March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

LECTURE 12-1 - REFUTATION: ITS VARIETIES AND PITFALLS

Over the last couple of weeks, we've been talking about fallacies in order to help
you all figure out ways in which you can criticize an argument. Sometimes, an
argument might seem valid or strong. But if you recognize that it's actually a
fallacy, that'll help you to see what's wrong with the argument and not to be
moved by it. But there are other ways of criticizing arguments besides recognizing
them as fallacies. Or, in any case, recognizing them as one of the kinds of
fallacies that we've been discussing so far over the past couple of weeks. And this
week we're going to broaden our scope a little bit and talk about other ways of
criticizing arguments. This week we're going to talk about refutation, its varieties
and pitfalls.

So, what's refutation? What are the varieties of refutation? What are the pitfalls of
refutation? Let's address those questions in order. So, first, what is refutation?
REFUTATION, or to refute an argument, is to show that the argument is
unsuccessful in some way or other. That's what you're doing when you refute an
argument. You're showing that the argument is unsuccessful in some way or
other. Now, an argument might be unsuccessful because we're not entitled to
accept its premises, right? Maybe its premises are false or maybe whether they're
true or false, we just have no reason to accept them. Or an argument may be
unsuccessful because whether or not its premise are true or known by us to be
true, the premises don't support the conclusion of the argument. So, the
conclusion isn't adequately supported by the premises. It doesn't follow from the
premises. It's not something that the premises give us very powerful reason to
believe. So, we can refute an argument by showing that it's unsuccessful in any of
those ways. So, because refuting an argument is just to show that it's
unsuccessful in any of those ways, there are going to be different ways to refute
an argument corresponding to the different ways in which arguments can be
unsuccessful.

1
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

So, for instance, if we're going to show that the premises of an argument don't
support its conclusion, then we can do that by means of something that we'll call
refutation by parallel reasoning. Right? One way of doing that, of course, is to
point out that the argument is a fallacy. Right? It might appear valid or strong but,
in fact, it's not. But another way of doing that, independently of pointing out that it's
a fallacy, is to refute the argument by parallel reasoning. And in the next lecture,
we'll talk about what refutation by parallel reasoning is.

Another way that we might refute an argument is by showing that its premises are
false or in any case whether they're false or not, we're not entitled to accept them.
And we can do that, we can show that we're not entitled to accept the premises by
using things that we'll call counter examples. Or a method that we'll call,
reductio ad absurdum.

Okay. So those are the varieties of refutation. We can refute an argument by

means of parallel reasoning. We can refute an argument by means of
counterexamples. Or we can refute an argument by reductio ad absurdum. And
we'll talk about those different varieties of refutation this week.

Now, often refutations are successful and help us to see why an argument that
someone else is giving or maybe an argument that we ourselves gave is
unsuccessful. But sometimes, refutations don't work. In particular, there are a
couple of different kinds of error to which refutations are especially liable. One of
those kinds of error is what's called attacking a straw man, or refuting a straw
man. Sometimes, when you try to refute a particular argument, you end up
attacking something that isn't quite the same as that argument, something that
might seem very similar to that argument, you might mistake it for being the same
as that argument. But its not quite the same and the difference is significant.
That's called attacking a straw man.

Your refutation of an argument also might be unsuccessful because it depends

upon a false dichotomy. You assume that a particular dichotomy is true. Either
things have to be one way or have to be other way and you make that assumption
in attempting to refute an argument. But your refutation is unsuccessful because

2
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

the assumption that you've made, the assumption that things have to be either
one way or another way, is a false assumption. That's called a false dichotomy.

Okay, so those are some dangers to which refutation is subject, and we'll also be
talking about those this week. Alright, so now that we've said what refutation is,
what its varieties are and what its dangers are, let's start talking about particular
kinds of refutation. Next time, we're going to talk about refutation by parallel
reasoning. See you next time.

LECTURE 12-2 - REFUTATION BY PARALLEL REASONING

Today we're going to talk about REFUTATION BY PARALLEL REASONING.

Okay, so what is refutation by parallel reasoning? Let me start by giving a
definition and then I'll give some examples.

So first, to refute an argument by parallel reasoning is to show that an argument's

form is not valid or strong, the form of the argument is bad. Now, one way to show
that, a way that we've described over past couple of weeks is to show that the
argument commits one of the fallacies that we have described. For an instance
that it commits some kind of slippery soap fallacy or it's a fallacious dismisser or, a
fallacious amplifier or commits a fallacy of equivocation. That's one way to show
that an argument is a fallacy, that its form is not valid or strong, that it's premises
whether true or not don't support it's conclusion. But sometimes an argument is a
fallacy even though it doesn't fit into any of the categories of fallacy that we have
described up until now. But you can still show it's a fallacy. And the way you show
it's a fallacy then is to refute it by parallel reasoning. And the way you do that is by
finding another argument that has exactly the same form as the first argument,
exactly the same form, but the other argument is clearly a fallacy. So if the second
argument is clearly a fallacy and it has the same form as the first argument, then
the first argument must also be clearly a fallacy, since whether an argument is a
fallacy or not doesn't depend on the truth of its premises or the truth of its
conclusion; just depends on its form, on the relationship between the premises
3
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

and the conclusion. So if you can find an argument with exactly the same form
that's clearly a fallacy, that shows that the first argument is a fallacy, that's
refutation by parallel reasoning.

Now let me give you some examples. So consider this argument premise:

If I had a bigger salary, I could buy a bigger house.

Conclusion therefore if everyone had a higher salary, everyone could buy a bigger
house.

Okay, now I've heard reasoning that resembles this kind of reasoning in the past.
People think, well, if we can raise one person's wages and make them materially
better off, then if we could raise everyone's wages, we could make everyone
materially better off. Okay, but tempting as this kind of reasoning may be, it's
fallacious. And in order to show that it's fallacious, let me it refute by parallel
reasoning. Let me find another argument that has exactly the same form but that's
obviously fallacy. So, consider this example. This is a parallel argument. If one
person stands up at a ball game then she'll get a better view. I'd imagine that
she's sitting in an audience of people. All of whom are seated. And so there are all
these people seated and watching the ball game and maybe the people sitting in
front of her are blocking her view of the events in the stadium. So she decides to
stand up so she can see over the heads of the people seated in front of her. So if
she stands up she'll get a better view. Conclusion, if everyone stands up at a ball
game then everyone will get a better view. Okay, well, that conclusion is not just
obviously false but it's clearly not supported by the true premise. In fact, this
argument is a very clear example of an invalid argument, because the premise is
very plausibly true. At just about any ball game, when you have one person sitting
down, if they stand up, they're, they individually are going to get a better view, but
the conclusion is certainly false. If everyone stands up, then that does not mean
that everyone will get a better view. In fact, if everyone stands up then there going
to be some people who end up getting a worse view. So, this is clearly an invalid
argument but if this argument is invalid then this argument must also be invalid
because they have the same form. And that shows that this first argument about
salaries has got to be invalid. It's got to be invalid because it has exactly the same
4
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

form as the second argument about standing up at a ball game. It has exactly the
same form and the second argument is obviously a fallacy because in most
scenarios, the premise would be true when the conclusion would be false. So, if
the second argument is invalid, the first argument must be as well. Okay, that's an
example of refutation by parallel reasoning.

Now, let's consider another example. So, we get the idea. So, consider this
argument.

Premise one. Most people who start their own businesses, ignore statistics of
failure. Right? Because the statistics of failure for start-up businesses are pretty
bleak. vast majority of start-up businesses fail. They lose money, they go out of
business they go into bankruptcy. So, most people who start businesses have to
ignore all that, have to believe somehow, despite all this statistics of failure that
they are going to succeed.
Premise two, most people who ignore statistics of failure are stupid.
Conclusion, therefore, most people who start businesses are stupid.

Okay now let me say immediatley that I think this argument is a fallacy and further
more that its conclusion is false. But, how can we see that this argument is a
fallacy?. For most people who start businesses ignore statistics of failure, and
most people who ignore statistics of failure are stupid. How can we see that it's
fallacious to infer most people who start businesses are stupid?. Well to see how
this argument is a fallacy compared to this other argument that has exactly the
same form of reasoning. So, here's a parallel argument, most of my friends are
organisms. Alright, I mean it's possible that a few of my friends are robots but I
think that's unlikely. I think, at the very least most of my friends are organisms. If
one or two of them are automata who are cleverly disguised to look and act like
human beings, so be it. Still, most of my friends I'm confident are organisms. Now
most organisms are microscopic Of course we don't always keep that in mind
because most of the organisms that we interact with on a day to day basis are not
microscopic. Human beings, dogs, cats, trees right these organisms are not
microscopic but in fact most of the organisms that exist are microscopic. So
someone might infer well if most of my friends are organisms and most organisms
5
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

are microscopic then doesn't it follow that most of my friends are microscopic.
Well no, obviously not. In fact none of my friends are microscopic, all of my friends
are creatures that I can see. without the use of a microscope. So this argument
right here is obviously a fallacy. I mean both of the premises are true and the
conclusion is certainly false. So, this argument is obviously a fallacy. It's an invalid
argument but since this argument is invalid and it has exactly the same form as
this earlier argument about ignoring statistics of failure, it follows that the earlier
argument must be invalid. Right, this earlier arguments from the premises, most
people who start businesses ignore statistics of failure and most people who
ignore statistics of failure are stupid. It does not follow that most people who start
businesses are stupid. That doesn't follow at all. This is a fallacy. It's an invalid
argument. Just showed that by means of parallel reasoning, by finding a parallel
argument that has exactly the same form but is clearly a fallacy. So since this
parallel argument is clearly a fallacy, this earlier argument about ignoring statistics
of failure must also be a fallacy.

Okay, now refutation by parallel reasoning doesn't always work. Sometimes, we

get results that are unclear or don't show what we were trying to show. For
instance, let me give you an example of that. So consider the following argument.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That's premise one.
Premise two, it would be bad if only outlaws had guns.
Conclusion, therefore guns should not be outlawed.

Okay so that's an argument that'll be familiar to some Americans. Is it a fallacy or

not? Well suppose we try to refute it by parallel reasoning as follows.

If gum is outlawed, only outlaws will have gum.

It would be bad if only outlaws had gum,
therefore, gum should not be outlawed.

Now notice, this parallel argument has exactly the same form as this earlier
argument about guns. The two arguments have the same form. So if one of them

6
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

is a fallacy then the other one is a fallacy. But is this argument a fallacy?. That's
not clear. Its not at all clear that its a fallacy. So this attempt to refute our earlier
argument by parallel reasoning doesn't succeed. It doesn't succeed because the
parallel argument is not clearly a fallacy. So we can't tell by looking at the parallel
argument whether the earlier argument about guns was a fallacy. So this is a case
of refutation by parallel reasoning that doesn't succeed.

So what's crucial in refutation by parallel reasoning is this:

 First of all, you have to make sure that the parallel argument that you're
using to refute the original argument, that the parallel argument has exactly
the same form as the original argument. And in all three of our examples
that we've looked at that is true, the parallel argument does have the same
form as the original argument.
 But the second thing you need to make sure of is that the parallel argument
is clearly a fallacy. Right, if you're trying to show that the original argument is
a fallacy, and you're trying to show it by means of parallel reasoning, then
the parallel argument that you pick has to clearly be a fallacy, because
otherwise, you haven't shown that the original argument is a fallacy. Okay,
and this third example doesn't meet that second criterion. The parallel
argument is not clearly a fallacy.

Okay. So, that's refutation by parallel reasoning. Next time, we'll consider another
way of refuting an argument. See you next time.

LECTURE 12-3 - COUNTEREXAMPLES

Today we're going to talk about how to refute an argument by using

counterexamples. So, what's a counterexample and how does it help to refute an
argument? A COUNTEREXAMPLE is an example that runs counter to some
generalization, and thereby shows that the generalization is false. Now,
counterexamples can be used to refute an argument that contains a
7
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

generalization either as one of its premises or its conclusion. So, if the argument
contains a generalization as its conclusion, and the counterexample shows that
the generalization is false, then, in effect, what the counterexample does, is show
that the argument reaches a false conclusion. If the argument contains a
generalization as one of its premises, then the counterexample shows that that
premise of the argument is false. But, either way, the counterexample shows that
the argument is unsuccessful. Either because the argument has a false premise
or because its conclusion is false.

Okay, so, what are some examples of counterexamples? Well, let's start by
considering this argument.

Premise one. You should always treat others the same way that you would like to
be treated yourself.
Premise two. I would not like anyone to change my diapers.
So, in conclusion, I should not change the baby's diapers.

Now, this argument appears to be valid. Furthermore, I can assure you, premise
two is true. So, if premise one is also true, then it looks like I have a good
argument for why I shouldn't change the baby's diapers. I should get someone
else to do it. But is premise one true? Well, premise one sounds familiar enough.
You should always treat others the same way that you would like to be treated
yourself. That's something we frequently hear people say. But that can't be
precisely true. After all, I would like to be treated as an adult, but that doesn't
mean that I should treat my children as adults, right? So, if the generalization is
that you should always treat other the same way that you would like to be treated
yourself, that generalization is false. It's false, because even though I would like to
be treated as an adult, it doesn't mean that I should treat my children as adults. I
shouldn't treat my children as adults, because they're not adults. But I am. Now,
that doesn't mean that I should baby my children. But I shouldn't treat them the
same way that I would like to be treated myself. I shouldn't treat them as if they're
adults. Okay, so, that's a counterexample to premise one. And that
counterexample shows that premise one stated in the way that it's stated here.

8
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

You should always treat others the same way that you would like to be treated
yourself. Premise one stated in that way, is false and so this argument does not
work. This argument does not succeed in showing that I should not change the
baby's diapers. The reason it doesn't succeed is because one of its premises is
false. Now, premise one might seem to be true but if it seems to be true that's only
because something very similar to premise one is true. What's similar to premise
one that is true is the claim that you should usually, typically, often, treat others
the same way that you would like to be treated yourself. Now, those claims are
true. You should usually treat others the same way that you'd like to be treated
yourself. But that doesn't mean you should always treat others the way that you'd
like to be treated yourself. That general claim about how you should always
behave, that claim is false, and our counterexample shows it. So, there's an
example of the use of counterexample to refute an argument.

Let's consider another example. So, consider this argument.

Premise one, if it's wrong for all of us to perform a particular action then, it's wrong
for any of us to perform that action.
Premise two, it's wrong for all of us to try to take the last piece of bread on the
table.
So, conclusion, it's wrong for any of us to try to take the last piece of bread on the
table.

You could imagine this situation. Let's say a bunch of us are sitting around the
dinner table eating dinner. And there's a basket of bread in the middle of the table
and we've been, bit by bit, reaching in to take out pieces of bread and eat them.
And now there's only one piece of bread left in the basket and there are a bunch
of us sitting around the table. Well it would be wrong for all of us to jump up and
grab that piece of bread and start fighting over it. That would be wrong. That
would be completely unacceptable. But just because that would be unacceptable,
does that mean that none of us is allowed to go and eat that last piece of bread?
Well, no. That seems like a preposterous conclusion. I mean, if all of us have to sit
there just staring at that last peice of bread, and none of us is allowed to eat it,

9
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

well, then that's wasting food. That's not an acceptable conclusion. So, it's gotta
be okay, for one of us to take that last piece of bread, even though it's not okay for
all of us to try to take that last piece of bread. So, here's an example where it's
okay for one person to do something even though it's not okay for everyone
simultaneously to do that thing. Right? It's okay for one, it's not okay for everyone.
So, that's a counterexample to the generalization that occurs in premise one of
our argument. So, this argument is not a successful argument. This argument
does not prove that it’s wrong for anyone of us to try to the last piece of bread on
the table, and the reason it does not prove is not because the argument is fallacy.
The reason it does not prove that is because premise one of the argument is
false. Premise one of the argument states that general claim and that general
claim that it states is not true. Well, it might be true that it's usually wrong for
anyone to perform an action that it's wrong for everyone to perform. It's not true
that it's always wrong for anyone to perform an action that it's wrong for everyone
to perform. And in fact I just gave a counterexample to that generalization. It's not
wrong for one person to take a piece of bread, the last piece of bread on the table,
even though it would be wrong for everyone to try to take that piece of bread
simultaneously.

Okay, so, there is another example of an argument that we can refute by means
of counterexample. We can use a counterexample to show that premise one of
that argument is false and so, the argument is unsuccessful.

Finally, let's consider this third case.

Premise one. Breaking the law is almost always wrong.

Premise two, double parking is breaking the law.
So, conclusion, double parking is almost always wrong.

Now. Can we refute this argument by means of counterexample? Well, there's no

counterexample to premise two. Premise two is simply true, double parking is
breaking the law. That's part of what's involved in double parking, when you
double park you are breaking the law. But what about premise one, breaking the
law is almost always wrong. Is there a counterexample to that? No. There is no
10
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

counterexample to premise one as stated. If premise one were to say breaking the
law is always wrong. Then, we could produce a counterexample to premise one.
Sometimes it's an emergency, you have no choice but to double park. You have to
do something very quickly. It's not wrong to double park in that situation especially
not if you're doing it for just a few seconds. It's not wrong to double park and yet
you're breaking the law because there's a law against double parking. So, if
premise one we're to say, breaking the law is always wrong, then there would be a
counterexample to premise one. But premise one doesn't say that, premise one
says, breaking the law is almost always wrong.

Now, how do you produce a counterexample to a claim of the form almost

always?. Well, the answer is you don't. Because even if you produce an example
of a case where breaking the law is not wrong, that still doesn't show that it's false,
that breaking the law is almost always wrong. Maybe breaking the law is almost
always wrong. But just not in the case that you produced. So, you can produce a
counterexample to generalization of the form breaking the law is almost always
wrong. That generalization might be false, but you can show that it's false by
showing a counterexample. Okay. So, we cannot refute this argument by means
of counterexample. That's not to say that this is a good argument. In fact, this third
argument is not a good argument, but we can't show that it's not a good argument
by using a counterexample. So, sometimes counterexample can succeed in
refuting an argument and sometimes it can't. It depends on whether the argument
contains a generalization to the effect that something always happens or
something is true in all cases.

If the argument contains a generalization like that, an unexceptional

generalization, a generalization without any room for exceptions, then a
counterexample can be used to refute that generalization. But if a generalization is
phrased in such a way that it admits exceptions, like if a generalization talks
about what almost always happens, or about what usually happens, about what
typically happens, then we can't refute that generalization by means of
counterexamples.

11
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Okay, so, we can look at examples of counterexamples in the exercises that

follow. See you next time.

LECTURE 12-4 - REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

Today we're going to talk about a kind of refutation that we call a reductio ad
absurdum. Now what's a reductio ad absurdum, and why does it have such a
mysterious name? Lets begin with the definition. So REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
is a Latin phrase that means reduce to absurdity. And that's what a reductio ad
absurdum is. It's a refutation of an argument that focuses on a particular claim in
that argument, either one of the premises or the conclusion, and it shows that that
claim, that proposition implies some absurdity. And since it implies some
absurdity, the claim itself has to be false. Because nothing that's true can imply
something that's obviously false. Only something that's false can imply something
that is obviously false. And so, if you do a reductio ad absurdum on a proposition,
you show that the proposition is false. And if that proposition is one of the
premises, or the conclusion of an argument, then you've refuted that argument.
You've shown that that argument is unsuccessful. Okay, so that's a reductio ad
absurdum.

Let's look as some examples. So consider this argument.

Premise One, the best way to fight theft is to eliminate the conditions that make it
possible.
Premise Two, the use of a tangible media of exchange like cash, let's say, or gold,
is a condition that makes theft possible. Right, without a tangible media of
change, there can't be any theft.
Conclusion, therefore, the best way to fight theft is to eliminate tangible media of
exchange.

12
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Now, I've actually heard this argument before. The argument is that if all
exchanges, all transactions take place electronically, let's say in a way that's
traceable by your fingerprint or by your retinal scan, or something like that, if
there's no cash, if there's no tangible medium of exchange, then we eliminate the
black market and all kinds of goods and services. And, we also eliminate the
violent crime that's associated with stealing cash. Okay. So, the conclusion of this
argument might be true. In any case, it might true for all I'm going to say here. But
what I want to point out right now is that we can use reducto ad absurdum to show
that premise one of this argument is false. So, whatever else is true about the
conclusion of the argument, premise one of the argument is false. And so the
argument itself does not succeed in proving its conclusion.

So, why do I say premise one of the argument is false? That the best way to fight
theft is to eliminate the conditions that make it possible? Well, if that were true,
then think about the various conditions that make theft possible. One of the
conditions that makes theft possible is oxygen. Or water. Or any of the conditions
that make human life on the earth possible. Right? Without those conditions, of
course, theft wouldn't be possible. So, that would imply, premise one would imply
that the best way to fight theft is to eliminate the conditions like oxygen, like water,
that make theft possible. That's clearly not the best way to fight theft. It of course
would be a way to fight theft. But, it's not the best way. So, premise one implies
something that's obviously false. Namely that the best way to fight theft would be
to eliminate oxygen and to eliminate water, that's obviously false. And, so premise
one itself must be false because nothing that's true could imply something that's
obviously false. Okay, so that's an example of how we can refute this argument
using reductio ad absurdum to show the premise one of the argument is false.

Here's another example. So consider this argument:

Premise one, if you count long enough you will eventually run out of numbers to
count.
In conclusion, therefore counting is an activity that cannot go on forever.

13
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Now this argument is valid, but the premise of the argument isn't true and so the
argument isn't sound. Why is the premise of the argument not true? Why is it not
true that if you count long enough you'll eventually run out of numbers to count?
Well, here's a way to see that it’s not true. Suppose, for a moment that it were
true, that if you count long enough, you'll, you'll eventually run out of numbers to
count. Suppose that were true, well then there would be some last number, some
greatest number. Now, whatever that number is, call it n. But now whatever that
number is, we can just add one to it. Right? Addition is going to be defined over
that number, that number n, whatever n is, and one. So we can add one to n, and
now we come up with a greater number. So if this premise were true, then it would
imply something that's inconsistent with the premise, namely that there's a larger
number than n. So, the premise can't be true, because it implies something that's
inconsistent with the premise itself. So, the premise is false and that shows that
the argument is unsuccessful. So, we just did a reductio ad absurdum of the
premise of our argument.

Now I just gave a couple of examples of reductio ad absurdums that work. But not
every attempt at reductio ad absurdum works. Consider this one.

Premise, some things exist even though no one is thinking of them.

Conclusion, therefore, reality exceeds the reach of the mind, there's more to
reality than there is in the mind.

Now suppose someone challenges the premise of this argument as follows. They
say, look, you're saying that some things exist even though no one is thinking of
them, but as you're saying that, presumably you're not just mouthing the words.
You're really thinking it. You're thinking that some things exist even though no one
is thinking of them. But if you're thinking that proposition, then you are thinking of
those things. So whatever those things are that illegibly exist, even when no one
is thinking of them, well you're thinking of them right now. And so the proposition
that you're thinking namely that some things exist even when no one is thinking of
them, that proposition is not true, because you're thinking of those very things
right now. Those very things that exist even though allegedly no one is thinking of
them.
14
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Okay, now, I leave it as an exercise for you to work out and for you all to discuss
with each other in the forums. What's wrong with this attempt at a reductio ad
absurdum of the premise of this argument? I'll let you think about that. See you
next time.

LECTURE 12-5 - FALSE DICHOTOMY

Today we're going to talk about false dichotomies. A false dichotomy is something
that can go wrong with an argument, but it can go wrong either with an argument
that we're trying to refute, and so we can refute that argument by showing that it
depends on a false dichotomy, but it can also go wrong with the argument that
we're giving by way of refutation, in other words, our attempted refutation of an
argument can go wrong because it relies on a false dichotomy. So, what's a false
dichotomy and why is it a bad thing? Let's talk about that now.

A FALSE DICHOTOMY is when, an argument relies upon a false dichotomy when

that argument falsely assumes that there are only two possibilities, when in fact,
there are more than two possibilities. 'Kay? This is a common problem with
arguments. It's a common problem with arguments that we try to refute and it's
also a common problem with arguments that try to refute them. Let's look at some
examples. So consider the following argument. You can imagine someone from,
let's say, a powerful western nation giving the following argument in the course of
determining which alliances to foster and which international relations to cutoff.

Premise one : Either other nations are with us or they're against us in our war
against terrorism.
Premise two, Switzerland is not with us.
In conclusion, Switzerland is against us.

And then, from this conclusion, you can imagine that the proponent of this
argument would draw various further conclusions like the diplomatic relations with
Switzerland should be cut off, the trade relations with Switzerland should be cut

15
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

off and so forth. Maybe we should have an embargo on Swiss goods. So, the
problem with this argument is that, even if premise two of the argument is true
and, actually, even if premise three of the argument is true, premise one of the
argument is a false dichotomy, or at least may very well may be a false
dichotomy. Isn't it possible that a nation might simply be neutral, with respect to a
particular conflict that our nation has with some other force, right? Couldn't a
nation simply be neutral with respect to that conflict? Why must they choose
between being with us and being against us? Why couldn't they just remain
neutral? Right? So this argument relies on a false dichotomy and we can refute
the argument by showing that it relies on a false dichotomy.

Here's another example of an argument that relies on a false dichotomy. So

imagine someone argues as follows.

Premise one, either the government must listen in to our phone calls or else, they
will be collecting our body parts after another terrorist attack.
Premise two, better to listen in to our phone calls than to collect our body parts,
right, rather lose our privacy than lose our lives.
Conclusion, the government must listen in to our phone calls.

Now again, let's suppose that premise two is true. In fact, we can even suppose
that the conclusion is true. But even if the conclusion is true, this argument does
not successfully show that the conclusion is true. And the reason it doesn't
successfully show that the conclusion is true is that premise one, again, is a false
dichotomy. Premise one assumes that there are only two possible situations,
either the government is listening in to our phone calls or there's going to be
another terrorist attack and the government will have to collect our body parts. But
why are those two the only possible situations? Is there absolutely no other way of
preventing another terrorist attack or, in any case, reducing the likelihood of
another terrorist attack without listening in to our phone calls? Until someone can
establish that there is no other possible way of doing that, we can suspect that
premise one of this argument is a false dichotomy, and so the argument is
unsuccessful. The argument doesn't show that its conclusion is true even if its

16
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

conclusion is true. So those are two examples of arguments that rely on a false
dichotomy.

Now, I'd like you to look at the following video clip, in which you'll hear three
arguments given. Now, the first of the three arguments is an appeal to popular
opinion, but then, I think you'll see some examples of false dichotomy. Okay, we'll
talk about it right after the video clip is over.

>> You know that we don't catch that fishing boat, there ain't going to be no deep
sea fishing. We'll have to stay in a dock that the old people are. Hold it. Hold it.
Hold it. What are you doing here? >> What? >> What about the other foot? >>
[LAUGH] >> There ain't no sock on it. >> I'll get to it. >> [LAUGH] >> Don't you
know that the whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe? >>
[LAUGH] >> I like to take care of one foot at a time. >> [LAUGH] >> That's the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. >> [LAUGH] >> It's just as quick my way. >>
Wait a minute. That ain't the point. You see what I'm doing. Don't keep doing it.
Listen to me. >> [LAUGH] >> Suppose there's a fire in the house and you gotta
run for your life. Your way, all you got on is one shoe and a sock. My way, you got
on a sock and a sock. You see, you're even. >> [LAUGH] >> Suppose it's raining
or snowing outside. >> [COUGH] >> Your way, with a sock on each foot, my feet
would get wet. My way, with a sock and a shoe on one foot, I can hop around and
stay dry. >> [SOUND] >> I think you've been hopping around on your head. >>
[LAUGH] >> Wait a, wait a, listen to me. >> [LAUGH] >> Supposing the other
sock's got a hole in it. >> It doesn't have a hole in it. >> I said supposing it's got a
hole in it. >> Alright. Suppose it has a hole. >> Alright. It's got a hole in it. So you
ain't got another matching pair. So, what are you going to do? Your way, you're
going to take off a whole shoe and a sock. My way, all you gotta do is take off one
sock. >> [LAUGH] >> All right, if it'll make you happy, I'll start all over again. >>
No, no, no. >> [LAUGH] >> You're half way through. Now, jeez, get on with it.
We're in a hurry. >> [LAUGH] >> You can start doing it the right way tomorrow
morning. And do it that way for the rest of your life. >> [SOUND] >>

All the Americans are going to recognize that video clip as from a TV show called
All in the Family which aired in the 1970s in the United States. The older character

17
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

with white hair is named Archie and the younger character with brown hair and a
mustache is named Michael. Now in that clip, Archie gives Michael three
arguments for the conclusion that Michael ought put on a sock and a sock and a
shoe and a shoe, in contrast to the way Michael's actually doing it, which is to put
on a sock and a shoe and a sock and shoe. Now the first of those three
arguments is just an appeal to popular opinion and goes like this.

Premise, the whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe.
Conclusion, Archie doesn't spell out this conclusion, but clearly, it's the conclusion
that he wants Michael to draw, you, Michael ought to put on a sock and a sock
and a shoe and shoe. Since, after all, that's how the whole world does it.

Now, that's an appeal to popular opinion and, clearly, it's fallacious. Just because
the whole world does it, doesn't provide a reason for you to do it. Of course, if
there's a good reason to why the whole world does it that way, then whatever that
good reason is, that might also be a good reason for you to do it that way. But, the
fact that the whole world does it that way, by itself, that's not a good reason for
you to do it that way. There might be evidence that there is a good reason, but, by
itself, it's not a good reason. And so Michael says, I like to take care of one foot at
a time. Perfectly good rebuttal to that argument. Okay. Now that's an appeal to
popular opinion and it's a fallacy of relevance and those we discussed last week.

But the next two arguments are interesting examples of false dichotomy
arguments. Let's consider each one of them. So, in the next argument, Archie
says the following.

Premise one, if you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your
footwear, well, either your feet will each have a sock on them or one foot will have
a sock and shoe on it and the other foot will have nothing on it. 'Kay?
Premise two, better for your feet to be even than to not be even. Let's suppose
that's true. And so, conclusion, better to put on both your socks first.

Okay. Now. This argument is a fallacy. And it's a fallacy even if premise two is true
I don't know if premise two is true, but even if premise two is true and even if the

18
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

conclusion is true, the argument is still a fallacy. And it's a fallacy because
premise one and premise two, together, don't support the conclusion. See,
premise one says, if you're under certain circumstances, namely, you have to rush
out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, then, either your feet
will each have sock or one foot will have a sock and a shoe and the other will
have nothing. Okay, that's right, and maybe it is true that it's better for your feet to
be even than not. That doesn't mean that it's better, all things considered, to put
on both your socks first, because, what if you don't have to rush out of the house
halfway through putting on your footwear? I mean, Archie considers the case in
which you do have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your
footwear, but first of all, that situation is one that's extremely unlikely to be the
case. And secondly, he pays no attention to what would happen, what the
consequences would be, of the different courses of action when that situation isn't
the case, in other words, when you don't have to rush out of the house halfway
through putting on your footwear. So, this is a false dichotomy, not because
premise one is false, but because, in the transition from the two premises to the
conclusion, what Archie loses track of is that premise one is true only given the
condition that you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your
footwear, right? So, if you're in that situation, if you have to rush out of the house
halfway through putting on your footwear, then, the following two are the only
possibilities, you have a sock and a sock or you just have a sock and a shoe.
Those are the only two possibilities if you have to rush out of the house halfway
through putting on your footwear. But, if we don't restrict ourselves to considering,
the situation which you have, what, we have to rush out of the house halfway
through putting on your footwear, then we see that there are lots more
possibilities. You could have to rush out of the house a quarter of the way through
putting on your footwear or three quarters of the way through putting on your
footwear or immediately after putting on your footwear or maybe you don't have to
rush out of the house at all. So there are all sorts of other possibilities, in which
the dichotomy that Archie lists in premise one, the dichotomy either you have a
sock and a sock or you have a sock and a shoe, in which that dichotomy just
doesn't hold, in which there's a third possibility on top of the two possibilities that
Archie mentions. And Michael, interestingly, tries to show that Archie's argument
19
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

is no good by giving his own argument of exactly the same form with an
incompatible conclusion that it's better to put on a sock and a shoe first.
Remember, on Michael's alternative argument, he says, well, suppose you have
to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear but it's raining
outside, right? If you have a sock and a sock, then both your feet will get wet
whereas, if you have a sock and a shoe, then you can hop around on one foot and
stay dry. So, that's an argument of the same form as Archie's argument, but it
reaches an incompatible conclusion, the conclusion, namely, that it's better to put
on a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe rather than a sock and a sock and
and a shoe and a shoe. And that just shows that Archie's argument wasn't itself
very compelling. Okay. So, that's Archie's second argument and that's guilty of a
false dichotomy.

Now, let's consider Archie's third argument, which goes like this.

Premise one, if you find a hole in your second sock after putting on two socks,
then you need only change your socks.
Premise two, if you find a hole in your second sock after putting on a sock and a
shoe, then you need to take off your shoe.
Premise three, it's easier to take off two socks than a sock and a shoe.
So, conclusion, better to put on your socks first.

Okay now, Michael doesn't actually try to rebut this argument, but it's worth our
while considering how compelling this argument is. See, this argument, like the
one before it, also seems to rely on a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy is this.
Under a certain circumstance, namely, when you find a hole in your second sock,
one of two possible situations obtains, either, you only need to change your socks
or, you need to take off your shoe in addition to changing your socks. So, under
that scenario, when you find a hole in your second sock, then there are only two
possible outcomes, you have to change your socks or you have to take off your
shoe in addition to changing your socks. Okay, now, that might be right. Well,
actually, it's not right because you do have the alternative of simply walking
around with your hole, with a hole in your second sock or of just having

20
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

unmatched socks. But let's suppose we rule that out somehow, we rule out the
acceptability of walking around with unmatched socks or with a hole in your
second sock. So we allow that, under the circumstances that Archie envisages,
mainly, where you find a hole in your second sock, only one of two possible
scenarios can obtain, either you have to change your two socks or you have to
take off your shoe in addition to changing your socks. Okay. So, there's a
dichotomy. But, its a dichotomy, that obtains only when we're in the situation that
Archie specified, namely, where we find a hole in our second sock. But what if we
don't find a hole in our second sock? Then there are any number of situations that
could obtain, like we could end up putting on our socks and shoes and not having
to change anything, or we could end up changing one sock after finding a hole in
our first sock. We could end up having to take off our shoe after we find, not that
there's a hole in our second sock, but that the first shoe doesn't feel comfortable
with the first sock. There are any number of scenarios that could obtain, but
Archie restricts himself to considering just two possible scenarios, the one where
you have to change your two socks versus the one where you have to change
your two socks and take off your shoe and he restricts himself to considering just
those two possible scenarios because he's only thinking about a situation In
which, what prompts you to change your footwear is finding a hole in your second
sock. He's not considering any other possible situation. And so, once again, in this
instance, he's guilty of a false dichotomy. He's arguing that it's better to put on
your socks first, but he's arguing that by showing that, given a certain pair of
options, that's the pair of options that you're facing when you find a hole in your
second sock, given just that pair of options, it's better to put on your socks first.
But why are those two the only possible options? Archie doesn't tell us that. That's
what makes his argument a bad argument.

Okay. So I hope I've given some real life examples here of false dichotomies that
can occur in arguments and that can vitiate those arguments, that can make them
bad arguments. Okay. Now in the exercises, we'll consider more examples of that.

21
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

LECTURE 12-6 - ATTACKING A STRAW MAN

One problem that can arise when you try to refute an argument is that you end up
attacking a straw man. Now, what does that mean? What is attacking a straw
man? Let me start off by giving a definition and then giving some examples.

So, to ATTACK A STRAW MAN, is to misunderstand the argument or the

hypothesis that you're attempting to refute. Right, you might try to refute an
argument or show that a particular hypothesis is false. But if in the course of doing
that you end up misunderstanding the argument of the hypothesis, then we say
you're attacking a straw man. Here's some examples of that phenomenon.

So imagine Walter and I are having a conversation and Walter claims the United
States should not have sent in troops back in 2003 to depose the government of
Saddam Hussein and Iraq, I hear Walter say this and I respond by saying, oh, so
Walter you must think that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his
citizens just doesn't count for anything. Okay, now clearly, I'm trying to criticize
what Walter's saying but my criticism misunderstands what he's saying. Walter
didn't say that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his citizens
doesn't count for anything. Walter just said, the United States should not have
sent in ground troops in 2003 to depose the government of Saddam Hussein.
Now, why does Walter think that? There could be a number of reasons why
Walter thinks that. But his having reasons for thinking that is consistent with
Walter's also thinking that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his
own citizens matters a lot. But maybe there would have been more effective ways
to address that suffering without sending in ground troops to depose his
government. So, until I understand better how Walter is defending his view that
the United States should not have sent in troops to depose the government of
Saddam Hussein, I'm attacking a straw man when I say oh so you must think that
the suffering that he imposed upon the citizens doesn't count for anything. So
there's one example of attacking a straw man.

22
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Here's another example. Suppose once again Walter and I are having a
conversation and I say we should distribute condoms to teenagers around the
world in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and all the tragic costs that result
from unwanted pregnancies. And Walter says oh so you must want to encourage
teenagers over the world to have as much sex as possible. Now there Walter's
attacking the straw man. Right? Until he understands what my reasons are for
thinking that we should distribute condoms to teenagers around the world, and
until he can evaluate the benefits that I see to that policy against the possible
costs of possibly making it easier for some teenagers to have sex, he can't simply
assume that I want to encourage teenagers to have as much sex as possible.
Maybe I don't want that. Maybe I don't want to encourage teenagers to have as
much sex as possible, but I still think that it's a good idea to distribute condoms to
teenagers around the world in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. So, here's
an example where Walter is attacking the straw man.

Okay, now, in the video clip that follows, you're going to see David Mitchell, who's
a British comedian, attacking another straw man. Let's take a listen [MUSIC].

>> Have you noticed its no longer good enough to try and live in such a way that
pleases you and doesn't outrage others. No, as if this was too easy a goal and we
needed a refinement on the human condition to make a sufficient challenge of it,
we're now suppose to live in the moment. It's not enough to work towards being
happy later. You have to be happy now. Right now. No, now. Not then, not soon,
now. Well that's unfair of me. I realize most of the living in the moment-eers are
not saying that's the only way of being happy that counts. Although, asterisk,
some of them definitely are saying exactly that. They're recommending this as a
way to become happy. Are they mad? Apart from the obvious paradox that
anytime I'm checking to see if I'm living in the moment or not, I cease to live in the
moment, or rather the moment I'm living in becomes the moment of checking, the
range of pleasures available to people living in the moment is both small and well,
best deal. Unless you're in the middle of something delicious, intoxicating, caramel
or whatever the posh word for sneezing is, you're stuck. And out of those, the only
one that requires no on in the moment planning or forethought whatsoever is
sneezing. A nice though a good sneeze is after three they get annoying. And
23
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

what's more, I don't think its as easy as all that to tell whether or not your enjoying
a moment in that moment. I remember watching the film Mulholland Drive and
believing that I was enjoying myself as I anticipated the dramatic ending that
would cleverly resolve and make sense of this intriguing mystery. But there wasn't
one, it just sort of stopped. And once I realized that I had no choice but to
retrospectively downgrade what I had thought had been my enjoyment in the
moment. My enjoyment was predicated on a demanding to something it was an
IOU to be redeemed at the point of pleasurable revelation by which I don't mean
the lesbian sex scene and as there was none, the IOU was never redeemed.
Therefore, I haven't enjoyed myself where this is really starkly obvious of course is
sport. Of the three big matches Andy Murray played this year, the one I enjoyed
most at the time, by country mile, was his last Olympic game where he went into
the lead early and stayed there until he won. The one I think I enjoyed most now is
the US open. Where it was touch and go for hours, and then he won. Much more
exciting, which is why I value it now, and hated it at the time. Because at the time,
I had no way of knowing that the moment I was reluctantly suffering through
wasn't a moment on a long and exhausting journey towards defeat. Like the
Wimbledon final, which neither in the moment me nor looking back me enjoyed at
all. At the time, when watching any sporting contest in which I'm partisan, I don't
have the faintest idea if I'm enjoying myself. My dominant emotion is I really hope
my team wins, so it will turn out later I'm enjoying myself now. That's the problem
with living in the moment. We're too intelligent a species to be able to avoid living
in some sort of narrative, and that involves not knowing how we feel in the
moment until we have context for it. Too short-term a focus, and we've nothing to
enjoy but sneezing. Too long term a context, and it's all a plan to enjoy something
we never get to. And anyway, we'll all be dead within 100 years. We have no
choice but to find some sort of medium term over which to give a shit, or nothing is
anything. And once you've granted that, then all the delayed gratifications are
variations on a theme. And the theme is, chores now for jam tomorrow. Whether
it's, I want to build a cathedral, or I fancy a sandwich. You're stuck in the middle
with me. [MUSIC] >>

24
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Now in the clip we just saw, David Mitchell gives two arguments against the
advice to live in the moment. Now what are those two arguments? Well, here's
one of them. It goes like this.

Premise one, living in the moment involves a very restricted set of pleasures.
Premise two, a good life involves many pleasures outside that restricted range.
And so conclusion a good life does not involve living in the moment.

Okay. Now I hope it'll be clear once we set the argument out like that that this
argument is not valid, this argument is not compelling at all. Just because living in
the moment involves a very restricted set of pleasures, and let's suppose for the
moment that it does, and the good life involves many pleasures outside that
restricted range, and let's grant that it does, it doesn't follow that a good life does
not involve living in the moment. For all that we get from premise one and two, for
all that those two premises tell us, it could be that good life involves living in the
moment and a whole lot of other things as well, and a whole lot of other pleasures
as well. Besides, living in the moment. So, this is an example of an argument that
is not valid. But given how obvious the invalidity is, why does Mitchell think that
this argument is worthwhile leveling against the proponent of living in the
moment? He thinks it's worthwhile leveling against that proponent. Because he
thinks that proponent is someone who says that a good life just involves the
pleasures of living in the moment. But, that's a misunderstanding of what the
proponent of living in the moment is saying. The proponent of living in the moment
isn't saying that life doesn't involve any pleasures whatsoever over and above
living in the moment. The proponent of living in the moment is simply saying that
in addition to whatever other pleasures life involves, we need to remember the
pleasures of living in the moment. Okay, that's one argument that Mitchell uses
against the proponent of living in the moment, and that argument is guilty of
attacking a straw man.

Here's the other argument Mitchell uses against the proponent of living in the
moment. It goes like this.

25
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Premise, living in the moment is ascertainable only after that moment. As Mitchell
says, you can only check whether you are living in the moment if that moment that
you're living in becomes one of checking.
Conclusion, therefore living in the moment is impossible.

Right. This is the paradox that Mitchell describes early in the clip. Now, how does
it follow from the premise, living in the moment is ascertainable only after that
moment? That living in the moment is impossible? How is this argument supposed
to be a good one? Well, Mitchell's idea is if you're ascertaining whether your living
in the moment then the moment that your living in becomes one of checking. And
since checking isn't itself self pleasurable, you can't live in the moment. But, that
doesn't follow because it leaves it open into the proponent of living in the moment
to say that you can only live in the moment when you're not checking whether or
not you're living in the moment. The happiness that you can enjoy when you're
living in the moment is not a happiness that you can enjoy while you're checking
to see that you're having that happiness. It's a happiness that you can enjoy only
when you're not preoccupied with checking to see that you have it. So, once again
we have an invalid argument, and the invalid argument is badly directed against
the proponent of living in the moment. Mitchell assumes that the proponent of
living in the moment is affected by this argument because the proponent of living
in the moment must think that living in the moment somehow requires knowing
that you're living in that moment. And knowing that you're living in that moment
somehow requires checking that you're living in that moment. But the proponent of
living in the moment need require no such thing. The proponent of living in the
moment might advise us to live in the moment without advising us to check
whether we're living in that moment. Without advising us to think about whether
we're living in that moment, but simply to live in that moment. And Mitchell's
argument doesn't affect the view that we should live in the moment so long as that
view isn't understood to be the view that we should check to see whether we're
living in the moment.

Okay. So, those are two examples of straw man arguments that occur in the clip
that we just saw. Both of them arguments directed against the proponent of living
26
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

in the moment, but both of them attack a straw man. In the exercises that follow
we'll see some more examples of arguments that may or may not be attacking the
straw man.

LECTURE 12-7 - WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD

Okay. Finally, as a last argument in this course, is the one that bothers me most.
And it comes from Lauren Brush. I think it must have bothered her too, because
It's not clear that she was ever happy with the formulation and kept changing it.
But I'm going to give a very simplified version of it, and see if we can reconstruct it
and determine whether it's really sound. This is what Lauren said. In my words,
not hers, exactly.

Walter wants to up the number of students who get the most out of this class. Now
that's true. I want to increase the number of students who get the most out of this
class. That's the point of teaching. Therefore, Walter should shave his hair on
camera and, make the video open to all students. No! My beautiful locks, no! That
is what's upsetting. But luckily, luckily [LAUGH] this argument's not valid, now
way. It's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. So, sorry
Lauren I'm not convinced. Uh-oh, she can add another premise. She's probably
assuming this. More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves
his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students. Okay, okay, I guess
I gotta admit that too. I think people will get more outta the class if they see that,
because part of what you get outta this class is you have some fun. At least I hope
you've had fun, I have. Okay Lauren. But still, still it's not valid. It's not valid, and
so I'm not going to shave my head yet, no way, no way. Uh-oh, the main reason it
wasn't valid was that the premises were about what I want, and the conclusion is
about what I should do. But wait, now maybe it is valid. Sure looks valid if we add
one more suppressed premise. Walter should do what will accomplish what he
wants to do. Oh my gosh, if what I want to accomplish is to get more students to
get the most out of the class, if I should do what I want to do, then I should do

27
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

what's going to make the most students get the most out of the class. And if
shaving my head is doing that, then it sure looks like I should shave my head on
camera. And make it open to all the students. I feel like I'm in trouble now. What's
going to happen. Oh, wait! Wait! I got it. Even though it's valid, premise three's not
true. That I should do what's going to accomplish what I want? What if I want
something like, I want to smoke?. Well maybe I shouldn't go to the store and get a
pack of cigarettes, because even though I want to smoke, I still shouldn't. because
it's bad for me, because it's going to hurt me. So, it looks like you have to qualify
that premise by saying that I should do, what will accomplish what I want to do,
unless doing it has worse effects. Like in smoking when it might give me cancer
and hurt me. So whew, now I'm safe. Now I don't have to shave my head. whew,
that makes me feel better because you can't get the conclusion that I should do it
from those three premises, right? It's not valid anymore. Uh-oh, uh-oh, all we
need's another premise. Walter shaving his hair, his head, on camera and making
the video open to all students will not have worse effects. Uh-oh. because shaving

my head is not going to give me cancer, like smoking. Matter of fact, hair will grow
back. It's not, it might be embarrassing for a few days but only a few days. That's

28
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

not that bad compared to all those students out there in Courseraland. And, so I
guess I have to admit that premise four is true. But wait a minute, if the argument
is valid and premise four is true and premise three is true and premise two is true.
Premise one is true. Now it's looking good. And we can even break it up to make it
easier to understand. I want the number of students to increase that get the most
out of the course. And more will get most out of the course if I shaved my head on
camera and make that video available. So, shaving my hair on camera, making
the video available would give me what I want. And I ought to do want I want if it
doesn't cause worse harm. This is not going to cause worse harm, so I ought to
do it. Oh my gosh. Now I'm worried because that means that, the conclusion's
true. If the argument's sound, it's valid and the premises are true, then the
conclusion's sound. Or at least if I accept the premises and the conclusion follows
validly, then I'm committed to that conclusion. I'm committed to the fact that I
should shave my hair on camera and distribute the video to all students, so you
can all watch it. Lauren has convinced me of that.

But, notice this argument applies to me, it also applies to Ram. So if I've gotta
shave my head, Ram's got to shave his beard. So, although I have to shave my
head, at least I'm not alone. Guess we gotta both go do it.

I'm committed to the fact that I should shave my hair on camera, and distribute the
video to all students so you can all watch it. Lauren has convinced me of that. But,
notice this argument applies to me, it also applies to Ram. So if I gotta shave my
head, Ram's got to shave his beard. So, although I have to shave my head, at
least I'm not alone. Guess we gotta both go do it. Okay, so I'm convinced that I
should shave my head, but I'm just not going to do it, I don't know if I can live
without my beautiful locks. >> Yeah, I, I know exactly what you're talking about. I
mean, I'm equally convinced that I should shave my beard. But, it just doesn't feel
right somehow. >> I know there's no way they're going to force us. >> Yeah. >>
No. >> I don't think it's going to happen. >> No. >> It's just not going to happen.
>> Yo, I'm going to make you do it. Dude, you need to recognize the power of
reasoning and argument. >> Oh no, he got me! [SOUND] Thanks to all of our
students we hope you learned a lot and had a lot of fun, we sure learned a lot
from you. I remember learning about goats from a goat farmer in Afghanistan and,
29
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

and AIDS from an AIDS activist in Africa and traffic flow from an Australian
engineer, and wild dogs from a, a student from Eastern Europe. We've also been
inspired by a lotta students. One student had her house destroyed by a cyclone,
and apologized for missing a deadline. An Iranian group of linguistics students,
met together every weekend. So did a group in a cafe in San Francisco. We had
visually challenged students from Eastern Europe. And one student with a chronic
disease that had never been able to take a college course before.

So, now sadly we have to say goodbye, but we hope that the lessons will stay with
you. Our goal has been to teach you to first of all, ask whether you have good
enough reasons for the positions that you hold. And then to enable you to
formulate those reasons better when you do have good reasons for your
own beliefs. But also to pay attention to other people and appreciate and be
fair to opponents who hold different positions. So please use these skills
throughout the rest of your life. They will help you cooperate with other people and
succeed in your own goals, whatever you want to accomplish. So now, there are
only two things left to do. One, is send all that hair to Locks of Love. And two,
[LAUGH] now that it's all gone, I might as well paint my entire head Duke Blue.
[MUSIC] Oh, I don't know, I've got my doubts now, but it did seem like a good idea
at the time. Luckily I'm not going to be alone. Rob your turn. >> So, listen, um,you
gotta make sure nobody, nobody knows about this. Okay. I do not want to be
associated with that big Duke blue clown. Okay. So, nobody can know about this.
>> Alright. >> Alright. You don't tell anybody. [SOUND] >> Alright, alright, good
man, good man. >> Okay. >> [SOUND] We are so grateful to all of you for taking
the time out of your busy lives to take our course and help us make it even better
for future generations of students. Thank you to the graphic designer from Mexico
who secretly wants to go study philosophy. Thank you to the retired social worker
from Darwin, Australia who is studying to become a workplace meditation
consultant. Thank you to the recent college graduate from the Philippines who
stuck with our course even when the massive typhoon tragically devastated her
country. Thank you to the polite gentleman from Huntsville, Alabama who had to
stand up to the criticism of his peers in order to take our course. Thank you to the
young man from Rio de Janeiro who did the problem sets in the middle of

30
Coursera
March 31, 2014 [Think Again: How to reason and argue– WEEK 12]

Carneval. Thank you to the barber from Cairo who would complete the quizzes
whenever he had a break between clients. Thank you to the taxi driver from
Bangalore who would contribute to the discussion forums using voice recognition
software while driving. Thank you to the hypnotist who found time to complete our
course while also getting all of his clients to do so, as well. And thank you to the
anesthesiologist who would read our lecture transcripts out loud while at work It is
because of all of you that our work was worthwhile. >> Bye [CROSSTALK] >> Bye
guys. Thanks for doing such a great job. Bye.

31
Coursera