thinker: Øduty / rule-based approaches to good thinking say that being a good thinker is a matter of obeying rules of argumentation & not committing fallacies. » If X is a fallacy, then you can treat “Don’t do X” as a rule that you ought to follow in order to be a good critical thinker/arguer. The major limitation of this approach is that rules can have exceptions: » Fallacies represent a pretty rigid way of determining which particular instances of reasoning are/aren’t acceptable, • …but maybe we should be more concerned with our overall track record as reasoners, instead of focusing on following these rules all the times.

Øvirtue / character-based approaches to good thinking say that being a good thinker is a matter of developing good intellectual character, which leads to making good choices 24 intellectual intellectual VIRTUES VICES Being familiar with intellectual character virtues curiosity idleness can give you courage cowardice a general target to aim at grit laziness in your intellectual conduct. carefulness negligence skepticism gullibility tolerating needing cognitive closure ingenuity conformity flexibility rigidity being grounded insouciance • Hence, virtue epistemology in reality can compliment confirmation bias, our deontological study integrity motivated reasoning, of particular fallacies, – by helping us keep in mind humility pride the “big picture” of open-mindedness closed-mindedness what we are striving communicative clarity when we endeavor to avoid fallacious reasoning. ” respectfulness pretention, rudeness 25 26 27 existentialcomics.com/comic/9

28 moral of the story: We’re all guilty of committing fallacies sometimes! • Try your best not to weaponize your new knowledge about fallacies against other people. existentialcomics.com/comic/21 • Perhaps good intellectual character requires us to be forgiving of others’ errors in reasoning, & to help them learn from their mistakes instead of being rude or pompous in pointing out their faults. 29