02_ CT

We will be moving after a quick recap…

 Weak-sense critical thinking is the use of critical thinking to defend your current beliefs.

Strong-sense critical thinking is the use of the same skills to evaluate all claims and beliefs,
especially your own.

Strong or Weak?
Benefits- Panning for the Gold
◦ Courage
◦ Higher productivity
◦ Uniqueness
◦ Trying out new answers
◦ Effective communication
◦ Practice – perfection
◦ Analyse what are ‗right‘ questions.
1. What are the issues / arguments, and the conclusions?
2. What are the reasons?
3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?
The Square of Opposition
◦ Diagrammatic representation of the relation between the four categories in logic.

◦ A= universal affirmative; E= universal negative; I= particular affirmative; O= particular negative.

◦ The term ‗contraries,‘ ‗contradictories,‘ and ‗subalterns,‘ ‗subcontrary‘ are introduced.

◦ Propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both be false = contradictories.
◦ A and O; E and I propositions are contradictory.
◦ i) All Popes are Catholics (A).
◦ ii) Some Popes are not Catholics (O).
◦ If (i) is correct, then (ii) ought to be false.

◦ iii) No Popes are Catholics (E)

◦ iv) Some Popes are Catholics (O)
◦ If (iii) is correct, then (iv) ought to be false.
◦ Both propositions cannot be true, but both can be false = contraries.
◦ A and E are contrary.
◦ Ex. i) All women are black (A)
◦ ii) No women are black (E)
◦ It is impossible for both (i) and (ii) to be true at the same time, but both can be false.
◦ Both Propositions can be true, but both cannot be false = subcontrary.
◦ I and O are subcontrary.

◦ Ex. i) Some nations are democracies.

◦ ii) Some nations are not democracies.

◦ Both (i) and (ii) may be true. But, both cannot be false at the same time.
◦ A proposition is subaltern to another if it is implied by it, but does not imply it.
◦ A and I; E and O are subalterns.
◦ Ex. i) All plastics are synthetic. (A) superaltern
Some plastics are synthetic. (I) subaltern
◦ ii) No cars have Indian-made spares. (E) superaltern
Some cars don‘t have Indian-made spares. (O) subaltern
Traditional Logic and Modern Logic
◦ T L implies that all classes and descriptions of members/ items within this class are exact representations
and assumes these classes and descriptions to be true.
◦ M L varies from T L, and calls this as ‗existential assumption‘.
◦ If T L attributes a great deal to Aristotle, M L attributes a great deal to George Boole (1815-1864).
◦ Boole brought in the concept of ‗Empty Class‘/ ‗Empty Set‘.
 Empty Categories?
◦ Modern logic deals with empty categories – those categories that cannot be strictly grouped into one broad one.
◦ The square of opposition does not successfully deal with empty categories.
◦ Empty categories – for example, mythical creatures/ beings. Or, fictional characters? Ex. Unicorn
◦ All unicorns have horns; no unicorn has horn; some unicorns have horns; some unicorns do not have horns.
◦ Therefore, contrary, subcontrary, subaltern classifications fail.
 Existential Fallacy
◦ When we erroneously suppose some class or group has members.
◦ In other words, statements may be true about classes or groups even if no members of the class or group exist.
◦ In terms of syllogistic argumentation, this is a formal fallacy in that it results when the premises are universal in
quantification and the conclusion is particular.
◦ In the history of logic, the existential fallacy may be traced to dictum de omni , which refers to the principle in
Aristotelian logic that whatever is said universally of a subject is said of everything that is contained under such a
subject.
◦ In order to avoid this fallacy, one should look for empirical verification of the existence of whatever entity may be
in question.
Modern Square of Opposition
Modern Square using Venn Diagrams
 No S is P

All S is P
Claims
Claim: A declarative sentence used in such a way that it is either true or false (but not both).

Example 1: Your instructor for this course is male.

Analysis: This is a claim. It's either true or false.

Example 2: Cats are nasty.

Analysis: If when you read this you disagreed, then you are implicitly accepting the example as a claim. You
can't disagree unless you think it has a truth-value.
Arguments
Argument An argument is an attempt to convince someone (possibly yourself) that a particular claim, called the
conclusion, is true.

The rest of the argument is a collection of claims called premises, which are given as the reasons for believing
the conclusion is true.
Example: Out? Out? I was safe by a mile. Are you blind? He didn't even touch me with
his glove!

Analysis: This was spoken at a baseball game by a runner who'd just been called out. He
was trying to convince the umpire to believe "I was safe.―

He used only one premise: "He didn't even touch me with his glove." The rest is just
noise.
Example: Give me that stupid watch.

Analysis: I can remember who said this to me. He was trying to convince me. But it was
no argument, just a series of commands and threats. And what he was trying to convince
me of wasn't the truth of some claim.
Example: Follow the directions provided by your doctor for using this medicine. This
medicine may be taken on an empty stomach or with food. Store this medicine at room
temperature, away from heat and light.

Analysis: This is not an argument. Instructions, explanations, and descriptions, though

they may use declarative sentences, aren't arguments. They're not intended to convince you
that some claim is true.
Example: The sky is blue. That's because sunlight is refracted through the air in such a
way that other wavelengths of light are diminished.

Analysis: This is not an attempt to convince you that the sky is blue—that's obvious. This
is an explanation, and an explanation is not an argument.
Example: You see a chimpanzee trying to get some termites out of a hole. She can't manage it
because the hole is too small for her finger. So she gets a stick and tries to pull the termites
out. No success. She licks the end of the stick and puts it in the hole and pulls it out with a
termite stuck to it. She eats the termite, and repeats the process. Is she convincing herself by
means of an argument?

Analysis: This isn't an argument. Whatever the chimpanzee is doing, she's not using claims to
convince herself that a particular claim is true.
Key words
truth-value claim premise
true argument issue
false conclusion critical thinking
Subjective / Objective
◦ Subjective claim A claim is subjective if whether it is true or false depends on what someone (or something
or some group) thinks, believes, or feels. A subjective claim invokes personal standards.
◦ Objective claim A claim is objective if it is not subjective. An objective claim invokes impersonal
standards.
Check…
◦ ―Every car made by Volkswagen has a gasoline engine.‖
◦ Henry says, "Steak tastes better than spaghetti.‖
◦ "It's cold.‖
Check…
◦ Joe weighs 215 pounds.
◦ Joe is fat.
◦ Henry: I felt sick yesterday, and that's why I didn't come to work.

◦ Henry: Spot eats canned dog food right away, but when we give him dry dog food, he doesn't finish it until
half the day is over.
Zoe: So Spot likes canned dog food better than dry.
?
◦ There is an even number of pebbles in the box.
◦ My dog feels cold.
◦ Socialism is the most efficient way to ensure that all members of a society are fed and clothed.
 Lee: I deserve a higher mark in this course.
Dr. E: No, you don't. Here's the record of your exams and papers. You earned a C.
Lee: That's just your opinion.

◦ Subjectivist fallacy It's a mistake to argue that because there is a lot of

disagreement about whether a claim is true, it's therefore subjective.
◦ The subjectivist fallacy is just one version of the common mistake of confusing
objective with subjective claims.

Subjectivist Fallacy
a. Wool insulates better than rayon.
b. Silk feels better on your skin than rayon.
c. Pablo Picasso painted more oil paintings than Norman Rockwell.
d. Bald men are more handsome.
e. All ravens are black.
f. You intend to do your very best work in this course.
g. Murder is wrong.
h. Your answer to Exercise 3 in Chapter 1 of this book is wrong.
?
i. Demons caused me to kill my brother.
j. (In a court of law, said by the defense attorney) The defendant is insane.
k. He's sick. How could anyone say something like that?
1. He's sick; he's got the flu.
m. Suzy believes that the moon does not rise and set.
n. Dick's dog is hungry.
o. God exists.
 ◦ A claim is descriptive if it says what is.
◦ A claim is prescriptive if it says what should be.

Tom says "Abortion is wrong.‖

Suzy says, "Maybe abortion is wrong to you, but it's O.K. to me.‖
"I just mean it's wrong (right) to me.‖
"I have a right to believe this.―
"good," "better," "best," "bad,” "worse," "worst," or makes some other value judgment, it's meant as
prescriptive.

Descriptive and prescriptive

claims
◦ Drunken drivers kill more people than sober drivers do.
◦ There should be a law against drunken driving.

◦ Ned is cold.
◦ Ned should put his sweater on.

◦ Selling cocaine is against the law.

◦ Larry shouldn't sell cocaine.
?
◦ Omar: Eating dogs is bad.
◦ Harry: The Federal Reserve Board ought to lower interest rates.
◦ Zoe: That's enough ice cream for you, Ned.
◦ Ned: Cats are really disagreeable animals.
Check…
◦ Drinking and driving is bad.
◦ It's better to conserve energy than to heat a room above 68°.
◦ It's about time that the government stop bailing out the farmers.
◦ Ned and Zoe have a dog named "Spot.‖
◦ It's wrong to tax the rich at the same rate as the poor.
Definition
◦ A definition explains or stipulates how to use a word or phrase.
◦ "Dog" means "domestic canine.―
◦ "Puerile" means boyish or childish, immature, trivial.
◦ A lorgnette is a kind of eyeglass that is held in the hand, usually with a long handle.
◦ a loophole is a means of escaping or evading something unpleasant.
Definition
◦ A definition is not a claim.
◦ We add a definition to an argument so that we can understand each other.
◦ A definition is not a premise.
◦ The words doing the defining are clear and better understood than the word or phrase being defined.
◦ The words being defined and the defining phrase can be used interchangeably. That is, it's correct to use the
one exactly when it's correct to use the other.
Per Def
◦ A persuasive or self-serving definition is a claim that should be argued for, masquerading as a definition.
◦ Eg. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg.
?
◦ A donkey is an animal.
◦ Getting good marks in school means that you are intelligent.
◦ Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman . . . identified a cluster of behavioral characteristics—constant
hurriedness, free-floating hostility, and intense competitiveness—that seemed to be present in most of their
patients with coronary disease. They coined the term Type A to describe this behavior pattern; Type B
describes people who do not display these.
?
◦ Microscope: an instrument consisting essentially of a lens or combination of lenses, for making very small
objects, as microorganisms, look larger so that they can be seen and studied.
◦ Maria's so rich, she can afford to pay for your dinner.
Def/ Per.Def./Neither
◦ Domestic violence is any violent act by a spouse or lover directed against his or her
partner within the confines of the home of both.
◦ A feminist is someone who thinks that women are better than men.
◦ Less-developed countries (LDCs) The economies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
◦ Love is blind.
Give a def./ per.def.
◦ Homeless person.
◦ Spouse.
◦ School bus.