Think with Socrates: An Introduction to Critical Thinking [1 ed.] 0199331863, 9780199331864

Citation preview

Think ets

Socrates

An introduction to critical thinking

epee

Se

Think uu.

SOCRATES

This page intentionally left blank

Think ...

SOCRATES

An INTRODUCTION

PAUL HERRICK Shoreline Community College

New York Oxford Oxford University Press

to CRITICAL THINKING

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford

New York

Auckland CapeTown KualaLumpur Madrid NewDelhi

Shanghai

DaresSalaam HongKong Melbourne Mexico City Taipei

Karachi Nairobi

Toronto

With offices in Argentina Guatemala

Austria Brazil Chile Hungary Italy Japan

South Korea

Switzerland

Thailand

CzechRepublic France Greece Poland Portugal Singapore Turkey

Ukraine

Vietnam

Copyright © 2015 by Oxford University Press. For titles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education Opportunity Act,

please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the

latest information about pricing and alternate formats. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 http://www.oup.com

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Herrick, Paul. Think with Socrates : an introduction to critical thinking / Paul Herrick, Shoreline Community College. -- 1 Edition.

pages cm Includes index. ISBN 978-0-19-933186-4

1. Critical thinking--Textbooks. 2. Socrates--Textbooks.

I. Title.

B809.2.H47 2014 160--dc23

2014004064

987654321 Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper

Preface

Think with Socrates: An Introduction to Critical Thinking is a compact yet comprehensive textbook in critical thinking organized around the historical figure of Socrates. I wrote

this book because, after teaching the subject for many years with standard texts, I perceived the need for an approach that was more philosophical as well as more historical in nature. The book I envisioned would cover all the standard topics, but with a philo-

sophical emphasis and with the history of critical thinking presented along the way. I could not find such a text. The highly respected Center for Critical Thinking (www.criticalthinking.org) begins its “A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking” with this statement: “The

intellectual roots of critical thinking are as ancient as its etymology, traceable, ultimately, to the teaching practice and vision of Socrates 2,500 years ago.” I fear that in our effort to tie everything in our classrooms to current events and popular culture,

this important historical truth gets overlooked—along with the many hard-fought

victories in the long struggle between the proponents of critical thinking and those who side with superstition, lax thought, and irrationality. This is unfortunate because when students are not exposed to the history of this subject, they may not appreciate how far humanity has come and how much of that progress is due to critical thinking.

But it is only by appreciating the centuries-old struggle, and the results it has produced, that students will see for themselves the value and the continuing need for

critical thinking today.

ON THE “SOCRATIC PROBLEM” The “Socratic problem’ is the difficult job of distinguishing the true from the mythical when reading all that was written about Socrates during his lifetime and after. Plato’s dialogues are considered by most experts to be a generally reliable source of information. However, the dialogues were written over approximately a fifty-year time span. Scholars believe that the early dialogues, which include the Euthyphro and the Apology (both examined in this book), are probably accurate portrayals of the historical Socrates. But there is general agreement that in the later dialogues, the so-called middle and late dialogues, Plato is developing his own philosophy by putting his ideas in the mouth of the character of Socrates. It is therefore not easy to decide which views in the later dialogues belong to Socrates and which belong to Plato.” Two other problematic sources of information are Aristophanes’s comic play about Socrates (an excerpt of which appears as an appendix to chapter 1), first performed

in approximately 423 BcE, and Xenophon’s Conversations with Socrates. (Xenophon,

Dedication

I was fortunate to be a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Washington when the group I am about to introduce was formed. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,

philosophy graduate students had the habit of gathering every Friday afternoon at the College Inn Pub, an old tavern across from the University of Washington campus in Seattle, to discuss philosophy in sessions that would usually last until the bar closed. The College Inn Pub was always packed and noisy on Friday nights, and it was always dark, which made sense because it was actually underground, with no windows, in the bowels

of an old hotel built in 1910 that was said to be haunted by the ghost of a bartender who

died there in the 1920s, or something like that. Here we met to drink beer and discuss philosophy. At any given moment, any philosophical view might be on the table. The only requirement was to support one’s position with a serious argument. Some of our professors joined us from time to time; sometimes

students from other disciplines would sit in. Late one Friday night in about 1981, after approximately a ten-hour session of beer and philosophy, Richard, Steve, and some others in the group piled into Richard’s car and drove off in the darkness to the Olympic Peninsula, continuing the discussion all night long. When they returned (hung over) the

next day, our weekly discussion group had an official name: Philosophers on Holiday. The group continued to meet after grad school days ended, and it has met every week for over thirty years now, to read and discuss classic works of philosophy. Several of our former professors joined the group after retiring from teaching. We have grown up together in philosophy and in life. In the early years, [held many of my philosophical views with both a dogmatic fervor and a naiveté that now embarrass me as I look back. Over the years, as my ideas were tested in discussion, as others helped me see weaknesses in my own position, as I saw arguments for opposing views that I realized were strong arguments, I reexamined and changed or modified many of my philosophical views. Ihave learned so much about critical thinking through serious discussions with my

fellow philosophers on holiday that I cannot put my gratitude into words. The members of this informal group have collectively been the Socrates in my life. It is therefore

to Philosophers on Holiday that this book is dedicated: Dr. Steven Duncan, Richard Kopczynski, Dr. Art DiQuattro, Liz Ungar, Dr. Shawn Mintek, George Goodall, Brad Rind, Mitch Erickson, Dr. Bob Kirk, Dr. John Burke, Carol Weibel, Dr. Terry Mazurak, Todd Currier, Richard Kang, Michael Schmitt, Richard Curtis, and Kristian Kofoed.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Dedication

Preface

+

+

v

ix

Acknowledgments

UNIT

+

xi

1. What Is Critical Thinking?

.

1

1 Socrates Part 1: Lifeand Method ~« 3 Appendix. An Excerpt from The Clouds 2 Socrates Part 2: Lifeand Death ~. 36

+

3 On Socrates’s Two Favorite Questions

+

57

+

90

2. Obstacles to Critical Thinking

~.

113

INTERLUDE:

SOCRATES

AT WORK

30

Part 1. The Euthyphro + 90 Part 2. The Apology + 111

UNIT

4 Cognitive Biases

+

115

Appendix. Critical Thinking in Dickens’s A Christmas Carol

5 Relativism and Skepticism

UNIT

+

~

165

6 ReasonandtheSenses + 167 7 Personal Experience, Testimony, and Expert Authority 8 Watch Out for Logical Fallacies + 199 CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

FREEDOM

9 The Internet, News Media, and Advertising INTERLUDE:

UNIT

THE

MYTH

OF THE

128

136

3. Build a Solid Knowledge Base

INTERLUDE:

+

+

CAVE

«+

242

4. Criteria for Correct Reasoning

~-

249

«+

~ 221

226

10 Deduction and Induction: ACloserLook «+ 251 11 Explorations in Inductive Reasoning: The Logic of Science Appendix. Elementary Probability Theory

vii

184

+

311

+

289

CONTENTS

INTERLUDE: OF

MODERN

CRITICAL SCIENCE

THINKING «+

AND

THE

BIRTH

318

12 Explorations in Deductive Reasoning: Categorical Logic Appendix 1. Testing Syllogisms Using Rules + 355

+

322

Appendix 2. How an Idea in Logic Led to the Digital Computer and Transformed the World + 356

UNIT

5. Moral Reasoning, Worldviews, and the Examined Life

13 Critical Thinking and Moral Reasoning ~ 361 14 Critical Thinking, Worldviews, and the Examined Life Epilogue + 395 Answers to Selected Exercises Glossary + 403 Index

+

409

+

397

+

385

.

viii

359

PREFACE

one of Socrates’s students who went on to become a famous general, is introduced in

chapter 1.) The play by Aristophanes is obviously not a fair portrayal of its leading char-

acter. And scholars dispute various aspects of Xenophon’s remembrances of Socrates. In this book, the Socrates presented is for the most part the Platonic Socrates—Socrates as he appears in Plato’s early dialogues. I have added material from other ancient au-

thors when I believe it is reliable and in harmony with the common thread. I thus agree with Professor Luis Navia that “it is still possible to sift through [all that has been written of Socrates] in order to find certain common elements and construct out of them a tentative sketch of Socrates as a man and as a philosopher.”

ANCILLARY

MATERIALS

The following supplemental materials will help guide both instructors and students through the text:

- A Computerized Test Bank (including multiple-choice, true/false, and shortanswer questions and answers) and Instructor’s Manual (including chapter summaries, PowerPoint lecture outlines, and solutions to all exercises in the book) on the Oxford University Press Ancillary Resource Center (ARC). « A Companion Website (www.oup.com/ us/herrick) with an introduction to the

book and author, as well as sections of Student Resources (including chapter objectives, key terms with definitions, web links, and additional multiplechoice and true/false exercises) and password-protected Instructor Resources

(including the Instructor’s Manual and Computerized Test Bank). « Cartridges for major course management systems, containing the Instructor’s Manual, the Computerized Test Bank, and the Student Resources from

the Companion Website. Please contact your Oxford University Press Sales Representative at 1-800-280-0280 for more information.

Acknowledgments

A textbook is never the work of one person. It is a collaborative effort. I am very grate-

ful to the panel of thirteen reviewers that Oxford University Press assembled to review

the initial manuscript for this book: Dr. K. D. Borcoman, University of California, Dominguez Hills, and Coastline Community College; Dr. Michelle R. Darnell, University of Florida; Dr. Scott Dixon, University of California, Davis; Dr. Steven M. Duncan, Bellevue College; Dr. Andrew V. Jeffery, Green River Community College and Pierce College, Puyallup; Dr. Christian Perring, Dowling College; Dr. Ed Pluth, California State University, Chico; Dr. Michael Rooney, Pasadena City College; Dr. Edward W. Schallert, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville; Dr. Russell DiSilvestro, California State University, Sacramento; Dr. Peter Thompson, University of Illinois at Chicago; Dr. Peter Westmoreland, University of Florida; and Dr. Beverly

J. Whelton, Wheeling Jesuit University. The manuscript benefited immensely from the many helpful comments I received from this distinguished group of teachers and scholars.

In addition, my colleagues Dr. Steven Duncan and professor Andrew Jeffery read a later draft of the manuscript and made

detailed comments

on every chapter. Professor

Andrew Jeffery also read the penultimate draft and made helpful comments that led to many additional improvements. I feel indebted to Professors Duncan and Jeffery, and to all of the reviewers whose thoughtful suggestions improved the manuscript. Additionally, professors Brian Glenney (Gordon College) and Mark Storey (Bellevue College) read an early draft of part of the manuscript and sent me comments. I am also grateful to Dr. Larry Stern (professor emeritus, University of Puget Sound), who was kind enough to discuss with me the penultimate draft of the manuscript. Any errors that remain are

strictly my own.

Lalso feel indebted to my colleagues at Shoreline Community College and want to

acknowledge them. In our hallway conversations and faculty LISTSERV discussions

over the years, I have learned many lessons in critical thinking, especially the times I dashed offa post without thinking, in response to a position I disagreed with, and re-

ceived critical responses that led me to realize that my position was ill-conceived or half-baked. I also want to record an intellectual debt to Walter McGerry, a wonderful psychotherapist whose Socratic insights help people improve themselves. Additionally,

I want to acknowledge the students who have taken my classes. While I was teaching them about critical thinking, they were teaching me about critical thinking. I have learned a great deal from many very sharp students over the years. Finally, I have learned much about critical thinking through teaching with some truly excellent textbooks on the subject over the years, including the texts by Lewis xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Vaughn (The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective Reasoning About Ordinary and Extraordi-

nary Claims), Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker (Critical Thinking), Gary Seay and Susana Nuccetelli (How to Think Logically), and Gregory Bassham, William Irwin, Henry Nardone, and James Wallace (Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction).* Several of the exercises in this book, and a couple of passages here and there, are adapted with minor changes from textbooks on logic that I have written: The Many

Worlds of Logic: A Philosophical Introduction to Symbolic Logic (Harcourt Brace, 1993);

The Many Worlds of Logic (Harcourt Brace, 1999, and Oxford University Press, 2003),

and Introduction to Logic (Oxford University Press, 2013). 1am grateful to the publishers for permission to use a few materials already published. It is hard to express in words my gratitude to the philosophy editor at Oxford University Press, Mr. Robert Miller. I appreciate the personal attention he gave to this book, the wise advice and the helpful suggestions he made regarding an early draft of the manuscript, and his encouragement. His support has meant a lot to me. I am also very grateful to Kristin Maffei, Associate Editor, Kaitlin Coats, Editorial Assistant, and Theresa Stockton, Senior Production Editor, at Oxford University Press, for all their help along the way. I also want to thank two superb copyeditors whose hard work greatly improved this manuscript: Jonathan Aretakis and Karen Olson.

NOTES 1. See wwwa.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/ 408.

2. The scholarly consensus is that the “early” dialogues are Apology, Crito, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Euthyphro, and Ion. Links to the early dialogues can be found here: »

www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/index.htm.

Luis Navia, Socrates: A Life Observed (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007), 19.

4. Lewis Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking: Effective Reasoning About Ordinary and Extraordinary Claims, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011); Gary Seay and Susana Nuccetelli, How to Think Logically, 2nd ed. (New York: Pearson Publishers, 2012); Gregory Bassham, William Irwin, Henry Nardone, and James

Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012).

Unit 1 WHAT

IS CRITICAL THINKING?

INTRODUCTION When I first heard the term critical thinking as a college student, I assumed it meant the practice of criticizing others. A critical thinking course, I guessed, would teach how to spot errors in what others say, how to refute their claims, how to wipe them out in debate. However, this is not an accurate characterization of our subject.’ Although the word critical can be used to describe someone who is “inclined to criticize severely and unfavor-

ably” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary), the word has other uses. In academic

contexts, critical thinking carries its original Greek meaning: “thinking based on criteria.” A

criterion (from the Greek word kriterion) is “a test,” a “means of judging” (Dictionary.com),

a “standard on which a judgment or decision may be based” (Merriam-Webster). Critical, or criterial, thinking is thus thought that is based on standards and vetted by tests. Merriam-Webster gives another meaning that dovetails with the original Greek and that also forms part of what we usually have in mind when we speak of a critical thinker today: the word critical can also stand for “exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation” in “an effort to see a thing clearly and truly in order to judge it fairly.” This is also part of what we have in mind when we speak of a “critical care” nurse or a film “critic.” Critical thought is therefore not simply negative or overly skeptical thinking, nor is it focused solely on finding fault or error. It is thinking guided by rational criteria that have proved to be reliable guides to good judgment and judicious evaluation.” A dictionary definition is fine to begin with, but it leaves a lot to be filled in. What are the proper criteria? What are the standards that might help us make judicious and fair judgments? How can we know when we have finally seen things clearly and truly? It might be nice if the answer to these questions could be put into a short, pithy formula that everyone could memorize. The equation could then be printed on T-shirts,

2

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

billboards, and little plastic cards you hand out to people who believe (or do) ridiculous things. A department of “homeland critical thinking” could be established to snoop through e-mails, bug living rooms, and otherwise monitor us to make sure we all think critically all the time. However, rote memorization and authoritarian methods would be very uncritical ways to promote critical thinking, which, by its nature, is not forced. Such measures are unlikely in any event because critical thinking is so multifaceted it cannot be captured in one concise formula. Although nobody has discovered a handy formula that sums it all up, many individuals down through the centuries have thought deeply about thinking, and a number of standards, or criteria, have been proposed, tested, and found to be reliable guides to sound judgment and the attainment of truth or correspondence with reality. For an example of such a criterion, consider statistical thinking. To learn about a large population of things, we sometimes examine a sample and then conclude something about the population as a whole on the basis of what we observe in the sample. It is common sense that the larger the sample, in relation to the whole population, the more likely the conclusion is to be true. It is also common sense that the more randomly selected the sample, the more likely the conclusion is to be true. So, for example, if we want to know how many people support the president, it would be better to sample one thousand people randomly, across the country, than to poll ten people over at the local Republican Party headquarters. (Probabilistic thinking will be critically examined in chapter 11.) Why study critical thinking? The life you lead reflects, to a significant degree, your fundamental beliefs and values. The more critical your thinking, the more likely your fundamental beliefs and values correspond to reality, and consequently the more likely your life is rooted in reality rather than in illusion and falsehood. The study of the principles of critical thinking can sharpen your understanding of the criteria that have been found to lead to better judgments and that can help you see things as clearly and truly as possible. Yet critical thinking is more than just following reliable criteria or proven standards presented in a textbook. It is as much an art as it is a science, as much a way of life as it is an exact form of thought. Socrates (470-399 Bc) was the first person in the historical record to devote his life to critical thinking by teaching it and by practicing it in a systematic way. He was also the first person to be put to death by a state for the “crime” of thinking critically. For these reasons, he is honored as the founder of critical thinking as a systematic discipline. It is appropriate that we begin our study with the life and thought of Socrates.

NOTES

1. Onthis understanding, a critical thinker is basically an intellectual attack dog.

2.

Thus, critical thinking is more than mere criterial thinking. Rather, it is thinking on the basis of criteria

that have been tested and found to be reliable guides to sound judgment and the attainment of the truth about the matter under consideration. Someone who makes every important decision on the basis of “throwing the bones” is engaged in criterial thinking: throwing the bones is this person’s criterion. (Throwing the bones is an ancient form of divination in which animal bones are tossed onto a mat and

the pattern is interpreted, usually by a shaman, spiritual reader, or fortune-teller of some sort.) However, such a person is not a critical thinker—at least as the words critical thinker are used today—for his or her criterion has not been tested and found to be a generally reliable guide to truth and sound judgment.

Chapter 1 Socrates Part 1: Life and Method

SOCRATES (470-399 BcE) stands out as one of the most influential figures in all of human history. Although he never wrote a book, led a conquering army, painted a masterpiece, or held high office, few individuals have made such a lasting impression on their fellow human beings and on the history of the world. By day, he supported his family, working (offand on) asa stonecutter, in the Greek city-state of Athens, the place of his birth. But his real profession, and his life’s passion, was the discipline the ancient Greeks had only recently named philosophy (from the Greek philein, “to love,” and

sophia for “wisdom,” literally “the love of wisdom”). Philosophy, as the Greeks practiced it, meant using unaided reasoning and careful observation alone, without relying on unsupported myths, unexamined tradition, sacred scriptures considered inerrant, or unquestioned priestly authority, to find sensible answers to the most fundamental questions a human being can ask, including questions such as these:

» Why is there something, rather than nothing? = Does a supreme god exist? Do many gods exist? = « » = » » =

What is the meaning of life? Is the future determined by fate? Or is it at least partly up to us? What happens at death? Do we possess an immaterial soul that outlives the body? What is truth and how do we find it? What is the difference between opinion and knowledge? What is justice?

The Greek philosophers thought of the universe not just as something that exists, but as something to be figured out. To them, the universe was a question to be answered, a riddle to be solved. They were the first to propose, in writing, systematic theories of the universe, based on reason and observation alone without reliance on

unsupported myth or unquestioned priestly authority. The theories proposed and de-

bated by the ancient Greeks are the historical foundation of both natural science and

philosophy.

Socrates, however, wrote nothing because he preferred to pursue philosophical wisdom in conversation with people, usually in public, in the bustling marketplace (agora) of downtown Athens, where thousands of people from around the city and from 3

4

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

all walks of life gathered to buy and sell goods, chitchat, strike business deals, and so forth. Here he would sit for hours, talking with anyone who cared to discuss the fundamental questions of life.

Judging from the effect these discussions had on people, they must have been thrill-

ing intellectual experiences: crowds would often gather to listen as Socrates engaged people in serious conversation. His unique method of discussion, which we will examine shortly, had such an impact on those around him and on all subsequent intellectual thought that it has been given a name: the Socratic method.

Many thought of him as their teacher, although he refused to charge anyone for instruction. Indeed, he always denied he was a teacher. “I do not teach people,” he would say. “Just as a midwife merely helps the mother deliver her baby, I only help people deliver their best thoughts and discover the truth for themselves.” Socrates

claimed to be a midwife of ideas rather than a conveyor of any settled doctrines.

How do we know so much about a man who left behind no written works? We know about him thanks to the writings of his students. After his death, at least eleven of them wrote entire books in which they tried to preserve, in dialogue form, their conversations

with Socrates.’ In the process they created a new literary genre: the Socratic dialogue.

We'll examine dramatic re-creations of some of these conversations later in this book, and we will try to understand what made a conversation with Socrates so special.”

Plato (427-347 sce), his most famous student, labored some fifty years recreating in written form the conversations between Socrates and his interlocutors (those he

conversed with). In all but one of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates is the chief dramatic character, who challenges his interlocutors to grapple with one or more of the fundamental questions of philosophy. This series of beautifully written dialogues ranks among the world’s greatest works of literature and philosophy. The dialogues of Plato are a student’s memorial to a departed teacher that even today are considered timeless models

of critical thinking.* Thanks to the efforts of his students, who sought to preserve what they had wit-

nessed in his presence, the real, flesh-and-blood life of Socrates has inspired people

for over two thousand years. His life is not only an introduction to critical thinking; it is a stunning testimonial to its power and enduring value. Historian

of philosophy W. K. C. Guthrie, a renowned expert on Socrates, has argued that the life and thought of

Socrates are so deeply intertwined that his thought cannot be understood apart from his personality

Figure 1-1. Ancient Roman statue of Plato (427-347 sce).

and life as a whole. Whether or not this is true, the Socratic method is best approached within the context of the life and personality of its inventor. Consequently, before we explore his famous method, let us begin with a look at the man behind the method.*

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

METHOD

LIFE Socrates was born in the spring, in a modest neighborhood (or deme) located just outside the south gate entrance to Athens. His father, Sophroniscus, labored as a stonecutter; his mother, Phaenarete, was a midwife. We know very little about his father, but there is evidence Sophroniscus helped carve some of the statues on the Acropolis (the sacred hilltop citadel of Athens containing its greatest temples and public buildings). He may have fought at the battle of Marathon (490 sce) as an infantryman in the victorious Athenian army that repulsed an invading Persian force three times its size to save Greek freedom (and prevent Greece from becoming a vassal state of the colossal Persian Empire, the greatest military power in the world at the time).‘ According to custom, five days after the birth, Sophroniscus ceremonially carried his new son around the hearth to admit the infant into the family. On the tenth day, the

baby was named and then formally presented to a local hereditary association. By this time in history, the Greeks had established a system of elementary education. Consequently, at approximately the age of five, Socrates was enrolled in the local elementary school, where he learned to read and write and received training in gymnastics and

musical theory. During these early years, Socrates would have studied the works of Homer and Hesiod, the first great writers of the Greek tradition. By the time he was in his teens, Socrates was fascinated with physics, mathematics, and philosophy and was studying them intensely. He had become, in other words, an egghead. At one point in Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, Socrates reminisces: “When I was

young, I had an extraordinary passion for that branch of learning that is called natural science. I thought it would be a marvelous thing to know the causes for which each thing comes and ceases and continues to be.”® There was much to study. By this time, the philosophers of Greece were actively debating the arguments for and against dozens of systematic, reason-based theories of

the universe. This was the field that eventually came to be called cosmology (from cosmos, the Greek word for “the universe understood as a harmonious

system,” literally the study of the universe as a whole). In addition, Greek mathematicians were developing the first proof-based theories of geometry (from the Greek root geometrein for “measurement of the Earth”), and the study of physics (from the Greek word physis for “nature”) was in full bloom as part of the philosophical enterprise. The Greek world was bursting with intellectual

creativity: plenty there to absorb the attention of a curious young mind. Socrates joined a reading group to study the great works of philosophy and science with others and came to believe that people learn best not when they

lock themselves away, like hermits, but when they actively learn with others in free and open discussion. After Socrates died, his student Xenophon (c. 428-c. 354 BCE) reminisced and wrote of “the common meals which [Socrates] and his

friends enjoyed, and of their habit of reading together the treasuries of ancient

wisdom in books, and making extracts from them.”’ Thus did Socrates acquire a lifelong love of wondering, reading, and learning.

Figure 1-2. Greek hoplite armed with

spear and shield.

6

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

The young Socrates must have spent many hours debating with friends the logical merits of the different philosophical theories of the universe, each put forward on the basis of reasons and evidence that had to be examined and evaluated. If he were alive today, Socrates would be delighted to learn that there are reading groups in every city, some bearing his name, where ordinary people gather on a regular basis to read thought-

provoking books together and to discuss the ideas they contain. What he would like most about such groups would be the idea of learning in free and open dialogue with others.

Join a reading or discussion group on a subject that interests you, and learn with others. Many cities have a local Socrates Café where people from all walks of life gather to discuss ideas in the spirit and manner of Socrates. If you cannot locate a reading or discussion group in your area,

form one on your own.*

Citizen of Athens In Socrates's day, the city-state of Athens was conducting the world’s first experiment in democracy, complete with written laws guaranteeing enumerated rights to all citizens

regardless of social standing. The Greeks not only established the world’s first consen-

sual government based on an ideal of the rule of law, they also were the first to publicly debate the ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy and to give them philosophical

expression. Accordingly, when Socrates turned seventeen, his father took him to city

hall to be formally sworn in as a citizen of Athens. Sophroniscus died shortly after this, and Phaenarete remarried? Greek citizenship had privileges unknown in the rest of the world, such as the right to vote, run for office, speak at city council meetings, serve on juries, and bring suit in court. However, it also had duties, including compulsory military service. Once a

citizen of Athens, Socrates underwent two years of rigorous military training and became subject to the draft in time of war. War Hero

Socrates served as an infantryman in the Athenian army into his fifties and fought on the front lines in numerous military campaigns, including one that kept him away for three years. Much of his military service coincided with the terribly destructive Peloponnesian War (431-404 sce), when Athens and its allies among the Greek city-states battled the Peloponnesian League headed by the rival city-state of Sparta. His bravery in combat became legendary. According to all accounts, he was an utterly fearless soldier. This is all the more remarkable when you recall the nature of ancient warfare. In Socrates's day, Greek infantrymen, or hoplites (from hoplon, the Greek word for “shield”), marched across the battlefield side-by-side in the phalanx formation, thousands at a time, with flutes and drums sounding the step and with each man carrying a heavy, bronze-covered

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

METHOD

shield and a sword or iron-tipped spear, ready to confront the enemy in personal, face-to-face and hand-to-hand combat. As the Athenian phalanx approached the opposing force, the men picked up the pace to crash into the enemy line at the “double-quick.” Blood and severed limbs would be flying everywhere. When you consider that anesthetics and antibiotics would not be discovered for another

twenty-three hundred years, combat in Socrates's day must have been unimagin-

ably brutal and utterly horrific.’° Figure 1-3. 1870 engraving depicting the Acropolis of Athens at the time When his unit had to retreat, Socrates _ of Socrates, c. 450 sce. was often the last to step back. In one

battle, Socrates carried a wounded fellow soldier (Alcibiades) on his back to safety while at the same time single-handedly fighting off attacking enemy soldiers. During the ferocious, bloody retreat from Delium, eyewitnesses reported that Socrates showed no sign of fear, and even appeared calm while fighting off wave after wave of heavily armored shock troops determined to kill him. Numerous accounts exist of his bravery in combat, some written by generals under whom he served. Even Spartan soldiers, the fiercest fighters in all of Greece, were afraid of Socrates, sometimes retreating rather than face him in the up-close, personal combat of the day. Socrates won many decorations for bravery but turned them all down and asked that the medals be given to others."!

THALES

OF MILETUS

AND THE

BIRTH

OF PHILOSOPHY

When the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 Bc) wrote the first history of philosophy, he traced the discipline back to its origin in the bustling harbor town of Miletus, a Greek colony on the west coast of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Aristotle’s historical research has been proved accurate, for it was indeed there, during the early part of the sixth century BCE, that Thales of Miletus (625-546 BcE) first rejected the customary Greek myths of Homer and Hesiod, with their exciting stories of gods, monsters, and superhuman heroes proposed as explanations of how the world and all that is in it came to be, and offered in their place a radically new type of explanation of the world, one that would later be named “philosophy.” At issue was the right way to answer a certain type of question.

Every society in history has asked fundamental questions about the universe and about human existence, questions such as these: Why does the universe exist? Do gods exist? Does a supreme being or deity exist? How do we separate reality from illusion? What is truth? To answer such questions, each society developed colorful stories, called “myths,” which were passed down orally from generation to generation. Myths met the universal human need to place things in an overall context, in short, the universal human need to make sense of our existence.

(Continued)

7

8

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

(Continued) However, as Thales saw it, the traditional myths had one major defect: although they were interesting stories, no reasoning or tangible evidence was ever offered to substantiate their claims. Thales asked the critical question, But then why believe them? In place of unsupported myth, Thales proposed a radically new type of answer to the fundamental questions: a rational explanation of the universe, that is, a systematic explanation, based on observable evidence and unassisted reason, independent of unsubstantiated myth, unquestioned authority, or unexamined tradition. Thales basically said, “Here is my theory, and here are the reasons I think it is true. Decide for yourself whether or not you think the evidence supports my theory.” For these reasons, Thales is considered the historical founder of the discipline the Greeks named “philosophy.” Thales did something else that is also worthy of note: he put his reasoning into written form and passed it around for critical comment and debate.'’* Thus began an ongoing “dialectic,” as the Greeks called it, a self-reinforcing process in which (1) one person proposes a hypothesis backed by observable evidence and independent reasoning; (2) in response, another person steps up to offer a criticism of the first argument, also based on observation and independent reasoning; (3) the first person either defends his hypothesis, revises it, or rejects it; and so forth. Thus, from the beginning, philosophy has been “essentially dialectical in character,” as one contemporary philosopher has put it, “consisting of arguments and responses and further arguments and further responses back and forth among the different positions on a given issue”—literally an ongoing “discussion thread” stretching from ancient times to the present. Parallel movements away from unexamined custom, unsupported myth, and unquestioned authority and toward independent thought were occurring, or would soon be occurring, in other regions of the world, most notably in India and China.

Voluntary Simplicity We know from the testimony of all his friends that Socrates cared little for material pos-

sessions and the physical comforts of life. Serious thought about the most fundamental issues of life mattered much more to him. While walking through the busy agora in downtown Athens one day, he was overheard saying, “So many things I can do without.” His student Xenophon, who grew up to become a famous general, described him as “frugal” and said that even shoes were too much of a bother for him: Socrates was known to go barefoot all year long, even on winter military campaigns, even in ice and

snow. He wore the same old cloak every day too—the one he also slept in. Although he could have had more things, Socrates sought an uncluttered life and practiced what is

today sometimes called “voluntary simplicity.”"*

Take an inventory of your life and rank things in terms of importance. Remove unnecessary clutter from your life and make more room for the things that are most important.

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

METHOD

Family Socrates married late in life, and he and his wife, Xanthippe, had three children

(all boys). According to many legends, Xanthippe had a volatile personality and was

often unhappy with her philosopher-husband, probably with good reason: Socrates had the habit of hanging out for hours on end in the agora, discussing philosophical questions with anyone who cared to join in, when he could be working at his profession, stonecutting.

According to one story, after bawling him out loudly (probably for something she had cause to be angry about), Xanthippe climbed onto the roof of their house and dumped a bucket of pee on his head as he went out the front door on his way to the agora. Socrates took it in good humor, later saying to his philosopher buddies, “As

always, the thunder is followed by the rain.” If you read the dialogues written by his students, you will be struck by the man’s wonderful sense of humor. He would be deadly serious, and focused like a laser, when discussing the “big questions”; however, when things needed to lighten up, he could be very funny, even playful. In many of the dialogues, Socrates is joking with those around him at the start; when it is time to discuss the serious question of the day, he is all business.

Equality We observed that Socrates left behind no books or written works because he preferred to pursue wisdom through conversations with other people. One of the most remarkable things about Socrates is that he discussed philosophical issues with people from all walks of life. He also treated each person he met as an equal. In Conversations with Socrates, his student Xenophon writes that Socrates “loved men of low condition, and

expressed a great civility for all sorts of persons. . .”'* Most Athenians of the day were

class conscious, and an upper-class Athenian would not be caught dead treating a “lower-class” person as an equal. But distinctions of wealth and power meant nothing to Socrates. He was as happy to talk with a household servant or a street vendor, as with a wealthy man, a powerful politician, or a noted expert on some subject. And although most men of the day considered women to be their intellectual inferiors, Socrates also engaged women in serious philosophical conversation and treated them as his equals. He even said that some of his most important teachers had been women.

Remarkably, Socrates even considered children and young people to be fellow seekers of wisdom and encouraged them in the pursuit of truth. Since only adults

were allowed into the agora, Socrates would often hang out at a shoe stand owned by his friend Simon the cobbler.'® He liked this spot because here young people could join the discussions—Simon’s cobbler stand was located just outside the Figure 1-4. 1882 entrance to the agora. Legend has it that Pericles himself, the greatest statesman engraving of an ancient of classical Athens, sometimes stopped by Simons little shop to discuss philosoGreek woman playing phy with Socrates, his friend Simon (the philosophical cobbler), and a group of _ the flute. Xanthippe?

9

10

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

young people no doubt excited to be part of such a conversation. One can only imagine

the effect such discussions had on young minds.” From all the accounts, it appears that Socrates truly believed that wisdom could be

pursued in conversation with any of his fellow human beings, no matter what their

social origin and no matter what their walk of life. The only prerequisite for entering the

discussion was a willingness to pursue truth on the basis of careful reasoning and ob-

servation alone.

Not surprisingly, he had many friends. If the memoirs of his students are accurate,

Socrates was often invited to dinner parties where he would take part in serious conver-

sations on the big questions of life. In the Platonic dialogue known as The Symposium,

we find Socrates having dinner with a large group of friends who stay up all night drinking wine and discussing philosophical matters in depth. (Nearly everyone is drunk in

the end except Socrates: it was said that he could drink anyone under the table.) At the symposium dinner, each guest gives a short philosophical talk on the nature of love,

which everyone then discusses. When it is Socrates’s turn, he presents a philosophical

argument that is so fascinating and thoughtful that it is still being discussed profitably by philosophers today, twenty-four hundred years later.

Look for the value in each person you meet, and aim for the Socratic ideal of treating each person with equal respect.

Frogface By middle age, Socrates was probably recognized and known wherever he went in Athens. According to all accounts, he was unusually ugly. Legend has it that when he was young,

the other kids called him “Frogface.” Socrates apparently had bulging eyes, a broad, flattened snub nose, and thick lips. He also walked bow-legged with a peculiar sideways gait, somewhat like a crab. People often made fun of his looks, as well as his passion for philosophy, but he took it all in stride, even making

fun of himself on many occasions."®

Not even the theater was safe.’? The Greeks were the first to write and

produce plays for the general public that satirized and criticized leading figures in society, such as generals and politicians.”° Socrates was ridiculed in at least three major, prize-winning comic plays of his day.

During one such play, The Clouds, written by the great comic playwright Aristophanes in circa 424 BCE, Socrates was in the audience when

some

foreigners asked, “Who

is this nut-job,

Socrates?”

He

stood up so everyone could see the butt of the jokes. The actor por-

Figure 1-5. Bust of Socrates. Steel engraving from 1870.

traying Socrates in this popular comedy, the actual text of which has been preserved, acted goofy while wearing an ugly mask.

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

METHOD

However, while many made fun of his looks, his students compared him to the toy statues of the god Silenus that could be bought in the marketplace. These little statuettes looked ugly on the outside, but some contained a gold figure of the god inside, proving that something could be ugly on the outside while being beautiful on the inside.

As historians have observed, Socrates had the misfortune of being a very

unattractive man living in a society that placed a high value on physical

beauty, as embodied in the statues of Greek gods and goddesses in the temples of the Acropolis—statues that ravish us even today. But Socrates also had the good sense not to be sidetracked by mindless ridicule. Once, when asked why he didn’t sue his detractors, he replied, “If a donkey kicks you, do you

take legal action against him?””! But there may have been more to his physical appearance than mere ugliness. Professor W. K. C. Guthrie notes that in “ap-

pearance Socrates was universally admitted to be extraordinarily ugly, but it » : . . . was the kind of ugliness which fascinates.”””

Figure 1-6. Socrates. Engraving by Leonardo

gostini, published in Italy, 1685.

We all have a tendency to judge people by surface appearances alone. But surface appearances can be deceiving. Be aware of this tendency and counteract it by looking more deeply before drawing a conclusion about another person.

Religion Many people are surprised to learn that Socrates was religious, probably because they assume that his uncompromising commitment to reason, and to following the most logical arguments wherever they might lead, would have ruled out belief in the super-

natural. However, in his student Xenophon’s memoir, Socrates is presented discussing theological issues and arguing for the existence of God, understood as a divine intelligence presiding over the cosmos and maintaining its orderly working.”* This is monotheism (from the Greek words mono for “one” and theism for “belief in God or gods,” literally, “belief in one God”). On Xenophon’s account, Socrates also believed that God is morally good, cares about human beings, and sometimes responds to prayer. Socrates’s monotheism, according to Xenophon, was based on a philosophical argument for God’s existence that Xenophon heard Socrates give on a number of occasions. That argument, known in philosophy today as the “design argument,” was summarized

by Xenophon approximately as follows: (1) Observation reveals that the universe has an orderly structure. (2) The universe is therefore in many ways like a city-plan, a

temple, or a machine, each of which also has an orderly structure. (3) The ultimate cause of a city-plan, temple, or machine is always found to be an intelligent being or designer who put the parts together for a purpose. (4) Therefore, it is reasonable to sup-

pose the universe, which is similar in form to these other purposeful things, was also

11

12

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

organized by an intelligent designer, albeit one much greater than any human designer. This would be God.” It is likely that Socrates saw no conflict between his religious beliefs and his use of reason because he held his religious beliefs on the basis of reasoning that to him seemed compelling. His belief that God responds to prayer was based on a peculiar sensation that occurred off and on throughout his life, often when he was about to make a momentous decision. This sensation took the form of a small, inner voice, which he interpreted (on the basis of reasoning) as a voice from above, that is, as divine in origin. He called this inner voice his “daimon” (“divine thing”) and, according to all accounts, took it very

seriously. There are eyewitness reports of Socrates retreating from the hustle and bustle of life—in one case even in the middle of a military campaign—to consult his “divine voice” before making a serious decision. Socrates also took an active part in the religious rituals of his society, which included devotions to the gods of the Greek pantheon (Zeus, Apollo, etc.). Xenophon remem-

bered that Socrates “was frequently seen to assist in sacrificing to [the gods] . . . in the public temples... worshipping ...in the most public, solemn, and religious manner.”*S Indeed, Socrates’s last words, uttered just before he passed, were a request to a friend to pay a debt to Asclepius, the god of medicine. Which raises the question: How did Socrates reconcile his philosophical beliefs, which were rooted in unaided reason and careful observation, with his conventional religious practices, which included offering prayers to the gods depicted in the myths of Homer and Hesiod? After all, as a philosopher, Socrates rejected the traditional Greek myths because their authors offered no evidence that their stories were true.”® This is only a conjecture, but Socrates might have reconciled his philosophical religious beliefs and his conventional religious practices on the basis of the belief that God can be wor-

shipped in many different ways, along many different avenues, and that among these are the customary rituals involving vivid and easy-to-grasp images of mythological gods. One way Socrates might have carried this out in his mind would be to have held that devotions enlivened by images of a mythological god such as Apollo are really aimed at the nonmythological God. On the last day of his life, in his last recorded philo-

sophical discussion, Socrates presented not one, but two philosophical arguments for the immortality of the soul and the existence of a life after death: his religious beliefs were philosophical right up to the end. Socrates, in short, had religious beliefs, but those beliefs, like the rest of his beliefs, were based on reasoning he found to be compelling. As he saw it, there is no contradiction in being a philosopher and in being religious—as long as one’s religious beliefs pass

the test of critical reason.’ The Oracle of Delphi

When Socrates was around forty, an incident occurred that would change his life forever. In ancient Greece, an oracle was someone believed to be channeling the gods. The most

famous oracle in Socrates’s day was the priestess at the Temple of Apollo, located at Delphi.

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

METHOD

People from all over Greece traveled to this sacred spot to ask the Pythia (her title) important ques-

tions.** When the session began, supernatural vapors would rise from the underworld, the Pythia (seated on a tripod and attended by temple priests) would fall into a trance, and the god would speak through her.” One day, Chaerephon, a childhood friend of Socrates’s, traveled to Delphi to ask the oracle the following question: Is anyone wiser than Socrates? Her reply would become famous. “Of all men living Socrates is most wise.” Socrates’s first response upon hearing

the

prophecy

was

disbelief.

Many

years

later, in a public speech given only days before the end of his life, he looked back on the event:

Figure 1-7. The ruins of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi,

Greece.

What could the god mean? ... For some time I was frankly puzzled ... but at last I embarked on my quest. I went to a man with a high reputation for wisdom—I would rather not mention his name; he was one of the politicians—and after some talk together it began to dawn on me that, wise as everyone thought him

and wise as he thought himself, he was not really wise at all. I tried to point this out to him, but then he turned nasty, and so did others who were listening; so I

went away, but with this reflection that anyhow I was wiser than this man; for, though in all probability neither of us knows anything, he thought he did when he did not, whereas I neither knew anything nor imagined I did.*°

Socrates now began questioning people from all walks of life, from all around the city, about what they believed and why they believed it. He discovered that many people

thought they knew all about some subject, when in reality they knew little about it. In

fact, many were extremely ignorant. He also questioned experts famous for their knowledge of some subject matter, only to discover that although everyone believed these experts knew it all, and although they smugly believed they knew, they did not know

what they were talking about. Their alleged expertise was a mirage. Divine Mission

Socrates believed that Chaerphon’s trip to Delphi and the message from the oracle were not accidents. He said, in utter seriousness, “The god has commanded me that I should live philosophizing, examining myself and others.” With his eyes now opened to the pervasiveness of human ignorance and to the way it diminishes the human

condition, Socrates had a new mission in life: to help people discover their own ignorance asa first step to the attainment of wisdom. To know nothing about a subject and to be aware of that ignorance, he argued, is better than to think one knows it all while ac-

tually knowing nothing. Knowledge of one’s ignorance is thus itself a form of wisdom.

13

14

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Indeed, this knowledge, he now believed, is the first step to true wisdom, and to human

excellence. Imagine what society would be like if each person pursued wisdom and excellence with fervor. Lessons from Delphi

There are several important points to notice here.

1. Some people, upon hearing that they have been called the wisest person of all—

and by a god no less—would become puffed up with pride. Not Socrates. He initially does not believe he is wise, and is not afraid to say so. This is the response of

aman who is humble. Incidentally, Socrates does not intend us to take him literally when he says that he knows “absolutely nothing.” His words are best interpreted as an expression of his characteristic modesty.

2. Socrates does not take the Pythia’s statement for granted. He questions it, and most importantly, tests it (by going out into the marketplace and questioning people known for their wisdom). Socrates believes that questionable claims need to be tested by reasoning and observation, no matter who makes them, even if they come from a god.

3. Socrates makes his discovery about the pervasiveness of ignorance through conversations with others. Time and again he demonstrates that we learn a great deal about life, and about ourselves, in conversation with fellow human beings. 4. When Socrates investigates the matter, he does not go to an authority and beg hat in hand for an infallible answer. He looks, observes, reasons, and talks with people; in short, he searches on his own and thinks for himself.

Just as a builder must clear away brush before building a house, Socrates would say, one must clear away ignorance before building wisdom. Socrates was now convinced that self-knowledge is the basis for true wisdom and human excellence. In the market-

place, his conversations shifted from the big questions of cosmology and physics to the human condition, and to that which he now believed to be the most important question of all: What is the best life for a human being to live, all things considered? The Socratic method was taking form. However, before we turn to his famous method, one more idea needs clarification.

DEFINITION OF TRUTH Reflecting on some of the lessons he had learned from the pronouncement of the oracle, Socrates later said: And isn’t it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth [we] mean knowing

things as they really are.»

Two things are worth noting here. First, Socrates is claiming that knowledge of the truth is intrinsically good and ignorance is intrinsically bad. Philosophers distinguish

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

between intrinsic goodness and extrinsic goodness. Something that is extrinsically

good is good only insofar as it can be used as a means of attaining something else that is good. For example, unless one is a numismatist, a dollar bill has only extrinsic value.

On the other hand, something is intrinsically good if it is good unto itself, if it is good

completely on its own and not merely as a tool or means to get something else that

is good. Socrates is claiming here that knowledge is good all by itself, regardless of what it may serve as a means to, and he is saying that ignorance is bad in itself, regardless of what it is used for or leads to.

Second, Socrates is defining truth. Truth, he is saying, is correspondence with reality,

that is, with things as they really are. By implication, something is false, or illusory, if it

does not correspond to reality. In philosophy, this account of truth, first stated explicitly by Socrates in Plato’s dialogues, is called the “correspondence theory of truth.” More fully, according to the correspondence theory, a statement or proposition is true if it corresponds to reality; itis false otherwise. Put another way, a statementis true ifit accurately

describes or specifies reality; it is false if it does not. (A statement or proposition may

be defined as “that which is expressed by a declarative sentence,” where a declarative sentence is “a sentence that says something that is either true or false.”)

Putting these two points together, Socrates is claiming that it is intrinsically good to be in touch with reality, to be aware of things as they really are, rather than to be ignorant of reality. Truth is inherently better than illusion. He also says that this is an assumption he is making. Although it would be hard to prove this assumption true to someone who steadfastly denies its truth, it would be hard to live as if it were not the case that truth is superior to illusion, wouldn't it? The notion of truth as correspondence with reality is part of common sense.

Ifsomeone makes a questionable assertion, ask for supporting evidence, or investigate the matter for yourself, before accepting it as true.

THE SOCRATIC METHOD One of the first things you notice when reading Plato’s dialogues is that Socrates asks

his interlocutors lots of questions. However, his were not your usual questions. Socrates

is out to help others discover their own ignorance as the first step to becoming the best persons they can be. To this end, he asks questions that will cause others to take a look in the mirror and critically evaluate their own assumptions, beliefs, values, and actions, and on the basis of independent, realistic criteria that have been found to be reliable guides to truth. Whether the individual is rich or poor, famous or unknown, of high or low class, the goal of Socratic questioning is always the same: that through selfexamination, the individual will discover for himself or herself which of his or her own

METHOD

15

16

UNIT 1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

beliefs are true and which are not, which of his or her own actions are truly moral and which are unjust, and whether or not his or her own life is the best it can be. Another thing that stands out, when reading Plato’s dialogues, is that his Socrates

always engages people in conversation one-on-one. With a single exception (when he addresses a jury of his peers at the end of his life), his focus is always on the individual, never on the crowd. This emphasis on self-examination explains why Socrates always expected honesty on the part of his interlocutors. If the other person is not answering honestly,

then he or she won't be led to examine his or her own beliefs and values. “Say what you really believe,” he would sometimes tell those he was questioning. “Don’t play games with me!” For Socrates, honest self-examination was one of life’s most important tasks. Sincere responses were also a requirement because if the interlocutor’s answers were not sincere, then the aim of the discussion would not be the unvarnished truth. At one point in a conversation recorded in Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates says to his friend, “Callicles, you'll ruin our previous arguments and will no longer be examining the truth with me if you speak contrary to what you believe.”*> Moments later, Socrates has to remind him:

By the god of friendship, Callicles, you mustn’t think that you may play with me and say whatever comes into your head, contrary to your real opinion, nor,

conversely, must you think of me as jesting. For you see what our discussions are all about—and is there [nothing] more serious than this: what is the way we ought

to live?**

Socrates questioned people especially hard when he thought they were in the grips of an illusion and needed a wake-up call. Why did he bother? The answer is that he believed in the value, dignity, and freedom of the individual. But this respect for the

dignity of the individual also meant that if people who are deluded are going to wake up

and become real, they will ultimately have to do it themselves—it cannot be done to

them or for them.

At the same time, Socrates also saw that many people will never even start the pro-

cess of honest self-examination by themselves: they need outside intervention. Just as an addict usually cannot quit all by himself, most people cannot shed their illusions all

by themselves, either because they are unaware of their own ignorance, or because they

don’t care, or because they are so emotionally invested in their illusions that giving them up is too painful. So, Socrates concluded, people mired in illusion and self-deception need a nudge. In

particular, they need someone who will question them until they lookin the mirror and

come to see for themselves their own ignorance and shortcomings. Critical thinking, as

Socrates practiced it, was as much a form of therapy as it was a search for truth. This is ultimately why Socrates carried on his philosophical mission by means of one-on-one conversation.

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

On important issues, ask yourself the questions Socratic would ask: Are my assumptions on this matter really true? Or am I deluded? What does the evidence say? Are my actions morally right? Or am I only fooling myself? When others make questionable claims or propose questionable courses of action, ask them the same Socratic questions.

In many of the dialogues of Plato, we find Socrates questioning individuals in this way. When he does so, he never tells the person what to think; his aim is always that his interlocutor will discover the truth himself. This is Socrates acting as intellectual midwife. Ronald Gross writes that when Socrates, in Plato’s dialogues, acts as midwife, we can almost hear him saying, “Push! Push! You can bring forth a better idea!” The pro-

cess of giving birth to a better idea, Gross observes, can be “painful,” but at the same

time, it can be “immensely gratifying.” CONSTRUCTIVE

CRITICISM

CAN

BE A GOOD

THING

Each of us is ignorant when we first come out of the womb. Furthermore, each of us has poor judgment when we are young and inexperienced in life. As a result, many of our beliefs when we are young are naturally going to be mistaken. One important way we learn is through constructive criti-

cism from others. Joe didn’t realize that his habit of loudly licking all ten fingers at the dinner table

was offensive to others—until someone said something to him. Sue didn’t realize that her habit of interrupting everyone before they finish their point is rude—until someone pointed it out to her. Constructive criticism is not only one way we learn, but many things in life can be learned inno other way. People who never listen when others give them constructive feedback will almost certainly fail to achieve their potential as human beings. One reason we learn from others through criticism is that other people notice things about us that we do not see in ourselves. Highly developed individuals are usually people who not only have the ability to lookin the mirror and critically examine their own lives— they are usually also individuals who listen when others give them feedback and who learn from it. Some people get angry whenever others give them constructive criticism, whether or not the criticism is deserved. These people pass up opportunities to grow as persons, and fail to achieve part of their potential. In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates is always prepared to listen, and to thoughtfully consider the point, when others challenge him or offer constructive criticism. The point is not that criticism is always merited. Some criticism may be unmerited. However, Socratic individuals listen thoughtfully when criticized and consider whether their interlocutors have identified an area in their lives needing improvement. An area needing improvement is a good thing, not a bad thing, for it is an opportunity for personal growth. Groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous help people achieve more of their potential. These organizations have shown, after many years of experience, that people seldom improve their lives without looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility for their choices. Psychotherapists and counselors know this. One of the first issues a person confronts, when entering counseling or psychotherapy, is this: What have I contributed to the problem? It can be liberating to discover that one’s choices have been part of the problem. For choices can be changed. Socrates believed that each person has the power within to make different choices.

METHOD

17

18

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Listen with humility when others offer constructive criticism, think about it, and try to learn from it. They may be noticing something about you that you are not seeing. They just may be onto something.

TWO

CENTRAL

SOCRATIC

QUESTIONS

Time and again, when he is in the midst of serious discussion with someone who is advocating a particular belief, or claiming that a particular action is morally right, Socrates asks two questions:

1. What exactly do you mean by that?

2. What evidence do you have for your claim?

In the various dialogues, we see Socrates asking these questions so often that they seem to be his two favorite questions. Question 1: What Exactly Do You Mean by That? Socrates would ask this question when he suspected that someone’s thinking was muddled. When our thinking is unclear, how can we know whether it does, or does not, correspond

to reality?

In many

cases, after trying to answer

Socrates’s question,

the

other person would discover that he really had no clear idea what he was actually claiming. In other words, the person did not really know what he was talking about.

When we reason with other people, we need to define our key words, or else they

may not understand what we are saying. A definition is “an explanation of the meaning ofa word or phrase,” and a precise definition is “an exact explanation.” Reasoning with words whose meanings are unclear can be like trying to play catch with puffs of smoke—hard to get a firm hold on anything. For these reasons, good definitions are an important part of the Socratic method, and of critical thinking generally. (We will look

at the art of defining words in chapter 3.)

Question 2: What Is Your Evidence? ‘The evidence for a claim is the reason (or reasons) for believing the claim is true, that is, for

believing it corresponds to reality. People claim all sorts of things. Some people claim that aliens from a distant galaxy have secretly taken over the U.S. government. Others believe the Earth is actually a hollow sphere (with openings at the poles) and that an advanced civilization secretly inhabits the center of the planet.*° Interesting claims. However, before accepting controversial claims such as these, Socrates, ifhe were present, would ask for evidence.

Many times, after Socrates asked someone his second question, the person would

discover that he actually had no solid evidence for the claim he was making; in modern

terms, “He didn’t have a leg to stand on.” This is one of the reasons Socrates concluded that many people are deceiving themselves much of the time.

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

When we want to share our reasoning with others, we must put it into words. When reasoning is put into words, the result is called an argument. In some contexts, the word argument refers to people yelling at each other or having an angry dispute. However, in intellectual and academic contexts, the word is used simply to refer to reasoning that has been put into words. Because the notion of an argumentis so central to the Socratic method, and to critical thinking generally, it will be worthwhile to pause for a more precise definition.

If someone recommends a morally questionable course of action, ask him or her to justify the plan, or evaluate it yourself, before you buy into it.

ARGUMENT:

A PRECISE

DEFINITION

In textbooks on logic and reasoning, an argument is commonly defined in the follow-

ing exact terms: An argument is one or more statements, called “premises,” offered as evidence or reason to believe that a further statement, called “the conclusion,” is true.

Here is an argument that was actually used as an example in ancient logic classes: 1. All human beings are mortal. 2. Socrates is a human being. 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first two statements are the premises of the argument. They provide the reasons to be-

lieve that the last statement, which is the conclusion, is true. Notice that the conclusion is introduced by the word therefore. We often use words like this (therefore, thus, in conclusion,

accordingly, hence, so, etc.) to announce the conclusion of an argument. Such words are called “conclusion indicators” because they help us locate the conclusion of an argument.

(We'll look at the nature of an argument in much more depth in chapter 3.) Whenever we

present a claim and then give reasons to believe that our claim is true, we are presenting an argument. We state arguments all the time—every time we reason with others.

If someone is making a claim that is not clear, ask him or her Socrates’s question: What do you mean by that? If someone is making an unsubstantiated claim that is also questionable, ask the

person, What is your evidence?

METHOD

19

20

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS HUMAN EXCELLENCE? Socrates was fascinated by what he called “craft-knowledge”—the very down-to-earth, practical know-how of the shoemaker, the blacksmith, the carpenter, the farmer, the shield maker, and other artisans, gained through apprenticeship and experience. In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates spends a lot of time talking with artisans and skilled craftsmen and clearly admires their products as well as their “craft-knowledge.” A good craftsman, he notes, may be defined as one who plies his trade well, as evidenced by the product he makes. Reflection on craft-knowledge led Socrates to a functional notion of goodness. A good carpenter, for instance, is one who builds good houses. But what is a good house? It is one that performs its function well, doing well what we want a house to do: shield us from the rain, keep us warm in the winter, keep our possessions secure, and so forth. This functional notion of goodness, Socrates observes, applies to the craftsman himself as well as his product. Thus, a good carpenter is one who performs his function as a carpenter well—he builds good houses. Good houses, in turn, are houses that perform their function well. The Greeks had a special word for someone who performs his function exceptionally well: aréte (“excellence”). By using common sense, we can usually tell the difference between a good carpenter and a poor one. Likewise, common sense can help us spot the difference between a good house and an excellent one, a good shield and an excellent one, a good coat and an excellent one, and so forth. Based on these distinctions, Socrates raised an intriguing question: Can the concept of excellence be applied to human beings? Is there such a thing as human excellence? Not excellence for a human being who is a carpenter, or for a human being who is a soldier, or for a human being who is a husband or wife or son or daughter. Rather, is

there such a thing as excellence for a human being just insofar as he or she is a human

being? Socrates believed that there is such a thing as general human excellence. He also believed that everyone has the inner potential to achieve it. Helping people overcome life’s many roadblocks and achieve excellence as a human being was his life goal. What is excellence for a human being, qua human being? And howis it achieved? A full answer would take us far beyond the scope of this book. However, a first step in the direction of human aréte might be the application of the Socratic method to one’s own life.

THE SOCRATIC ELENCHUS The argument form known as the elenchus was an important part of the Socratic method and was often the first step on the path to excellence for many of Socrates’s interlocutors. Typically, an elenchus argument would be used to help someone see that his beliefs are logically inconsistent and thus in need of revision. Letting P and Qstand for what is believed, a Socratic elenchus generally begins like this: Socrates: So, you believe that P is true. Interlocutor: Yes, Socrates, I say that P is true.

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

Socrates: But you also believe that Q is true, don’t you? Interlocutor: Why, yes, I certainly do, Socrates. Who could deny Q?

Qwould typically be an item of common knowledge that no reasonable person would deny. Socrates would next show that statements P and Qare logically inconsistent. Two statements are logically inconsistent if, and only if, they cannot both be true at the same time. (In contrast, two statements are logically consistent if, and only if, it is pos-

sible both are true.)

Now, if the elenchus stops with an inconsistency brought to light, the person at least

has discovered a logical conflict within his belief system. This alone is a significant

accomplishment, for if two beliefs or statements P and Q are inconsistent, then they cannot both be true, and it follows that at least one must be false. If the person is reason-

able, he will conclude that he holds at least one false belief. If the person is sincerely seek-

ing the truth, he will want to go to the next step, which will be to identify the false belief

and stop believing it. Sometimes Socrates ends the elenchus at this point and lets the other person take it from there. The rest of the reasoning would (ideally) go as follows: Interlocutor: I see. So P and Q are inconsistent. Socrates: Yes, they certainly appear to be. Interlocutor: It follows that P and Q cannot both be true. Socrates: That is right. Interlocutor: But Q is quite certainly true. Socrates: No doubt. Interlocutor: It follows that my belief P must be false.

Thus, an elenchus, as philosophers Nicholas D. Smith and Paul Woodruff observed, “puts an individual person’s beliefs on trial, with that person as both witness and

judge.”*” It is interesting that one of the common inconsistencies Socrates dealt with in Athens in the fifth century BCE is one we still see everywhere today, namely, that of call-

ing the very it—in other selves. (Can tency may be

same action “bad” when others do it, while judging it “good” when we do words, judging others by standards that we do not apply consistently to ouryou think of examples?) In many cases, our tunnel-mindedness or inconsisdue to unconscious cognitive biases. (These are the subject of chapter 4.)

Become an informed citizen. Read the newspaper, watch the news on a regular basis, read informative books and magazines, and keep abreast of newsworthy events and issues. You'll learn more if you read sources with different opinions on the issues than if you read only sources from one political perspective. A critical thinker who actively stays informed knows what is going on. Unit Three examines some of the principles employed by critical thinkers who strive to be informed citizens.

METHOD

21

22

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Elenchus and the Examination of Conscience Socrates sometimes used the elenchus to cause the other person to look within and examine his

own conscience or sense of right and wrong for inconsistencies. In the midst of such an elenchus,

there is no one to turn to for help. The person is

brought face to face with his own moral compass applied to his own life. (We’llexamine the nature of moral judgment in chapter 13.) For Socrates, this

was the most important elenchus of all. Figure 1-8. Alcibiades’s triumphal return to Athens in 408 sce.

Original woodcut from 1882.

’

°

It’s Not All Negative

Some have thought that the elenchus is a purely negative method, aimed only at refuting the other person and making him look bad in front of others. However, Socrates was after nothing of the sort. The elenctic questions are always aimed at the improvement of the inter-

locutor. After Socrates engages Alcibiades in elenchus, for example, the young man comes to realize that there is an inconsistency between

his own inflated ego and his real

self. Socrates is helping Alcibiades develop a more realistic, less exaggerated sense of his own abilities. According to Aeschines of Sphettos, also one of Socrates’s students,

Alcibiades burst into tears upon discovering the extent of his own hubris. For many people, the elenchus is important because the first step to self-improvement is often to become aware of an inconsistency in one’s belief system. The other person,

however, must take the second step on his own, resolving the inconsistency and finding

where the truth really lies. Socrates sometimes helps the person here, but he sometimes leaves him on his own, as if to say, “There, now go figure the rest out for yourself.”

This last point bears emphasis: a conversation with Socrates was no walk in the

park. Anyone talking with him had work to do; the effort was not all on Socrates's

part. In other words, a conversation with Socrates was always a two-way street. The discussion was a dialogue rather than a monologue (from the Greek words mono for “one,” di for “two,” and logos for “discourse, word, or reason”). In other words, a Socratic conversation was never simply the master talking and the student passively listening. This is surely part of the reason Socratic self-examination takes so much effort.

Examine your conscience from time to time, asking yourself, Are my actions really morally right? Am I doing the right thing? Or am I only fooling myself? Be honest with yourself. Socratic selfexamination requires honesty because it is about self-reform. As Sara Ahbel-Rappe puts it in her wonderful book, Socrates: A Guide for the Perplexed, an encounter with Socrates is “a confrontation with the self, by the self.”38

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

Joint Search for Truth

The elenchus had a second purpose, in addition to helping the interlocutor correct an

inconsistency in his or her belief system. An elenctic discussion was also a joint search for truth, with Socrates and his interlocutor searching for the truth together. This is why

Socrates often says, at the start of an elenchus, that he does not know which way the argument will go. He and his interlocutor will begin on common ground, and together

they will search for the truth. During such a conversation, Socrates often hopes to learn as much as the other person.

One of the lessons of the Socratic elenchus is that we all have blind spots in our understanding— things about ourselves that others see more clearly than we do. If you honestly discuss your decisions and actions with others, they may help you fill in your blind spots and see your life in a more realistic light. If someone points out an inconsistency in your belief system, admit the error and move on. We all discover inconsistencies in our belief systems from time to time and have to change our views—this is one way we learn.

Sometimes a discussion with Socrates leaves the interlocutor frustrated, as on this occasion in Plato’s Meno:

Socrates, I heard before I met you that you never do anything but puzzle yourself and others too; and now it seems to me that you are bewitching and drugging

and completely spellbinding me, so that I have become saturated with puzzlement. In fact, if I may make a little joke, you are absolutely like the broad electric ray of the sea, both in appearance and otherwise. That fish benumbs anyone who comes near and touches it, and that is what you seem to have done to me now; for I really am numb in mind and mouth, and I do not know how to answer

you. Yet I have discoursed on virtue thousands of times and to many people; and done it well too. ... But nowI cannot even say what it is.”

In Plato’s Symposium, after Socrates shows Agathon that his theory leads to an absurd conclusion, there is this exchange: Agathon: I don’t know how to answer you, Socrates. Socrates: You know how to answer me, Agathon. It’s the Truth you don’t know how to answer!

Since these conversations sometimes occurred in the marketplace, with a crowd of people looking on, those being questioned by Socrates would at times get angry after being shown their own ignorance or shortcomings. Occasionally the person being

METHOD

23

24

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

intensely questioned got nasty, as in this exchange between Socrates and the famous teacher Thrasymachus:

Thrasymachus: Tell me, Socrates, have you got a wet nurse? Socrates: Why do you ask such a question, when you ought rather to be answering? Thrasymachus: Because she leaves you to snivel, and never wipes your nose; she has not even taught you to know the shepherd from the sheep. Ouch! Well, that’s one way to get out of an argument. As you would imagine, when the interlocutor got abusive, the onlookers loved it. Watching Socrates deflate the pretensions of a pompous know-it-all like Thrasymachus must have been good theater—fun as well as intellectually exciting. Incidentally, Thrasymachus’s response to Socrates

commits the logical fallacy (error in reasoning) known as the ad hominem fallacy. (Logical fallacies are the subject of chapter 8.)

Why does it make us angry to admit our mistakes? Is it because we fear reality and create illusions to shield ourselves from it? Is this why many people refuse to take an honest look in the mirror? Why is it worse when it is in front of others?

Things must have gotten especially tense when Socrates was questioning a powerful politician, a top general, or a famous expert on some subject. Apparently, some people even lashed out physically. One ancient historian, Diogenes Laertius, writes:

And very often, while arguing and discussing points that arose, he [Socrates] was treated with great violence and beaten... and... ridiculed by the multitude. But he bore all this with great equanimity.”

Exercise 1.1

Questions for class or small group discussion, short essay assignments, reflection.

or self-

1. Is there (or has there ever been) a Socrates figure in your life? If so, describe this person, your relationship, and the difference this person made in your life. Did you make a difference in his or her life? 2. If Socrates were to be miraculously transported in time from ancient Athens to the present day, what do you think he would say about modern life? What do you think he would say to us? If he got to know you, what would he say to you?

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

. State a significant belief you held in the past that you do not hold today. Why did you accept the belief? What was your reasoning? Why did you give up the belief? What were your reasons? State a moral value or principle you held in the past that you do not hold today. Why did you accept that value or principle? Why did you change your mind? What were your reasons? Explain a situation in your life in which (a) you were going to do something, but (b) you decided not to, and (c) your decision was made on the basis of critical thinking. Identify and discuss a character trait you see in Socrates that you would like to emulate. Identify and discuss a character trait that you see in Socrates that you believe everyone ought to emulate. What lessons about life can be drawn from Socrates’s apparently unattractive appearance?

10.

ll. 12.

13.

Have you ever made an unwise decision in life and later realized (and regretted) your error? What led to the realization? How (if at all) did you correct the error? Have you ever made the same unwise decision over and over again, with the same detrimental results each time, until you eventually figured it out? What woke you up? How did you finally come to see the error of your ways? What is human excellence? How does it compare to excellence in a craft such as carpentry, playing the guitar, painting, or quilting? Have you ever known someone who came close to attaining human perfection? If your answer is yes, explain and defend your answer (especially if your answer is yourself). If your answer is no, then critically respond to this question: Why do we all live (to varying degrees) such imperfect lives? What do you think Socrates would be like in person today?

Exercise 1.2

In his wonderful book, Socrates’ Way: Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to Its Utmost, Robert Gross argues that if Socrates walked among us today, the following are among the things he would say. In small groups or in an essay, critically discuss one of these three statements. 1. “We have become frenzied consumers, working ourselves mercilessly in order to purchase things we don’t need, and despoiling our environment. We should look less to our possessions and more to our inner development; we must reaffirm the importance of strengthening our souls.” “We have surrendered our minds to the mass media, which distract us as we virtu-

ally amuse ourselves to death. We must think for ourselves.”

“We have failed to nurture our bonds of friendship and community. We must revive the art of joyous and substantive conversation, and learn to grow with others.”*!

METHOD

25

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

ee

What was Socrates’s response after hearing the Pythia’s prophecy?

. What did the Greeks mean by the word philosophy? Who was Thales? . How . What What . What What . State

does philosophy (as the Greeks practiced it) differ from myth? do philosophy and myth have in common? is a dialectic? did the Greeks mean by democracy? is the purpose of an elenchus? Why does it require sincere answers? as precisely as you can the logical steps of an elenchus.

. Whatis an elenctic examination of conscience? Give an example.

. What do we mean when we say that P and Qare logically inconsistent? . What do we mean when we say that P and Qare consistent? What was the agora? . In what sense was Socrates a “midwife of ideas”? . What’s the drawback of withdrawing and philosophizing alone in hermit fashion? Why do we sometimes learn more in conversation with others? . What is constructive criticism and what is its value? Why does the Socratic method require sincere answers?

N

Nw

DnB w

YVNnnvnn

iN) v

Nw

What was so horrific about ancient warfare? What is a hoplite? Why was the Greek system of government distinctive in its day? State and explain Socrates’s two favorite questions. What is an argument? What is a definition? What did Socrates mean by his daimon? Explain the Socratic account of truth. What is an oracle?

. What are the main steps of the Socratic method? . What is the significance of the god Silenus?

SOMRIANRRWNE

Ree eee ne e Ne

be

SOPnnrrYY

Exercise 1.3 We usually understand an idea better after we have put it into our own words. Answer the following questions in your own words.

VN co

Exercise 1.4

Answer these questions accurately to demonstrate that you read the assigned material. True or false? Red r

UNIT1

NS) se

26

Critical thinking is mainly concerned with criticizing the views of others.

Socrates is the historical founder of philosophy.

Critical thinking means thinking with criteria and any criteria will do.

Socrates served in the army as a cavalry officer.

Oo PNDY

CHAPTER1

10. ll. 12. 13.

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

Xanthippe was the wife of Socrates. Socrates won many medals for valor in battle and proudly wore them on his chest.

It was said that Socrates could drink anyone under the table. Socrates had few friends. Socrates was universally admired for his good looks.

Socrates started studying philosophy when he was a teen. Socrates wrote numerous books, but all were lost over time. Socrates preferred to talk with people from the upper class.

Socrates was a real “clothes horse,” always wearing designer togas and fine garments.

14. Socrates spent his money lavishly, especially on art and beautiful things. 1S. Socrates sued Aristophanes for slander. 16. Socrates’s wife was known as “the Pythia.” 17. The Oracle of Delphi was a woman. 18. Xenophon was one of Socrates’s students. 19. The Oracle of Delphi told Socrates that he was an ignorant man. 20. As a teenager, Socrates was interested in physics. 21. According to the text, philosophy and myth differ in this way: philosophy, but not myth, attempts to make sense of the world on the basis of reason and observation. 22. An elenchus was a Greek sea snail. Exercise 1.5

Multiple choice. Choose the best answer.

1. Socrates was born a. in the agora in downtown Athens b. inthe Athens General Hospital c.

in Sparta

d. e.

outside the south gate of Athens in Persia

2. The play written about Socrates was a a. tragedy b. comedy c.

3.

mystery

d. thriller Socrates married a. Chloe b. Cleopatra c. the Pythia d. Diotima e. Xanthippe

METHOD

27

28

UNIT

1

WHATIS

4.

CRITICAL

THINKING?

Socrates’s father was a a. chariot driver b. river pilot c.

stonecutter

d. poet 5. Socrates’s mother was a a. chariot driver b. seamstress c. author d. midwife 6. The elenchus was a. afamous Athenian wrestler b. atype of chariot c.

aform of cross-examination

d. a Platonic dialogue e. anancient Greek weapon 7. Aninterlocutor is a. someone who constantly interrupts the conversation b.

aconversation partner

c. d. e.

atype of weapon adialogue anew model of chariot

8. Philosophy is defined in the text as a. b.

mythical thought put into writing the discipline that uses unaided reasoning and observation to answer fundamental questions c. poetic dialogue d. the attempt to make rational sense of ancient myths 9. Xanthippe dumped a bucket of this on Socrates: a. beer b. wine c. molasses

d. honey

e. pee 10. Socrates, according to all sources, a. hadno sense of humor b. hada wonderful sense of humor c. was remarkably tall d. was remarkably thin 11. The play written about Socrates was titled

a. Barefoot in Athens b. The Love of Wisdom

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

AND

c. Life of Socrates d. The Clouds 12. The Oracle of Delphi was believed to be channeling this god: a. Jupiter b. Thor c. Apollo d. Poseidon

Exercise 1.6 Construct a short, fictional dialogue in which Socrates undertakes an elenchus on a famous public figure, a friend, or someone in your life who needs to take a look in the mirror. Alternative idea for aspiring playwrights: write and stage a short Socratic discussion between two people in your classroom. Exercise 1.7

Has there ever been a time in your life when you needed (but did not get) elenctic questioning? Construct a short dialogue in which a friend of yours undertakes a needed elenchus on you. For aspiring playwrights: write and stage in class a short Socratic

dialogue in which a friend performs a needed elenchus on you. Exercise 1.8

After reading the excerpt from Aristophanes’s The Clouds (see the Appendix), answer the following questions:

1. Is Socrates presented in The Clouds as a critical thinker?

2. Is Aristophanes’s portrayal of Socrates fair? 3. Should Socrates have sued the playwright for slander? Exercise 1.9

This question is for those who are philosophically adventurous. Is the design argument a convincing argument for God’s existence? Or is it not? Argue your case.

METHOD

29

30

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

APPENDIX AN EXCERPT FROM THE CLOUDS Set up: In this scene from Aristophanes’s prize-winning comedy written c. 424 BCE, Strepsiades, a farmer, tries to talk his son into attending Socrates’s school. The son, Phidippides, has been blowing nearly all of his father’s money on horses, and the old man now faces impending bankruptcy. Strepsiades believes that if his son enrolls in Socrates’s school, the Thinkery, the young man will learn how to use intellectual trickery to cheat his creditors and thus save the family farm. Pointing to the little philosophical schoolhouse, the father speaks:*” Strepsiades: That is the Thinkery of wise souls. There they prove that we are coals enclosed on all sides under a vast snuffer, which is the sky. If well paid, these men also teach one how to win law-suits, whether they be just or not. Phidippides: What do they call themselves? Strepsiades: I do not know exactly, but they are deep thinkers and most admirable people. Phidippides: Bah! the wretches! I know them; you mean those quacks with pale faces, those barefoot fellows, such as that miserable Socrates and Chaerephon? Strepsiades: Silence! say nothing foolish! If you desire your father not to die of hunger, join their company and let your horses go. Phidippides: No, by Bacchus! ... Strepsiades: Oh! my beloved son, I beseech you, go and follow their teachings. Phidippides: And what is it I should learn? Strepsiades: It seems they have two courses of reasoning, the true and the false, and that, thanks to the false, the most unjust law-suits can be won. If you learn this science, which is false, I shall not have to pay a penny on all the debts I have

contracted on your account.

Phidippides: No, I will not doit... Strepsiades: Well then, by Demeter! I will no Longer support you, nor your team, nor your saddle-horse. . . . I turn you out of house and home. STREPSIADES goes over to SOCRATES’S house. Strepsiades: . . . With the help of the gods I will enter the Thinkery and learn myself how to unjustly get out of debts. He knocks on the door: A Disciple from within: A plague on you! Who are you? Strepsiades: Strepsiades, the son of Phido, of the deme of Cicynna. Disciple coming out of the door: You are nothing but an ignorant and illiterate fellow to let fly at the door with such kicks. You have brought on a miscarriage of an idea! Strepsiades: Pardon me, please; for I live far away from here in the country. But tell me, what was the idea that miscarried?

CHAPTER1

SOCRATES

PART

1: LIFE

Disciple: I may not tell it to any but a disciple. Strepsiades: Then tell me without fear, for I have come to study among you. Disciple: Very well then, but reflect, that these are mysteries. Lately, a flea bit Chaerephon on the brow and then from there sprang on to the head of Socrates. Socrates asked Chaerephon, “How many times the length of its legs does a flea jump?” Strepsiades: And how ever did he go about measuring it? Disciple: Oh! it was most ingenious! He melted some wax, seized the flea and dipped its two feet in the wax, which, when cooled, left them shod with true Persian slippers. These he took off and with them measured the distance. Strepsiades: Ah! great Zeus! what a brain! what subtlety! , Disciple: I wonder what then would you say, if you knew another of Socrates contrivances? Strepsiades: What is it? Pray tell me. Disciple: Chaerephon of the deme of Sphettia asked him whether he thought a gnat buzzed through its nose or through its ass. Strepsiades: And what did he say about the gnat? Disciple: He said that the gut of the gnat was narrow, and that, in passing through this tiny passage, the air is driven with force towards the breech; then after this slender channel, it encountered

the rump,

which

was distended

like a trumpet,

and there it resounded sonorously. Strepsiades: So the ass of a gnat is a trumpet. Oh! what a splendid observation! Thrice happy Socrates! It would not be difficult to succeed in a law-suit, knowing so much about a gnat’s ass! Disciple: Not long ago a lizard caused him the loss of a sublime thought. Strepsiades: In what way, please? Disciple: One night, when he was studying the course of the moon and its revolutions and was gazing open-mouthed at the heavens, a lizard crapped upon him from the top of the roof. Strepsiades: A lizard crapping on Socrates! That’s rich! Later, Strepsiades asks to see Socrates himself. pended from the ceiling swinging in a basket:

The head of the school enters sus-

Strepsiades: Socrates! my little Socrates! Socrates loftily: Mortal, what do you want with me? Strepsiades: First, what are you doing up there? Tell me, I beseech you. Socrates POMPOUSLY: I am traversing the air and contemplating the sun... . I have to suspend my brain and mingle the subtle essence of my mind with this air, which is of the like nature, in order clearly to penetrate the things of heaven. I should have discovered nothing, had I remained on the ground to consider from below the things that are above; for the earth by its force attracts the sap of the mind to itself. It’s just the same with the watercress.

AND

METHOD

31

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Strepsiades: What? Does the mind attract the sap of the watercress? Ah! my dear little Socrates, come down to me! I have come to ask you for lessons. Socrates descending: And for what lessons? Strepsiades: I want to learn how to speak. I have borrowed money, and my merciless creditors do not leave me a moment's peace; all my goods are at stake... teach me one of your two methods of reasoning, the one whose object is not to repay anything, and, may the gods bear witness, that I am ready to pay any fee you may name.

NOTES

See C. C. W. Taylor, Socrates: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 26. Encountering Socrates in person must have been transforming if that many students wrote entire books attempting to preserve the experience. Plato’s dialogues are available in many inexpensive editions, for example C. D. C. Reeve, ed., A Plato Reader: Eight Essential Dialogues (New York: Hackett Publishing, 2012). For the complete works see

1. 2.

Edith Hamilton, Huntington Cairns, and Lane Cooper, eds, The Collected Dialogues of Plato: Including the Letters (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981). See W.K. C. Guthrie’s classic work, Socrates (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 66.

. The ancient Persian Empire was headquartered in present-day Iran. Twice the Persians invaded Greece, and twice their forces suffered a humiliating defeat. The second invasion force contained

some 180,000 soldiers accompanied by the largest naval armada in history to date. After repulsing the Persians, liberty became “the watchword of all Athenians; a freedom not to be enslaved or oppressed by the barbarians of the east.” Bettany Hughes, The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens, and the Search for the Good life (New York: Vintage Books, 2012), 11. Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, 96a-99c, translation by Benjamin Jowett. N

32

Quoted in W. K. C. Guthrie, Socrates, 53.

. The idea for the Socrates Café originated in the book by Christopher Phillips, Socrates Café: A Fresh Taste of Philosophy (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002). See http://www.socratescafemn.org/ and http://www.philosopher.org/Socrates_Cafe.html. The Greeks certainly did not attain perfection—like every other culture around the world, they possessed slaves, women did not have the right to vote, a person’s status in life was largely determined at birth, and so on. However, the Greeks were the first to declare a public commitment to

10.

ideals of freedom and equality—ideals that people all around the world aspire to today. Athenian architects of the period created public spaces, buildings, and courtrooms that “enabled a participatory democracy to thrive.” Government decisions were even inscribed on public “notice boards” placed around the city. Hughes thus calls the Athens of Socrates’s day a “purpose built democratic landscape—the first of its kind in history.” Bettany Hughes, The Hemlock Cup, 16. For more on the place of the Greeks in history, see M. I. Finley’s short but excellent The Ancient Greeks (New York: Viking Press, 1965); H. D. F. Kitto’s The Greeks (New York: Pelican, 1958); and Rex Warner’s Greek Philosophers (New York: Mentor, 1958). I also recommend a book by noted Oxford University historianJ. M. Roberts, History of the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; 2nd ed., 2003). Two popular books are Thomas Cahill’s Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter (New York: Doubleday, 2003) and Edith Hamilton’s older classic, The Greek Way (New York: Macmillan, 1940). Fora short book on the Greek hoplite, see Nicholas Sekunda, Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC: Weapons, Armour, Tactics (Elms Court, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2000). A hoplite could lose his spear or

CHAPTER 1 SOCRATES PART 1: LIFE AND METHOD

u 2. 13,

4

sword, but he would be disgraced if he lost his shield, because, as one soldier put it, “We wear the former for ourselves but carry shields for the whole line.” The shield wall could not be broken or the whole line might fail, since each soldier's metal shield (which weighed seventy pounds) protected the man to his left. As the battle was about to begin, the men would form into lines, rest their shields on their knees, and wait for the watchword to come down the line. As they marched into battle, the notes ofa flute kept them in step. At six hundred yards, the soldiers began the paean summoning a god of battle. At two hundred yards, a trumpet signaled the charge, the battle cry went up, and the ‘men ran “at the double” through the “storm of the spears” to crash into the enemy line. This was the price of citizenship: for the ancient Greeks, civic freedom entailed duties as well as rights. My information is from Sekunda, Greek Hoplite. ‘The fact that Socrates served for years on the front line asa combat soldieris strong evidence he came froma working-class background. Unfortunately, none of Thales's writings survived; we know of his work through the commentaries oflater philosophers, including Aristotle. See Patricia F. O'Grady, Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and Philosophy (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2002). Laurence BonJour, Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses, 2nd ed. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), vii. (On voluntary simplicity today, see: www.choosingvoluntarysimplicity.com/ and www.enjoysimpleliving

1s, See Xenophon, Introduction by Odysseus Makridis, Conversations with Socrates (New York: Barnes 16, W7. 18,

19, 20.

21 22, 23, 24.

and Noble, 2005), chapter 2, 21. A team of archeologists identified the very spot outside the agora where Simon’s stall was located: recovered hobnails, shoe eyelets, and a cup bearing the cobbler’s name gave the spot away. Thus, visitorsto Athens can actually stand on the very spot where Socrates once discussed the great questions oflife with his cobbler friend, surrounded by a crowd of young people eager to take parti the search. According to some ancient sources, Simon wrote a 33-volume memoir of his conversations with Socrates. See Bettany Hughes, The Hemlock Cup, 23. Forawonderful example, see the beauty contest in chapter of Xenophon’s Symposium, in C. Marchant and O. J. Todd, trans., Xenophon: Memorabilia. Oeconomicus. Symposium. Apologia, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923), $9605. Xenophon’s account of this fanny episode can be found online at www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3 Ate x1%3A1999,01.0212%3Atext%3DSym.%63Achapter%3DS. Some outdoor theaters seated up to fifteen thousand and had acoustics so sensitive that everyone in the audience could hear every word the performers spoke. The ancient Greeks were remarkable architects and builders. Attendance at public plays was considered part ofa citizen's civic duty in fifth-century-nce Athens. Inthis way, ordinary Greek citizens were exposed to the idea of public criticism ofthe powerful and influential. For the first time in history, public individuals such as politicians and military leaders ‘were criticized in front ofaudiences of ordinary citizens. Famous people actually expected this ridicule. The Greek theater was in some ways the ancient equivalent of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show orits Colbert Report. The Greeks also held poetry and music festivals and were the first to hold public drama festivals complete with published plays, contests, and prizes. Plato's Meno, 80a-b. From W. K. C. Guthrie, Socrates, 66. See Xenophon's Conversations with Socrates, chapter 4: “Socrates Proveth the Existence of a Deity.” ‘This line of reasoning is also called the “teleological argument,” from the Greek word telos (for “the purpose ofa thing or the end aimed at”) because it argued that the universe is purposeful in nature and thus seems to bea purposely made thing. The ancient Greek philosophers known as the “atomists” criticized the design argument and argued that the best explanation of the universal order is

34

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

that it is ultimately the result of pure chance rather than of design. When investigating a controversial issue from scratch, it is good to read articulate statements from at least two sides of the issue; it is

never a good idea to read only one viewpoint and then to draw a conclusion. For a contemporary exposition and defense of the design argument by a leading philosopher, see Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), chapter 4. For a contemporary philosophical criticism of the argument, seeJ. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983). A popular criticism of the argument by a

scientist is Richard Dawkins,

The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,

2006). An accessible yet rigorous defense of the argument can be found in C. Stephen Layman, Letters to a Doubting Thomas: An Argument for the Existence of God (New York: Oxford University Press,

2007), chapter 3. 25. 26.

Xenophon, Conversations with Socrates, 3.

Another reason was probably the fact that the poets portrayed the gods as figures not worthy of admiration, let alone reverence. The gods of the myths are often vain, contentious, cruel, jealous,

unfaithful, and so forth—hardly beings worthy of worship. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

For more on Socrates’s religious beliefs, see Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, eds, Reason

and Religion in Socratic Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). The oracle in the movie The Matrix was based on the Oracle of Delphi. Alexander the Great traveled to Delphi to question the Pythia before embarking on his conquest of the Middle East. Modern scientists suspect the temple was located over a geological vent that released intoxicating underground gases that produced the effect. Archeologists have discovered chasms in the area releasing ethylene—a gas that has been used as an anesthetic and that is actually capable of producing a trancelike state. Plato, Apology, 21a-d. See Plato’s Apology in the second part of the Interlude in this book, “Socrates at Work.” The theory was developed more fully by Socrates’s student Plato, and it was integrated into logic by Plato’s student Aristotle, the founder of logic as an academic discipline. Logic may be defined as “the study of the standards of correct reasoning.” Plato’s Gorgias, 495.

Ibid., 500 b-c.

Ronald Gross, Socrates’ Way: Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to Its Utmost (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002), 9. See http://www.hollowearththeory.com/.

Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, eds, Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy, 104.

Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Socrates: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Continuum, 2009), 145. Plato’s Meno, 80 a-b.

Diogenes Laertius, translated by C. D. Yonge, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Life of Socrates, chapter 6 at www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/dlsocrates.htm.

41. 42.

Ronald Gross, Socrates’ Way, xvii.

My source for this excerpt is the online text at the Internet Classics Archive, available here: http:// classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/clouds.html

CHAPTER1

KEY TERMS

argument correspondence theory of truth cosmology definition elenchus evidence (for a claim)

INTERNET ON

interlocutor logically consistent logically inconsistent oracle philosophy rational explanation

RESOURCES

SOCRATES:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates

http://www.biography.com/people/socrates-9488126 http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

ON

PLATO:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato http://www.iep.utm.edu/plato

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/plat.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

READ THE DIALOGUES

SOCRATES

OF PLATO

http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Plato.html

ONLINE:

PART

1: LIFE

AND

METHOD

35

Chapter 2 Socrates Part 2: Life and Death

SOMEONE MIGHT understand the Socratic method, but if the person does not apply it to life, he or she will not become a true critical thinker. The application, however, is nei-

ther automatic nor easy. Critical thinking is part science, as this book hopes to demon-

strate, but itis as much art as it is science. Which raises the question: What is required if one is to apply the method to one’s life? Experience shows that certain personal qualities are needed. To begin with, a willingness to admit one’s errors is important. A desire to find the truth is essential. An openness to other points of view can’t hurt. The courage to stop pointing the finger at external circumstances and to look in the mirror instead will surely help.

Experienced critical thinkers know that if one is to apply critical thinking to one’s

life, the following character traits are required: humility, honesty, modesty, selfcontrol, a passion for truth, openness to self-examination, receptivity to change, a will-

ingness to admit errors, and courage. The last trait is especially needed because it takes

personal courage to confront one’s own shortcomings and to change. Experience thus shows that character, as well as rationality, is necessary for effective critical thinking. Reason without the character traits needed to apply it to life is impo-

tent; but character traits without reasoning ability will get one nowhere. Reason needs

humility, honesty, courage, and so on; while humility, honesty, openness to truth, and so on, need reason. Two episodes from the life of Socrates show some of the many ways character and reason complement and complete each other.

THE CHARACTER OF SOCRATES Standing on Principle Near the end of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, Athens scored a major victory at the sea battle of the Arginusae Islands (406 BCE). However, thousands of surviving sailors, from twenty-five warships sunk in the battle, were left behind when the Athenian navy headed home rather than sail into a storm to rescue them. As public outrage over the action grew, a group of generals was ordered to Athens to stand trial for dereliction of duty.' The charges carried the death penalty. Due to a loophole in the law,

the trial was scheduled to take place and conclude in a single day. Because of the high-

profile nature of the case, the men were to be tried by the entire Assembly, rather than

in court before a jury.

36

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

AND

DEATH

Several factors weighed against the defendants’ receiving a fair trial. Many in the

Assembly had lost loved ones in the battle, and often people do not think critically when they are grieving. The presence of strong emotions can derail critical think-

ing. In addition, the assemblymen had little time to deliberate. People generally

think less rationally when they are hurried. Furthermore, people in a large group tend to think less critically. The Assembly had a quorum of six thousand. (We’ll examine the distorting effect of group pressure in chapter 4, when we take up psy-

chological obstacles to critical thinking.) But the situation was even worse for these defendants because they were to be tried collectively, as a group, rather than oneby-one—even though Athenian law gave each individual the right to a separate jury trial in a capital case. By chance, Socrates was serving as the presiding officer (epistates) of the As-

SoCnATES Figure 2-1. Socrates.

sembly on the day of the trial. A few in the hall opposed the illegal trial and the idea of collective guilt, but orators in favor of trying the generals collectively

Lithograph after an antique bust by Joseph

7

:

Brodtmann (German-

swayed the crowd, and soon everyone was demanding that the trial proceed. At wigs engraver and this point, Socrates stood up, all by himself, and at great risk to his own life, spoke _ publisher, 1787-1862), against the illegal proceeding, arguing that it was morally wrong to flout the law _ Published c. 1830.

and try the men collectively. It was morally wrong, he argued, even if it was the popular thing to do.

The crowd was not moved. (Socrates later observed that it is hard to reason with

people when they are in a group.) Someone made a motion to proceed with the trial, but Socrates blocked the vote. Four years later, standing before the same court, in front of

many of the same people, now charged with two capital offenses, Socrates faced a jury deciding his own fate and recalled the trial of the generals:

When the orators threatened to impeach and arrest me, and have me taken away,

and you called and shouted, I made up my mind that I would run the risk, having law and justice with me, rather than take part in your injustice because I feared imprisonment and death.”

Such was the character of the man: he would speak the truth, stand up for justice, and call out those who acted unjustly, even in front of a hostile crowd, even at the risk of his own life.

If you are present in a meeting or group when an unjust action is proposed, speak up as Socrates

might have, and call it into question on the basis of sound reasoning.

37

38

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

“KNOW

THYSELE”

This was the motto posted above the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. These words became the motto of Socrates’s life as well, after he came to believe that honest self-examination is the first step on the road to wisdom. Nobody, he argued, can become wise without first looking in the mirror and asking, Are my assumptions really true? Or are they illusions? Are my actions truly morally right? Or am I only rationalizing immoral behavior? When you read Plato’s dialogues, you get to know Socrates, and you get the sense that he is a person who is at peace with himself: he knows himself and what he is all about. Socrates’s beliefs, values, and life as a whole were connected in a coherent way through his powerful use reason. Socrates had what we would call today “a highly integrated personality.” In short, he had integrity.

Opposition to Tyrants The second illustration of how character and reason complement each other concerns an event that occurred shortly after the end of the Peloponnesian War. Athens

finally surrendered to its rival Sparta in 404 BCE, after the Spartans laid siege to the city.* The victors put in power a brutal junta, the Commission of Thirty, composed of Athenians sympathetic to Sparta. Many Athenians called the new rulers the “Thirty Tyrants,” for once in power they drew up a new constitution and

revoked many of the traditional rights of Athenian citizenship.° Before the oligarchy (from the Greek oligarchia for “rule by the few”) seized power, every citizen of Athens had the right to vote; now the franchise would be restricted to the wealthy alone. While the democracy (from the Greek demokratia for “rule by the people”) had guaranteed every citizen the right to a jury trial and the right to keep and bear arms, the new constitution reserved these rights to a special few. All ofa sudden,

any political opponent could be arrested without charges

and imprisoned without trial. The tyrants arbitrarily arrested, executed, and exiled thousands of political opponents—all without trial or due process. They also confiscated the prop-

erty of wealthy opponents and performed many other unjust

acts. One historian has called the reign of the Thirty Tyrants “Athens’ reign of terror.”® At one point, the tyrants ordered Socrates (along with four others) to travel to the Greek island of Salamis to arrest Leon, an innocent man and former general who was known to be a member of the political opposition. Socrates refused to make the illegal arrest on the grounds that it was imFigure 2-2.

moral and that Leon was a good and just man. Socrates could

CHAPTER

2

very well have been executed for civil disobedience (and he may well have been if a counterrevolution had not overthrown the oligarchy and restored the Athenian democracy). Nevertheless, he stood his ground and spoke up for what he believed was morally right—again, at the risk of his own life. In one episode, the tyrants actually issued a law forbidding Socrates to speak to anyone under the age of thirty. The oligarchs knew that his method could lead many people to question their rule and to think for themselves. Not surprisingly, Socrates refused to follow the order.

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

AND

Figure 2-3. Spartan infantry.

Asamember of a democracy, you have the right to participate in your government and influence its decisions. If you believe a law is unjust, speak out against it, or get involved in a political party or organization and work with others for change. Study the way your government works and learn the most effective methods of peaceful change.

WHY

IS REASON

“PRIVILEGED”?

As we have seen, Socrates encouraged people to examine their own beliefs and values, asking themselves, Are my assumptions really true? Are my actions really moral? These questions, as important as they are, raise further questions: How should we decide which of our beliefs are true and worth keeping, and which are false and need to be weeded out?

Whatis the best way to bring our actions into line with what morality requires? The answer

Socrates gave, in a nutshell, was this: test your beliefs and values on the basis of rational

standards, and hold only those beliefs you have good reason to believe are true, and live only by those values you have good reason to believe are truly moral. In short, good reason-

ing is the foundation of the best life a person can live, the key to a life truly in touch with reality and goodness. Socrates spent his life defending that answer. (In Unit 3 we will examine in some depth ways to apply commonsense reasoning to our belief systems, and in Unit 4 we will examine some of the basic principles of correct reasoning.) This raises a further question: Why is reason the basis for evaluating our beliefs and values and for attaining the best life? Why not feelings, emotions, or desires? The Socratic answer was this: feelings, emotions, and desires sometimes lead one into falsehood and moral error. When they do, they need to be criticized and corrected. However, on what basis can they be corrected, other than on the basis of reason? No other basis is available, argued Socrates. For example, suppose Joe has a gut feeling that all redheads are less intelligent and less moral than everyone else. Consequently, he looks down on all redheads. Joe’s feelings have certainly led him into cognitive and moral error, haven't they? He needs to

DEATH

39

40

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

take a good look at the evidence. There is nothing to indicate that redheads are morally or intellectually inferior to other people. If Joe will take an honest look at the evidence, he will see that his view of redheads is not in line with reality. But how does one appraise evidence, if not by reasoning? Suppose that in the heat of the moment, in the thick of rush hour traffic, Joe gets

extremely angry at a driver who just cut ahead of him in line. On the basis of his anger, Joe believes the rude driver deserves a thorough beating—and he gets out of his car to administer “street justice.” Joe may be angry, but does his anger justify his actions? Does the other driver really deserve to get beaten up? Certainly not. Reason tells us that would be a bad thing to do. The point is this: when our feelings or emotions lead us astray, as they so often do, they need to be criticized and corrected; and reason, argued

Socrates, is the only mental faculty capable of the task. Isn't this exactly what we do with our power of reasoning every day? For instance, you are late for an appointment and someone is driving unnecessarily slow. You get angry and want to honk loudly. But then you see that the driver is a confused old person who doesn’t realize he is holding up traffic. He doesn’t deserve that sort of treatment,

does he? (Does anyone?) After you cool down and think about it rationally, you know the answer. Or you are on a diet, but you really want to have two Dick’s Deluxe Burgers and fries for lunch. But do you really need fifteen hundred calories right now? There is a pretty good reason you do not. Emotions and desires sometimes lead us off track, and

when they do, their influence needs to be corrected, by reason. Isn't it obvious to common sense that our feelings, desires, and emotions sometimes

lead us to believe untruths and to act in ways that are not right? Isn’t it just as clear that our faculty of reason is the only thing we have that is capable of criticizing and reigning in our feelings and desires when they lead us astray? Objection and Reply In response, someone may ask: What about reason? Is our reasoning itself always right? Doesn't reasoning also sometimes cause us to go astray? Doesn't our faculty of reason sometimes need correction? Can't our reasoning be biased or distorted at times? What excellent questions! The answer to all the above is yes. Our faculty of reasoning is not infallible; it can be biased or distorted; it too makes mistakes. (In future chapters, we

will examine many of the ways undisciplined reasoning can lead us astray.) However, it does not follow that reason cannot serve as the ultimate touchstone of critical thinking,

for the faculty of reason has a special ability the other mental faculties lack: reason alone is capable of criticizing and correcting itself. Moreover, it is capable of self-correction on

the basis of criteria related to truth. (We will examine some of these criteria closely in Unit Four when we take up the basic principles of logic.) For an example of reason correcting itself, imagine that after several personal observations, Joe reasons as follows: (a) Suzie is a Ruritanian and she is evil; (b) Edis a Ruritanian and he is evil; (c) therefore, all Ruritanians are evil. Joe’s reasoning is obvi-

ously off. Now imagine that Joe takes a class in logic, which is the study of the standards

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

AND

of good reasoning. He learns that his reasoning commits the logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. (We'll examine the most common errors in reasoning in chapter 8 when we take up the subject of logical fallacies.) After learning to reason more critically, Joe sees that he has no basis for his weird belief that all Ruritanians are evil, and he corrects his errant reasoning. We correct our reasoning all the time, whenever we discover that it is distorted, biased, or in error. When we do so, we apply reason to our own reasoning. (Unit Four presents some of the criteria of good reasoning.) Thus, reason is special because it alone, of all the mental faculties, is capable of criticizing and correcting both itself and the other faculties on the basis of reliable criteria related to truth. As the philosopher Allen Wood puts it, “Reason is our highest capacity in the sense that it is the only one capable

of directing and criticizing all our faculties, including itself.”’ This is why reasoning is the ultimate test of critical thinking.®

SOCRATES

ON JUSTICE

IN THE

SOUL

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates argues that careful introspection (looking inside oneself) reveals that the soul or inner self is composed of three distinct but interrelated parts: 1.

2.

3.

Arational part that seeks knowledge, truth, and order through “rational calculation.” We use this part of the soul when we do math problems and generally whenever we reason, that is, when we draw a conclusion on the basis of evidence. This is the faculty of reason. A “spirited part” which houses the emotions (aggression, anger, hatred, joy, happiness, jealousy, envy, etc.). The emotions are the source for impulses of self-defense and self-assertion. This part of the soul is called spirit. An “appetitive” part that “lusts, hungers, and thirsts.” This part of the soul is called appetite.

Socrates argued that we know the soul has three distinct inner parts because we directly experience conflicts among them. For example, we sometimes get angry and do something that we later realize was unreasonable. Here spirit opposes reason. Or we drink too much and later realize that our action was not in our own best interest. Here appetite opposes reason. Conflicts among

reason, emotion, and appetite show that they are three separate, distinct parts of the soul, argued Socrates, for things that can stand in opposition to each other must be separate things. On Socrates’s account, if reason rules and balances the other two parts of your soul, you are a rational person. If emotions rule, then you are a highly emotional person. If appetites rule, then you are a hedonist (from the Greek word hedon for “pleasure”), pursuing pleasure as the highest good, without regard to rational limits.” When reason rules rightly, Socrates argued, the soul achieves a natural balance and functions harmoniously. When one of the other two parts rules in place of reason and without regard to rational limits, the soul is thrown into a disordered, chaotic state. Common sense recognizes these Socratic ideas: when someone’s inner life or soul is in a state of irrational chaos, we sometimes say of the person, “He is all messed up inside.” Much experience suggests that when reason balances the other two parts of the soul, the soul functions

(Continued)

DEATH

41

42

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

(Continued) smoothly and harmoniously. When one of the other parts rules, the soul operates jerkily, like an engine out of tune. Socrates also argued that the human soul naturally seeks the harmony provided by reason. And when that harmony and balance is present, he argued, a moral life naturally results. Modern psychology validates many of these Socratic insights. Today we have “impulse-control” counseling for people who cannot reign in their emotions and desires on the basis of rational considerations, and “anger management classes” exist for people who let their emotions rule their reason. In both kinds of classes, an attempt is made to correct the imbalance in the psyche on the basis of careful reasoning and self-examination. We also naturally speak of people who have a “balanced”

or “well-integrated personality,” while noting sadly that some people have an “unbalanced” personality and fail to achieve their potential. These are all Socratic notions."

THE DEATH

OF SOCRATES

Socrates had many friends, but as we have seen, he also made enemies. Many people do not like to be shown the error of their ways, especially in front of others. In addition, some in Athens believed that the Socratic method undermined society by encouraging people to question the status quo. In 399 BcE, at the age of seventy, Socrates was charged with two

serious offenses. Here are the formal charges, as brought by an opponent named Meletus: Meletus son of Meletus of Pitthos has Socrates son of Sophroniscus of Alopeka: ing the gods which the city recognizes, Further, he is a wrongdoer in corrupting

brought and sworn this charge against Socrates is a wrongdoer in not recognizand in introducing other new divinities. the young. Penalty, death.'!

Socrates could have avoided trial by going into exile, and his friends were ready to take him away to another city. But as a matter of moral principle, he insisted on facing the charges. At a public trial, Socrates defended himself before a jury of 501 citizens.’ His magnificent speech to the jury is re-created in Plato’s Apology. (See the Interlude “Socrates at Work” for reference to the complete text.) At one point in his defense, Socrates says this to the jury: Suppose gentlemen, you said to me, “Socrates, you shall be acquitted on this

occasion, but only on one condition. That you give up spending your time on this quest and stop philosophizing. If we catch you going on in the same way, you shall be put to death.” Well, supposing, as I said, that you should offer to acquit me on these terms, I should reply: Men of Athens, Iam your very grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you, and so long as I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting you and elucidat-

ing the truth for everyone that I meet. I shall go on saying, in my usual way, “My

friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for its wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

AND

give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with honor and reputation, and care so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you never regard or heed at all?”!* The Unexamined Life Socrates’s speech to the jury included one of his most memorable declarations: “The unexamined life is not a life worth living for a human being.”!* We have already seen what this involves. Someone living the examined life is not afraid to look in the mirror and ask, Are my assumptions really true? Or am I fooling myself? Do the values I live by truly reflect morality? Are my actions truly just? Or am I not being honest with myself? Or am I only rationalizing bad behavior? Honest self-examination, with an eye toward real truth, Socrates argued, is the key to the best life a person can live, all things considered.

Make a list of your regular activities ranked in order of importance. Fill in the approximate percentage of the time and effort that you devote to each activity. Do you give priority to the most important things in life? Do you spend your time wisely? Can you see any areas needing improvement?

In the end, although the charges were trumped up, Socrates was found guilty.'S The prosecution recommended death. However, Socrates could have saved his own life: according to law, the prosecution would propose a penalty, the defense would make a counterproposal, and the Senate would then choose between the two. If Socrates had suggested a reasonable alternative penalty, such as a monetary fine, the Senate would probably have accepted it. His friends were prepared to raise any amount of money necessary. Instead,

Socrates suggested a penalty he knew the court would reject: that the city provide him with free meals for life in return for his philosophical services. He was sentenced to die. However, because the final verdict was handed down at the start of a month-long civic holiday, the law required that the execution be postponed until the end of the festivities.’ Socrates thus spent the last month of his life in a jail cell, surrounded by family and

friends, doing what he loved most: discussing philosophical issues, including the questions of life after death, the immortality of the soul, and the ethics of civil disobedience— just like in the old days. Several friends urged him to escape. The jailor was even willing to help. Escape would have been easy. Nevertheless, Socrates refused to disrespect the sentence of the court. It was a matter of principle, he said. Indeed it was: one day before his execution, Socrates presented a complex philosophical argument in support of his

decision—an argument that is still being discussed and probed by philosophers today.” Plato tells us that when the time finally came, the jailor said to Socrates: To you, Socrates, whom I know to be the noblest and gentlest and best of all who

ever came to this place, I will not impute the angry feelings of other men, who

rage and swear at me when, in obedience to the authorities, I bid them drink the

DEATH

43

44

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

poison—indeed, I am sure that you will not be angry with me; for others, as you are aware, and not I, are the guilty cause. And so fare you well, and try to bear

lightly what must needs be; you know my errand. Plato continues:

Then bursting into tears he turned away and went out. Socrates looked at him and said: I return your good wishes, and will do as you bid. Then, turning to us, he said, How charming the man is: since I have been in prison he has always been coming to see me, and at times he would talk to me, and was as good as could be to me, and now see how generously he sorrows for me. But we must do as he says, Crito; let the cup be brought. In the end, even though he knew that a death by the prescribed poison would be slow and painful, Socrates calmly drank the hemlock. You are almost there in person when you read Plato’s account of the death scene. Socrates has just taken the poison and is waiting for its effects when some of his friends begin to weep. Socrates stops them: “What is this strange outcry?” he said. “I sent away the women mainly in order

that they might not offend in this way, for I have heard that a man should die in peace. Be quiet, then, and have patience.” When we heard that, we were ashamed, and refrained our tears; and he walked about until, as he said, his legs began to fail, and then he lay on his back, according to the directions, and the [jailor] who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet and legs; and after a while he pressed his foot hard and asked him if he could feel; and he said, no; and then his leg, and so upwards and upwards, and showed us that he was cold and stiff. And Socrates felt them himself, and said: “When the poison reaches the heart, that will be the end.” He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said (they were his last words)—he said: “Crito, I owe a rooster to Asclepius;

Figure 2-4. Socrates drinking the poison, from an 1882 engraving.

will you remember to pay the

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

debt?” “The debt shall be paid,” said Crito; “is there anything else?” There was no answer to this question; but in a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth.

Such was the death... of our friend, of whom I may truly say, that, of all the men

whom I have ever known, he was the wisest, and justest, and best.'*

SOCRATES RETROSPECTIVE Gregory Vlastos, a leading philosopher and scholar on the life and thought of Socrates, calls the Socratic method “one of the great achievements of humanity” for it makes moral inquiry a common human enterprise, open to every man. Its practice calls for no adherence to a philosophical system, or mastery of a specialized technique, or acquisition of a technical vocabulary. It calls for common sense and common speech. And this is as it should be, for how man should live is every man’s business, and the role of the specialist and the expert should be only to offer guidance and criticism, to inform and clarify the judgment of the layman, leaving

the final judgment up to him.”

This was a revolutionary idea when Socrates first defended it. However, Vlastos continues, while the Socratic method makes moral inquiry something incumbent upon everyone, it makes it easy for nobody:

It calls not only for the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable, but also for moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage.

Socrates expects you to say what you really believe about the way man should live;

which implies, among other things, about the way you should live. His method

will not work if the opinion you give is just an opinion; it must be your opinion: the one you stand ready to live by, so that if that option should be refuted, your own life or a part of it, will be indicted or discredited, shown up to be a muddle, premised on a confusion or contradiction. To get into the argument when you realize that this is the price you have to pay for it—that in the course of it your ego may experience the unpleasant sensation of a bloody nose—takes courage.

To search for moral truth that may prove your own life wrong takes humility that is not afraid of humiliation. These are the qualities that Socrates himself brings to the argument.”°

This Socratic idea, that every human being is capable of critical thinking and has the potential to live an examined life, marked a major turning point in the history of ideas. Indeed, Vlastos calls the Socratic method the first major step toward the ideal of the

universal moral equality of all of humanity.” In the days of Socrates, Greek morality

AND

DEATH

45

46

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

was a class morality. Moral virtue was thought possible for upper-class people only, not for manual workers. Socrates

expunged [this] from the universe of moral discourse when he made the improvement of the soul as mandatory, and as possible, for the manual worker as for the gentleman of leisure... he redefined all the virtues, and virtue itself, in such a way as to make of them, not class attributes, but human qualities.”* Ronald Gross finds the following closely related idea to be another of Socrates’s

contributions to the history of ideas: the claim that each individual has moral authority over his or her own soul. This idea, also revolutionary in its day, is one of the historical foundations of the idea of individual freedom. It is also one of the historical precedents for the idea of universal human rights. Correlative to this is the Socratic claim that, as Gross puts it, “Our human dignity mandates that we rule ourselves through participation in constitutional government.”*> (Some of the history of the idea of freedom is treated in the Interlude “Critical Thinking and Freedom” following chapter 8.) The Socratic “vision of freedom,” writes Vlastos, is thus of man “as a mature, responsible being, claiming to the fullest extent his freedom to make his own choice between right and wrong, not only in action but in judgment.”** But why teach the Socratic method to every person and not just the smartest few? Vlastos gives the Socratic answer: because each person is a man, and the “unexamined life is not worth living by man.” Reflecting on these implications of the Socratic method, Vlastos writes: I do not see how man can reach the full stature of his manhood unless he claims the right to make his own personal judgments on morality; and if he is to claim this right, he must accept the implied chance of misjudgment as a calculated risk. This is the price he must pay for being free.’* Bettany Hughes writes:

Socrates sees us coming. He worries that the pursuit of plenty will bring mindless materialism; that democracy will become just a banner under which to fight. What is the point, he says, of warships and city walls and glittering statues if we

are not happy? If we have lost sight of what is good? His is a question that is more pertinent now than ever. He asks: “What is the right way to live?”

A Socratic thinker is more an “inquirer” than an “informer.” An informer is always telling everyone how it is. An inquirer more often than not asks questions and seeks to learn from others. An informer is more likely to say things like, “My way or the highway” and “That’s just the way it is.” An inquirer is more likely to say things like, “What do you mean by that?” and “Why do you believe that is true?”

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

AND

Figure 2-5. Socrates's death. Steel engraving from 1876.

CHARACTER

TRAITS

OF CRITICAL THINKERS

Critical thinkers:

+ do not believe they are the world’s foremost experts on everything. + do not always assume that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. + are willing to admit their own ignorance. + welcome constructive criticism and are willing to admit error if proven wrong.

+ are interested in other people and other points of view. + actively listen to others and seek to learn from them. ¢ think collaboratively and learn with others.

+ ask good questions that advance the discussion. + + + «

know how to separate good from bad sources of information. know how to separate fact from unsupported opinion. are known for clear and precise thinking. havea passion for the truth.

+ do not accept vague or ambiguous thinking.

+ stick to the issue at hand and are not easily sidetracked in discussion. + notice biased thinking and will challenge it when necessary—including their own. + are logically consistent. + follow the reasoning where it leads.

(Continued)

DEATH

48

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

(Continued)

°

cut to the heart of the issue when analyzing a difficult matter. try to examine all viewpoints before drawing a conclusion on a controversial matter. are aware of the ways that unchecked emotions can sidetrack a discussion. seek to ensure that everyone present has a chance to contribute to the discussion. try to elevate the conversation when it sinks into the gutter. are very self-aware and take seriously the Delphic injunction “Know thyself.” are inquirers rather than informers. are good at seeing multiple sides of an issue.

Taking Philosophy to the People Before Socrates, Greek philosophers had focused on the great cosmological questions, such as these: Why does the universe exist? What is the ultimate nature of reality? What are the building blocks of the cosmos? What are the fundamental principles on the basis of which the cosmos and all that it contains can be explained? By the sheer force of his personality, Socrates shifted the focus of Greek philosophy from cosmological speculation to the human condition and made the following the central philosophical issue: What is the best life a human being can live, all things considered? The Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero (106-43 BCE) put it this way: “Socrates was the first to call philosopher down from the sky, set it in the cities and even in the home, and have it consider life and morals.”?”

Exercise 2.1

Questions for class or small group discussions, short essay assignments, or self-reflection. Instruction: If he were present at these imaginary episodes, what would Socrates say? What questions would he ask the individuals involved? 1. Aself-help expert promotes this as an effective life strategy: “Whenever you fail or don’t measure up, look for someone, or something, to blame. Whenever possible, externalize responsibility. You'll feel better about yourself!” 2. Amonth before the election, for reasons of “national security,” a dictator arrests all journalists who have ever criticized him, and schedules their release for after the election. 3. Ayoung man raises his standard of living by regularly shoplifting food and clothes. However, he steals only from large companies, justifying his actions by saying, “Big companies can afford the loss.”

CHAPTER2

4.

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

The owner ofa small store figures that if he overcharges his customers just a small amount per transaction, he’ll make enough extra money in one year for a trip to the

French Riviera. 5. A powerful dictator hires a PR firm to launch a campaign that falsely blames his country’s economic woes on external factors beyond his control. 6. Joe finds his happiness in drugs and tells his friends that being high “beats living in the real world.” 7. A politician decides to base his entire ad campaign not on his own positions and qualifications but on exaggerated and false negative attacks on his opponent. Exercise 2.2

We usually understand an idea better after we have expressed it in our own words.

Answer each question in your own words. What is an examined life? . Explain and discuss some of the character traits that you believe are needed for critical thinking. . Explain one of the character traits identified in this chapter that you would like to better emulate in your own life. Explain one of the character traits identified in this chapter that you believe everyone ought to emulate. . Itis interesting that the elenchus does not work well with crowds. At the end of his life, when Socrates was speaking to the jury that would decide his fate, he had to calm the jurors at one point. Why do you suppose elenctic questioning is not suited for a crowd?

. When people are part of a large group, they often don’t behave as rationally as

when they are on their own. Why do you suppose this is so? In the death scene recorded in Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates takes the cup of poison “cheerfully” and drinks it in “good humor.” Was Socrates contented at the end? If so, why was he happy? What did he have that made him content with his life? Exercise 2.3

Answer these questions accurately to demonstrate that you read the material. True or false?

yee

Socrates was a conscientious objector in the Peloponnesian War.

Athens won the Peloponnesian War. The Athenian Assembly had a quorum of six thousand.

The jury that tried Socrates contained 501 members. Athens was conquered by Persia and became a Persian satrapy.

AND

DEATH

49

50

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

6. Socrates could easily have escaped from jail and fled Athens after he was sentenced.

7. Socrates was executed by firing squad. 8.

Socrates died at the age of seventy.

9. The Thirty Tyrants formed a democratic government. 10. Socrates engaged in an act of civil disobedience toward the tyrants.

13.

Socrates refused, on principle, to disobey the sentence of the court. Socrates’s last words pertained to a religious matter. Socrates’s last words were, “I did it my way.”

14.

Socrates was a supporter of the Thirty Tyrants.

ll. 12.

1S. The Thirty Tyrants executed political opponents and took away rights—just like dictators of today. 16. Character and good reasoning are required if one is to apply critical thinking to life. 17. Socrates argued that feelings ought to rule the other two parts of the soul. 18. Socrates argued for the immortality of the soul. 19. Socrates served as prime minister of Athens. 20. One of Socrates’s moral failures was his refusal to talk with women. Exercise 2.4

In each case, choose the best answer. 1. Socrates a. followed orders and arrested Leon b. refused to follow orders to arrest Leon c. arrested Leon but helped him escape

d. joined Leon in an unsuccessful revolt against the Thirty Tyrants 2. When the generals were a. refused to allow the b. refused to allow the c. refused to allow the d. Stepped up to serve

3. The Thirty Tyrants were

to be tried as a group, Socrates generals entry into Athens generals legal counsel vote on grounds of principle as their attorney

a.

ajunta

b. c.

ademocratic government fair and just rulers

d.

amonarchy

a. b. c. d.

mainly talked with people at the courthouse mainly talked with people at the local tavern loved to hang out in the agora avoided Simon’s shoe shop

4. Socrates

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

5. Athens opposed this city in the Peloponnesian War: a.

Rome

b.

Baghdad

c.

Sparta

aos

d. New Delhi 6. Socrates was charged with these two capital offenses: a. sending aid to Sparta and deserting his army post b. embezzlement and income tax fraud c. stealing horses and counterfeiting d. corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the official gods of the state 7. The Oracle said this of Socrates: a. Ofall men, Socrates is the most ignorant. Of all men, Socrates is the most foolish. Of all men, Socrates is most wise. He will become rich if he invests in gold and silver now. Exercise 2.5 Write a short essay on one of the following questions. Your instructor will determine

the length.

1. Is truth always better than illusion? Is it always better to be aware of reality than to

be ignorant of it?

. Give an example of a public figure who prefers illusion to reality. What would you say one-on-one to this person?

n

. Comment on these statements: Most people find the truth too hard to take. They prefer comforting illusions to reality. What kind of person would not learn anything at all from a conversation with Socrates? . What kind of person would gain a great deal from a conversation with Socrates? Identify a public figure who you believe would benefit from a session with Socrates.

What would Socrates say to this person? What might he or she say back?

Exercise 2.6

Which of the following passages contain serious critical thinking, and which do not? In

each case, what questions would you ask the author if you were present?

1. I believe Sasquatches exist because I had a dream last night that I met a Sasquatch, and the dream was so real that I think it must have been a signal from the woods. . The other day I was sick with the flu, so I stayed home all day and watched reruns

of the old 1960s show Combat! By dinner I felt fine. So, I believe that watching old reruns cures the flu. The next time I get sick, I'll watch Combat!

AND

DEATH

51

52

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

3. The other day I failed my calculus midterm, and I had studied for it two full hours.

That test must have been unfair. I’m going to demand a retake. 4. I'll tell you whyI do not believe in God. God is said to be all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing. But if God, understood as all-powerful, and so forth, were to create a world, that world would not have any suffering in it. For goodness is opposed to evil, and suffering is evil, and therefore God, being good, would be opposed to evil and would not allow its existence. So, if God exists and created this world, there is no suffering. But the world is full of massive amounts of suffering. Therefore, God certainly does not exist. . I'll tell you whyI do not believe that the existence of suffering proves God does not exist. God, defined as an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being who created the universe, might allow suffering if God had a morally sufficient reason for allowing

it. One morally sufficient reason that would justify allowing suffering might be

that it is a necessary step to a greater good in the future that outweighs it. But if

God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering, that reason is probably far beyond our understanding, likely involving future goods we cannot even conceive at the present time. Therefore, the existence of massive amounts of suffering

does not prove God does not exist. 6. Everybody is out to get you. You gotta get them before they get you. That’s the key to success. Take my word for it. 7. If I don’t do well at something, the first thing I do is look around for someone to blame. I always find someone to get mad at. 8. All differences in income and wealth between people are due ultimately to luck.

For success can always be traced back to the social and family circumstances one is born into, and the talents one is born with—both of which are due ultimately to chance and luck. But nobody deserves to have been born into this or that family, or

to have been born with this or that talent. In general, nobody deserves something if it is due to undeserved factors. Therefore, all differences in income and wealth are undeserved: the poor do not deserve to be poor, and the rich do not deserve to be rich. Differences in income and wealth ultimately are not due just to chance or luck; rather, they are due to a combination of luck, chance, and choice. Nobody deserves something due solely to luck and chance, but someone might deserve

an outcome if he or she recognized an opportunity, made a choice to work hard and produce something of value to others, and did so without violating any-

one’s rights in the process. Indeed, this is often the way differences in wealth

and income arise. But our moral common sense says that something due to a combination of chance and morally significant choice may be deserved. Therefore, not all differences in income and wealth are necessarily undeserved, even

when partly due to luck. 10.

The defendant looks guilty. Why, just look at his unkempt appearance. To heck with the evidence. I’m going to vote guilty. (Spoken by a juror during deliberations.)

CHAPTER

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

I believe this is going to be my lucky year. My cousin down in Louisiana (Lucinda, the Oracle of New Orleans) reads chicken bones for a living, and she told me she threw the bones the other day, and they told her I was going to have a good year. So I’m buying twice as many lottery tickets as usual every week. 12. I’m sending my banking password and account information to this guy in Nigeria who contacted me by e-mail. He promises that he’ll send me back a million dollars after he uses my bank account for just one small transaction. The World Bank handles his transactions (and he knows the head of it), so he must be some big shot ll.

guy over there. I mean, if you can’t trust the World Bank, who can you trust?

I'm voting for Joe Schmoe for President. He has raised the most money, so he must have the smartest people on his side. 14. I read on the Internet that space aliens have taken over the U.S. government. The website was well written, and the author even has a PhD from the University of Planet Pluto. So I believe it.

13.

Exercise 2.7

Choose

one

of the following

questions

and write

a one-page

critical thinking

Should it be illegal to own an assault rifle? Should all undocumented immigrants be granted full amnesty? Is it logical to believe in God? Does the existence of massive suffering show that God does not exist? Should all drugs be legalized? Is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation morally wrong? Should same-sex marriage be legal? Is a national health care system a good idea?

Should the rich pay more taxes than they currently pay? What does social justice require?

. Does morality require vegetarianism? . Should price gouging be illegal? . Should genetically modified food be illegal?

BPR

wn eRe

ee

SOPNANAWN

response:

Exercise 2.8

Questions for class or small group discussion, essay assignments, or individual reflection. 1. What’s wrong with believing something just because you want it to be true, or hope it is true? 2. What’s wrong with believing something just because everyone around you believes it is true?

3. Imagine a person named Joe who believes many false things about himself.

He believes he is a good person who is kind and respectful, but in reality he is

AND

DEATH

53

54

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

not. He believes he always does the right thing, but in reality he frequently does

wrong. He thinks everyone likes him, but it is not true. Joe is very deluded. However, because of his ignorance, he is very happy. Would Joe be living a better life if he came to see the true nature of his life? Or is he better off ignorant?

. What do we mean when we say of someone that “he drank his own Kool-Aid”?

What would Socrates say to such a person?

NOTES

Athenian generals were democratically elected. No other country in ancient times elected its generals. 2. Plato, Apology, 32b. 3. Tens of thousands of Athenian males died during the Peloponnesian War—the price of democratic citizenship was no small matter. A junta is “a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d’état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted.” (Dictionary.com) The Greeks called a ruler a “tyrant” (from the Greek tyrannos) if he ruled oppressively. As illustrated in this chapter, many of our political words have a Greek origin. The reference is to the Reign of Terror that occurred during the French Revolution (roughly 17891794) when tens of thousands of citizens were rounded up and mercilessly executed. 1.

Allen Wood, Kantian Ethics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 16. Some critics of reason have argued that since reasoning can be biased, it therefore cannot be trusted to lead us to truth. (Notice that this thought itself is an act of reasoning.) However, as the philoso-

pher Robert Nozick pointed out, the very notion of “biased reasoning” implies the existence of an unbiased reason that can be known and that can serve as a standard against which biased reasoning is detected and measured. Biased reasoning is to unbiased reasoning asa crooked line is to a straight line. We cannot fully define a crooked line without also understanding the notion ofa straight line. Likewise, the very concept of biased reasoning implies the existence of reasoning that is not biased and against which biased reasoning can be detected. This criticism of reason, in short, contradicts

itself. Two types of pleasures can be distinguished: bodily pleasures and intellectual or mental pleasures. Corresponding to this distinction, two opposing schools of hedonism developed in ancient Greece. According to the Cyrenaic school, founded by Aristippus of Cyrene (born c.435 BCE), the only intrinsic good, and thus the highest good of all, is sensual, or bodily, pleasure. This is cyrenaic

hedonism. According to the Epicurean school, founded by Epicurus (341-270 sce), mental pleasures associated with such valuable things as art, music, and friendship, are the highest good of all.

This view is known as epicurean hedonism. Socrates argued that both forms of hedonism are misguided. Aristippus was at one time a pupil of Socrates. 10. 11.

See Book 4 of Plato’s Republic, 330-341. Plato, who was present at the trial, recorded the charges with these words: “That Socrates violates

the law by corrupting of the youth, and not believing in the gods of the state, but other new divinities of his own.” Apology, 24-b-c.

CHAPTER

12.

13. 14. 1S.

16.

2

SOCRATES

PART

2: LIFE

‘The jurors were selected by a random process from a pool of six thousand citizens. The Athenians went to great lengths to prevent corruption. They even invented a random selection machine—the kleroterion. Prospective jurors inserted their names in slots inscribed on metal discs, and the machine selected jurors by sending black and white marbles down a chute to line up with juror names. An original kleroterion is displayed today in Athens in the agora museum. My source is Bettany Hughes, The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens, and the Search for the Good life, (New York: Vintage Books, 2012), 37-38. Hughes notes (p. 2) that in any given year up to forty thousand cases would be heard at the city’s religious court. Plato, Apology, 29d.

Ibid., 38a.

The vote was 280 to convict, 220 to acquit. If 30 citizens had voted differently, Socrates would have gone free. During this civic holiday, a ceremonial ship sailed to the Island of Delos to commemorate the Greek hero Theseus’s voyage to Crete to slay the Minotaur, a terrible human-eating monster who lived in the center of a mysterious labyrinth. According to the myth, Minotaur was half-human and half-bull. See www.greekmyths-greekmythology.com/myth-of-theseus-and-minotaur.

17.

For an account of his argument, see Plato’s Crito.

18.

Plato, Phaedo, 118. Plato is probably sparing his readers the gruesome details. A death by hemlock would usually involve vomiting, feelings of suffocation, and violent seizures.

19. 20.

Gregory Vlastos, “The Paradox of Socrates,” in Gregory Vlastos, ed. The Philosophy of Socrates:

A Collection of Critical Essays (New York: Anchor Books, 1971), 20.

Ibid., 20.

21.

An ideal that humanity is still struggling to achieve, some twenty-four hundred years after Socrates. The same ideal was advanced at about the same time by the Chinese philosopher Mozi (c.470-c. 391 BCE), who rejected the Confucian aristocratic, family-centered morality of his day in favor ofa morality of universal concern and impartiality toward all. Unfortunately, the entire Mohist school was wiped out by the Qin Emperor in 213 BcE in a bloody cultural purge known as “The Burning of Books and the Burying of Scholars.”

22. 23.

Gregory Vlastos, “The Paradox of Socrates,” 19.

Ronald Gross, Socrates’ Way: Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to Its Utmost (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002), 2.

24.

Vlastos, “The Paradox of Socrates,” 21.

25.

Ibid. Vlastos adds: “I am now using very un-Socratic language . . . this vision of human freedom, of which the Socratic method is an expression, could not be appropriately described as knowledge... the best name for it is faith. That the man who had this faith to a supreme degree should mistake it for knowledge, is yet another part of the paradox of Socrates.” Bettany Hughes, The Hemlock Cup, xvii.

26. 27.

Read this online at www.litera.co.uk/cicero_socrates.

KEY TERMS

appetite

democracy examined life hedonist cyrenaic hedonism epicurean hedonism

junta

oligarchy reason spirit well-integrated personality

AND

DEATH

55

56

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

FURTHER

THINKING?

READING

ON SOCRATES

Ahbel-Rappe, Sara. Socrates: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Continuum, 2009. Ahbel-Rappe, Sara, and Rachana Kamtekar, eds. A Companion to Socrates. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Anagnostopoulos, Georgios, and Fred D. Miller, eds. Reason and Analysis in Ancient Greek Philosophy: Essays in Honor of David Keyt. New York: Springer Verlag, 2013. Benson, Hugh, ed. Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Brickhouse, Thomas C., and Nicholas Smith. Plato’s Socrates. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Gross, Ronald. Socrates’ Way: Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to Its Utmost. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002.

Hughes, Bettany. The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens and the Search for the Good Life. New York: Vintage, 2012.

Judson, Lindsay, and Vassilis Karasmanis, eds. Remembering Socrates: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.

Kreeft, Peter. Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy via Plato’s Apology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002.

Long, A. A. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Matthews, Gareth R. Socratic Perplexity and the Nature of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Millman, Dan. Way of the Peaceful Warrior: A Book That Changes Lives. Tiburon, CA: H.J. Kramer / New World Library, 1984. Morrison, Donald R., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Nehamas, Alexander. The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998.

Nozick, Robert. The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990. . Socratic Puzzles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Phillips, Christopher. Socrates Café: A Fresh Taste of Philosophy. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. Taylor, C. G. W. Socrates: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Vlastos, Gregory, ed. The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. - Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Warmington, Eric H., and Philip G. Rouse, eds. The Great Dialogues of Plato. New York: Mentor Books,

1956. Xenophon. “Socrates’ Defense,”

“The Dinner Party,” and “The Estate Manager.” In Conversations of

Socrates, edited and translated by Robin H. Waterfield. New York: Penguin Classics, 1990.

. Conversations with Socrates. Introduction by Odysseus Makridis. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2005.

Chapter 3 On Socrates’s Two Favorite Questions

AS YOU KNOW, when an interlocutor was not thinking clearly, or was making unsubstantiated claims, Socrates asked two pertinent questions: 1. What exactly do you mean by that? 2. What evidence do you have for your claim?

We took up these questions briefly in chapter 1. However, they are so central to the Socratic method, and they have been so central to the standard method of philosophy ever since Socrates, that it will be worthwhile to examine both questions in more depth. QUESTION 1: WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? In the opening scene of Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates meets his friend Euthyphro on the steps of the Stoa Basileios, or “King’s Porch.” Located on the northwest corner of the agora in downtown Athens, this was the court where religious cases were heard. (In ancient Greece, an archon was a chief magistrate, and the king archon was the judge overseeing religious cases.) Socrates has come to the court building for a pretrial hearing

on the capital charges lodged against him by Meletus. After some preliminary banter on the steps of the courthouse, Socrates learns that Euthyphro has come to court to charge his own father with murder. Socrates is shocked: Socrates: By the powers, Euthyphro! ... A man must be an extraordinary man, and have made great strides in wisdom, before he could have seen his way to bring such an action.

Euthyphro: Indeed, Socrates, he must.'

Socrates asks Euthyphro why he is bringing charges against his own father. After ex-

plaining that his father is responsible for the death of a servant, Euthyphro adds that

prosecuting him is “the pious thing to do.” By pious the ancient Greeks meant a number of things, but “morally right” will do as a rough translation for now.” Euthyphro is claiming that his action (prosecuting his father) is morally right. When Socrates

57

58

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

asks his friend if he knows what piety is, Euthyphro proudly claims expert knowledge:

Euthyphro: The best of Euthyphro, and that which distinguishes him, Socrates, from other men, is his exact knowledge of all such matters. What should I be good for without it?

/ ee a

f

|

\ j

7

Figure 3-1. Ancient temple columns in the agora of Athens.

However,

Socrates suspects that while Euthyphro

thinks he knows the meaning of piety, he doesn’t have the foggiest idea what it really is. The stage is thus set for a classic Socratic confrontation: Socrates will ask

Euthyphro for a definition of piety, with the goal of helping Euthyphro discover his own ignorance. But

Socrates also hopes the discussion might produce insight into the true nature of moral

rightness, insight for himself and for Euthyphro. For Socrates is open to the possibility that Euthyphro might have insights of his own to contribute to the discussion. Definitions of key words are important at the start of a discussion because, if we do not understand the meanings of the words we will be using, we won’t know what we are talking about. Furthermore, when our thinking is unclear, how can we know whether it does, or does not, reflect reality? You will find the complete text of the Euthyphro in the Interlude “Socrates at Work” following this chapter.

Ambiguity and Vagueness There are two ways in which the meaning vague, or it can be ambiguous. A word is sure whether the word applies or does not word wealthy is vague. It is obvious that

of a word or phrase can vague if there are cases apply. For example, as it someone like Bill Gates

be unclear: it can be in which we are not is normally used, the is wealthy, and it is

obvious that the average college student is not wealthy. However, is a professional earn-

ing $180,000 per year, with a paid-off house, wealthy? This could be debated. A case in which we are not sure whether or not a given word applies is called a “borderline case.” A vague word may therefore be defined as “a word that has borderline cases.” Aword or phrase is ambiguous in a given context if it can be interpreted in two or more ways. For example, in some contexts, it won't be clear just who got married when

someone says, “The Reverend Smith married my brother.” Essentially, a good definition

reduces both vagueness and ambiguity as much as possible. Here is an example of a

pretty good definition: the word jaywalking means “crossing a street at a spot that is neither a marked crosswalk nor a corner or intersection.” There will be few or no border-

line cases and no ambiguity, if you follow this definition when applying it to various street crossings. The following definition is not as clear: by the word wealthy I mean “someone who makes a lot of money.” When we apply this definition in various situations, borderline cases will surely occur.

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

QUESTIONS

Ina serious discussion, when your interlocutor’s thinking is unclear, ask, What exactly do you mean? If your interlocutor is having trouble clarifying certain ideas, help out by asking good questions that bring out the point that person is trying to make.

The Use and Importance of Definitions By removing ambiguity and vagueness, a good definition helps us narrow down what is being talked about and helps us apply the word with precision.’ For example, the following definition is too broad, encompassing or applying to more things than it was meant to

cover: the word baseball means “a game that is played ona field with a ball.” (Aren't soccer and football also games played on fields with balls?) On the other hand, the following

definition is too narrow, not covering things it should include: the word trucker means “a man who drives a truck for a living.” (Aren’t some truckers women?) A good definition is neither too broad nor too narrow. It applies to just the right range of cases. Good definitions are valuable whenever we are communicating. They are especially valuable when we are reasoning with others, for reasoning with vague or ambiguous words can be like trying to play catch with puffs of smoke—hard to get a firm hold on anything,

and hard to tell whether the point they are trying to make is true or in correspondence with reality. These are some of the reasons Socrates asked for definitions. Given the importance of good definitions to critical thinking, we will look more deeply into the matter. VERBAL

VERSUS

FACTUAL

DISAGREEMENT

The presence of ambiguity and vagueness can give rise to disagreements that are more verbal than factual. Ina factual disagreement, we agree on the meanings of the words we are using, but we disagree on the facts of the matter. Person A claims that the median household income has gone down over the past ten years, while person B claims that median household income has risen. This is a purely factual disagreement. In a verbal disagreement, two or more people seem to be disagreeing about the facts of the matter, but in reality, the facts are not at issue; the problem is that one party is using a word to mean one thing, and the other party is using the same word to mean something else entirely, but the two parties don’t realize it. They are not even talking about the same thing! For example, imagine now that A says, “Average household income has gone down in the past ten years,” and B replies, “No, average household income has risen in the past ten years.” This dispute is verbal if the two parties are using the word average with different meanings in mind. The word average actually has three possible meanings: the mean, the median, and the mode. (These will be defined in chapter 11 when we examine statistical reasoning.) Ifthe two parties have differing meanings in mind, they are not talking about the same thing—they are talking past each other. To settle a factual disagreement, we need to investigate the facts of the matter. To settle a verbal disagreement, we need to agree on the meanings of the words we use. In short, we need to define our terms.

59

60

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

The Two Important Methods of Definition Most definitions explain meaning either (a) by referring in some way to the extension of the word (or phrase) being defined, or (b) by stating the word’s intension. Let’s examine the extensional approach first. EXTENSIONAL

DEFINITIONS

The extension of a word or expression is all those entities to which the word or expression can truly be applied. For instance, the extension of the word city includes Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston, and so on. The extension of the term rock band includes the Beatles, the Doors, My Morning Jacket, Wilco, and so forth. Extensional definitions assign meaning to a word by giving examples of what the word denotes or applies to.

Put another way, they define a word by citing things from the word’s extension. There are four common types. COMMON

TYPES

OF EXTENSIONAL

DEFINITIONS

1. If you explain the meaning ofa word by pointing at an example, you are giving an ostensive (from the Latin word ostens for “display”) definition, also called “a demonstrative definition.” For instance, you say, “Circuit means this” as you point at a circuit.

2. Ifyou explain a meaning by listing, or enumerating, members ofa word’s extension, you are giving an enumerative definition. For example, the word comedian means “a person such as Stephen Colbert, Groucho Marx, John Candy, or Jon Stewart.”

3. An operational definition explains the meaning of a word by specifying a step-by-

step operation or test that determines whether the word applies in any given case. For example, according to the standard measure for determining the hardness of a mineral (Mohs’ hardness scale), mineral A is “harder” than mineral B ifa sample of Acan be used to make a scratch in a sample of B but not vice versa.

4. Ina definition by paradigm case, you explain the meaning of a word by citing one or more clear and easily recognizable examples of the application of the word. For example, by a moral principle I mean “a rule such as ‘Stealing is wrong.”

The meaning provided by an extensional definition is called the “extensional meaning” of the term. Common sense guides us when we construct extensional definitions. Choose items from the extension that are known by your audience, avoid unusual examples (outliers), choose items that are representative of the extension, and so on. INTENSIONAL

DEFINITIONS

The intension of a word or expression consists of all and only those properties or charac-

teristics that an entity must have for the word or expression to truly apply to it. For

CHAPTER

3.

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

QUESTIONS

instance, the intension of the word square includes “closed figure with four equal angles,” “figure with four equal sides,” “plane figure,” and so on. In other words, the in-

tension of a word is the properties or attributes shared by all and only those objects in a term’s extension. An intensional definition gives the meaning of a word by stating the characteristics or properties the objects in a term’s extension have in common and which lead us to apply the term to them.

The meaning provided by an intensional definition, called the “intensional mean-

ing of the word,” can be explained more precisely in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions: an intensional definition states the necessary and sufficient conditions for

the proper application of a term. A necessary condition for something X is a condi-

tion that is required; without the necessary condition, X will not obtain. For example, oxygen is necessary for a fire to burn. A sufficient condition for something X is a condition that guarantees that X will obtain; the sufficient condition is all that is needed for the obtaining of X. For example, jumping in a lake is sufficient for getting wet.

Notice that although oxygen is necessary for a fire to burn, it is not sufficient. Notice

also that although jumping in a lake is sufficient for getting wet, it is not a necessary condition for getting wet.

An intensional definition thus explains meaning by indicating the properties a word or phrase suggests—which are the properties an entity must have if the word is to apply correctly to it. When we compare the two major types of definitions, extensional definitions seem concrete and down-to-earth, while intensional definitions seem more conceptual and abstract.

“We are not sure of the logical soundness of our methods and results until we make everything about them quite definite.’ Georg Cantor, nineteenth-century German mathematician.*

COMMON

TYPES OF INTENSIONAL

DEFINITIONS

Most intensional definitions fit into one of the following categories. When pressed for an intensional definition, a critical thinker selects a type that fits the situation. 1. A lexical definition presents the commonly used meaning ofa word or phrase. The

word lexical comes from the original word for “dictionary”: lexicon (a listing of

words and their definitions). For example, the word chair means “a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person.”> 2. Astipulative definition introduces anew meaning for a word or phrase. For example, by the word flipper, our family means “someone who flips the criticism back on the other person when criticized.” Sometimes a stipulative definition introduces an entirely new word, a neologism. Over time, if a stipulative definition is adopted and used widely enough, it evolves into a lexical definition.

61

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

3. A precising definition makes the meaning of a vague word more precise so as to cut down on borderline cases. For example, a piece of legislation might define a house as “any dwelling that is permanent and has at least one window, one door, a floor, walls, and a roof.” Good legislation strives to minimize borderline cases in order to decrease unintended applications and misinterpretations of the law. Of course, if a precising definition is adopted and used widely enough, it may evolve into a lexical definition.

4. A theoretical definition explains meaning by providing a theory of the nature of some-

thing. For example, the word light means “an oscillating electromagnetic field traveling through space at a constant speed.” Of course, many of the words used in a theoretical definition will have had their meanings fixed by prior lexical definitions. Ifa theoretical definition is adopted and used widely enough, it too may join the list of lexical definitions. Many definitions in science are theoretical definitions. 5. A persuasive definition uses emotional wording and appeals to the emotions in order to influence people’s attitudes toward something. For example, the University of Chicago economist Frank Knight once characterized capitalism as a game in which “the weak contestants are thrown into competition with the strong in one grand melee . . . there is no classification of the participants or distribution of handicaps

such as are always recognized to be necessary to sportsmanship where un-evenly matched contestants are to meet.” (A melee is “a struggle or hand-to-hand fight among a group of people.”) Not a very humane image. In contrast, Knight’s student at Chicago, Milton Friedman, who later went on to win a Nobel Prize in economics,

characterized capitalism as a system in which everyone is “free to choose.” Two per-

suasive definitions, two different views of the nature of capitalism. If a persuasive

definition is used widely enough, it too may evolve into a lexical definition. 6. A synonymous definition explains the meaning of a word by providing a synonym

for the word, which works fine as long as one’s audience knows the meaning of the synonym. For example, freedom means “liberty,” the word physician means “medical doctor,” and the word adage means “proverb.”

7. An analytic definition (from the Greek analytikos for “breaking something down into its parts”) explains the meaning of a word by breaking its meaning down into

its elements. It does this by specifying the characteristics possessed in common by those items to which the word or phrase applies and which distinguish those items from other kinds of things. A definition by genus and difference is an important and very useful kind of analytic definition. The genus is the general group that the things denoted by the word being defined belong to, while the difference distinguishes these items from other kinds of things within the genus. For example, Aristotle defined a human being as “a rational animal.” Here the genus is animals and the difference is rational beings. Humans are animals, but what distinguishes them from other animals, Aristotle claimed, is their rationality. Another example: the word logic means “the study of the rules of correct reasoning.” Here, the genus is studies (like biology, history, etc.), while the difference within the genus is that logic is the one study whose subject matter is the rules of correct reasoning.

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

Analytic definitions are common in mathematics and science as well as in philosophy. For example, mathematicians define a square as “a closed figure with four equal sides and four equal angles,” because all squares have this set of properties, and only this set of properties, in common. Chemists define an acid as “a substance that increases the hydrogen-ion concentration of water.” A more down-to-earth example of an analytic definition would be, the word bachelor means "unmarried adult male.” ADVICE

WHEN

CONSTRUCTING

INTENSIONAL

DEFINITIONS

Here are some rules that can help in constructing effective intensional definitions. Rule 1. Foremost, try to convey the essential properties suggested by the word or phrase. Essential properties are those characteristics or attributes that an entity cannot lack and still remain part of the extension of the word (or phrase). For instance, imagine that someone defines a clock as “a mechanism that contains gears, springs, and cogs, and has twelve numbers on its face.” The problem with this definition is that these properties (having gears, springs, hands, and such) are not essential features of a clock. (Digital clocks lack springs and gears.) Because this definition cites nonessential features, it

leaves out many clocks. It misses the target. This definition does a better job: “A clock is a mechanical device for telling time.” Rule 2. An intensional definition should be neither too narrow nor too broad. Ifa definition is too narrow, it applies to too little; if it is too broad, it applies to too much. If the definition is neither too narrow nor too broad, it is just right. If so, it gives the necessary

and sufficient conditions for applying the term. This rule is obviously related to the first. The following definition of baseball is too broad: baseball is “a game commonly played ona large athletic field.” (So is football.) On the other hand, the following definition is too narrow: art is “anything painted on canvas.” (Aren’t there forms of art that do not involve paint or a canvas?) Rule 3. Intensional definitions should aim to be as positive as possible, favoring

positive characterizations over negative ones. For example, suppose someone defines a

computer as “a machine that is not powered by water, is not made entirely of glass, and is not typically larger than a television set.” All true statements, but this definition con-

veys little understanding of what a computer is, for many items besides computers fit the description. For another example, it is true that an aardvark is not a duck, not a cat, and so on. However, this does not tell us much about what it is. Of course, in some cases, negatives need to be used to correct for positive misunderstandings, but usually, the more negative a definition, the less light is conveyed. Rule 4. Avoid vague, obscure, ambiguous, or figurative language. For example, suppose someone defines a djembe as “a pep pill for the hands.” This figurative language would provide little in the way of understanding if someone does not already know what a djembe is. (A djembe is “an African drum that is shaped like a goblet and meant

to be played with the hands.”) Or, imagine that a poet defines freedom as “having nothing left to lose.” This catchy definition gives little insight into what the word really means.

QUESTIONS

63

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Rule 5. Intensional definitions should strive to avoid words that appeal to emotions, since emotions unchecked by reason can lead us astray. Someone who defines socialism as “a system in which government dominates all aspects of society” is hoping that the proposed definition will cause negative feelings toward socialism, but the definition does not adequately explain what socialism really is. Likewise, someone who defines capitalism as “a system in which the strong exploit the weak” is vulnerable to the same objection.

Rule 6. A good intensional definition avoids circularity as much as possible. The following synonymous definition, for example, is quite circular: freedom means “liberty.”

When you reason with others (as well as with yourself), think about the words you are using, and ask yourself if your words are going to be understood. If they are ambiguous or vague, people may become confused and may not follow your train of thought. In such cases, pause to define your words. That way, you'll be more likely to make your point. Effective definition is one of the

keys to effective critical thinking.

Exercise 3.1 For class or small group discussion or for short writing assignments (your instructor will determine the length). 1. Give an example of a vague word, and explain why the word is vague.

2. Give an example of an ambiguous use of a word, and explain why the word is ambiguous in that context.

3. Make up a stipulative definition to introduce a new term, and explain why your NASA

64

definition would be useful. Choose a vague word and write a useful precising definition for it. Choose a word and write a persuasive definition for it. State nonpersuasive definitions for right-wing and left-wing.

Look up your state’s legal code, and find an interesting precising definition. Quote the definition and evaluate it. Does the definition serve its purpose?

Exercise 3.2 Find an example of each of the following kinds of definitions. 1. Lexical 2. Theoretical 3.

Precising

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

4. Stipulative S. Persuasive

od an

SyeoPnananrPYY

Exercise 3.3 Answer these questions accurately to demonstrate that you read the material. True or false?

Ifa word has borderline cases, then it is a vague word. Ifa word has more than two meanings in a given context, it is ambiguous. The purpose of a stipulative definition is to introduce a new meaning for a word.

A lexical definition presents the commonly used meaning for a word.

A theoretical definition describes the nature of a thing. An analytical definition is a type of intensional definition. A definition by agreement and difference is a type of extensional definition.

A definition by synonym is a type of extensional definition. A verbal dispute involves a disagreement over the facts.

Extensional definitions assign meaning by stating the characteristics of a thing.

. Intensional definitions assign meaning by listing examples of things denoted

by a word. 12. 13. 14. 1S.

Intensional Intensional Intensional Intensional

definitions definitions definitions definitions

should should should should

aim to state the essential properties of a thing. avoid vague words. avoid words that appeal to the emotions. avoid circularity as much as possible.

Exercise 3.4

Multiple choice. Choose the best answer in each case.

1. Which of the following is not an extensional definition? a.

enumerative definition

b.

operational definition

c.

definition by paradigm case

d. precising definition 2. Which of the following is not an intensional definition? a. ostensive definition. b. stipulative c. theoretical d. persuasive 3. Which of the following is an intensional definition? a. ostensive definition b. enumerative definition c. operational definition

d.

definition by genus and species

QUESTIONS

65

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

4.

THINKING?

Definition by genus and species is a type of

a. analytic definition b. extensional definition c. ostensive definition d. enumerative definition S. Intensional definitions should strive to avoid which of the following? a. appeals to the emotions b. vague words c. circularity d. figurative words e. allofthe above 6. Definitions aim to remove these two things as much as possible:

a.

meaning and clarity

b. c. d.

essence and character vagueness and ambiguity emotion and baggage

Exercise 3.5 Instructions in context.

The definition of physical force formulated in the seventeenth century by Isaac Newton helps us understand the concept: “Force equals mass times acceleration”

(F = M X A). What type of definition is this? . A phalanx is “a body of heavily armed infantry in ancient Greece formed in close

deep ranks and files; broadly: a body of troops in close array.” (Merriam-Webster). What type of definition is this?

Find three Find three . According define man

RY

66

intensional definitions and state extensional definitions and state to legend, the philosopher known as “a featherless biped.” The next

them. them. as Diogenes the Cynic once heard Plato day, Diogenes threw a plucked chicken

over the fence of Plato’s school. (In some versions of the story, the Cynic placed his

plucked chicken on the doorstep of Plato’s school with a sign around its neck that read, “Plato’s Man.”) What point was Diogenes trying to make with his little shenanigan?’ Determine whether the following definitions are lexical, stipulative, precising, theoretical, or persuasive. a. Decadent means “in a state of decline or decay.” b. Cursory means “hasty, superficial, and not thorough.”

c.

Astar is “a large ball of hot, burning hydrogen gas.”

d. e.

Cool shall mean “below 60 degrees and above 40 degrees Fahrenheit.” Let’s saya plate scraper is “a person who finishes every bit of food on his plate and

obnoxiously scrapes the plate with his fork to make sure he’s gotten virtually every molecule of food.”

f. Jeopardy means “danger or risk of loss or injury.”

CHAPTER

g.

ee

h.

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

A fanatic is “a person possessed by an irrational zeal, especially for a ridiculous religious or political cause.” A gene is “a portion of a DNA molecule.”

An ingrate is “an ungrateful person.”

j.

Frank means “open and sincere in expression, undisguised, and straightforward.”

1.

An anomaly is “a deviation from the normal order.”

k.

m.

n.

o.

p.

Capacious means “able to contain a large quantity.”

Ancillary means “subordinate.”

Worker means “a person who is oppressed by a capitalist.”

Capitalist means “a person whose act of saving creates jobs for others and benefits

society.”

Pulsar means “a dense neutron star with a high rate of spin.”

eo PN

ANPWdNe

Exercise 3.6 In each case, is the definition intensional or extensional?

A mother is a female parent. Courage: Seattle School Superintendent John Stanford battling cancer. Sulky means “sullen.”

A substance is soluble if it dissolves when it is placed in water.

A politician is someone such as Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, or Patty Murray. To say that substance X is harder than substance Yis to say that X can be used to scratch Y, but Y cannot be used to scratch X.

Classy: the character of Buddy Love in the Jerry Lewis movie The Nutty Professor.

A groovy person is someone like Austin Powers, the international man of mystery. Sphere means “set of points in three-dimensional space equidistant from one point.” 10. Peace is “the absence of violence.” Exercise 3.7

Which rule of definition is violated in each of the following?

PINNAMEYYN

be

. God is a being that is not material, not limited, not visible. A protester is someone who protests.

A depressant is not a stimulant.

A soul is a nonmaterial substance that has no weight, size, or shape. Time is an old gypsy man who never stops on his ceaseless trek through eternity. A human being is a carnivorous animal. Rock music is music that is not jazz, not country, not classical, and not blues.

Religious means obsessively concerned with things that don’t really matter.

9. Peace means the absence of war. 10. Freedom is having nothing left to lose.

QUESTIONS

67

68

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Socrates and the Search for the Right Definition We are examining the nature of definitions in order to better understand why Socrates frequently asked people to define their terms. In Plato’s dialogue the Euthyphro (reprinted in the Interlude following this chapter), Socrates asks his friend Euthyphro to define piety. As you will see, when Euthyphro offers Socrates an extensional definition (“Piety is doing what I am doing”), Socrates rejects it as unhelpful. In Plato’s dialogues, whenever we find Socrates asking for a definition, it is always an intensional definition, rather than an extensional one, that he is seeking. The reason he seeks intensional definitions sheds light on his philosophy in general as well as on the nature of critical thinking. In the Euthyphro, Socrates explains why he is not interested in an extensional definition of piety. It is because he is not looking for specific examples of pious things; rather,

he wants to know the nature of piety in general—the characteristics that all pious

things have in common and that distinguish them from other kinds of things. In general, when Socrates asks for a definition of something X, he is seeking to know the essence, or essential nature, ofan X. This nature would be the properties or characteristics that anything must have if it is an X—and without which it is not an X. Put another way, the nature, or essence, ofan X would be the properties that all Xs have in common

and that distinguish Xs from all other kinds of things.* Intensional definitions convey

such essential information; extensional definitions do not. Socrates sought true intensional definitions because he believed that intensional, and in particular, analytic, definitions give us insight into the real nature of things. Since it was the real nature of things that he sought to know, the definitions he sought were always intensional (and analytic) ones. However, in the case of piety, Socrates sought more than knowledge of the nature of piety. Part of what the Greeks meant by “piety” was moral rightness. In the Euthyphro, Socrates is ultimately seeking to know the characteristics that all good things have in common that make them good, and the properties that all right actions have in common that make them right. This knowl-

edge would give him a criterion of morality—a standard that he could use to sort out

good from bad, and right from wrong, and thus to decide cases of moral conflict. He was seeking, in short, a rational criterion on which to base moral judgments—a “moral compass,” if you will. Put still another way, he was seeking to frame a general theory of the nature of moral rightness. (The structure of moral reasoning is explored in chapter 13.)

QUESTION 2: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? We now turn to the second of Socrates’s favorite questions. An illustration occurs in Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, Plato’s moving record of the last hours of Socrates’s life. As we have seen, Socrates spent his final hours surrounded by a small group of students, family members, and associates. Amazingly, although he will soon drink the fatal hemlock, he is eagerly debating the question of the immortality of the soul! He does what he loves, right up to the last minute.

CHAPTER

3:

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

QUESTIONS

69

Even more remarkable, in the hour or two before he obeys the court order and takes the poison, he gives several complicated and thoughtful arguments for his own view that the soul—the true seat ofa person’s identity—is both immaterial and immortal. Socrates’s last spoken argument is a philosophical case for immortality! One of his arguments, however, does not impress Simmias, who replies, “When I consider the matter either alone or with Cebes, the argument does certainly appear to me, Socrates, to be not sufficient.” His students are not going to cut their teacher any slack, not even as he sits on his deathbed. Nevertheless, Socrates remains true to his method right up to the last minute. He answers Simmias: “I dare say, my friend, that you may be right, but I should like to know in what respect the argument is not sufficient.” Socrates wants to know why his reasoning does not impress. After Simmias replies, Socrates looks around and says with a smile: Simmias has reason on his side; and why do not some one of you who is abler than myself answer him? For there is force in his attack upon me. But perhaps, before we answer him, we had better also hear what Cebes has to say against the argument— this will give us time for reflection, and when both of them have spoken, we may either assent to them if their words appear to be in consonance with the truth, or if not, we may take up the other side, and argue with them. Please to tell me then, Cebes, what was the difficulty which troubled you?? Notice that Socrates is eager to hear why Simmias finds his (Socrates’s) argument “not

sufficient.” He is in effect saying to his friends, “You reject my position. OK. What are your reasons? Give me your best argument.” This is, of course, his second favorite question. An understanding of this Socratic question, and of the nature of an argument, is essential to becoming an accomplished critical thinker. It is time

to look more closely at the nature of an argument.'° Argument

In the simplest possible terms, an argument is “reasons offered in support ofa claim.” In the last chapter, the concept of an argument

was

given a more precise definition, as “one

or more

statements,

called

‘premises, offered as evidence for

the truth of a further statement,

called the ‘conclusion.” Let’s now examine the four parts of this definition: evidence, statement, prem-

ise, conclusion.

Figure 3-2. The School of Athens by Raphael. 1873 woodcut engraving of the famous fresco from the Stanza della Segnatura in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican.

70

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

1. The evidence for a claim is the reason (or reasons) for believing the claim is true (corresponds to reality). For example, some people claim aliens from a distant galaxy have secretly taken over the U.S. government."! Others believe the Earth is actually a hollow sphere (with openings at the poles) and that an advanced civilization secretly inhabits the center of the planet.'* These may be interesting claims, but in controversial matters, a critical thinker first wants to see evidence. Are there any good reasons to believe these exciting claims are true? If not, then why believe them? Many times, after Socrates asked people this second question, they would discover that they actually had no solid evidence for their claims; in modern terms, “They didn’t have a leg to stand on.” This is one of the reasons he concluded that many people are deceiving themselves much of the time. 2. A statement (also called “a proposition”) is “that which is expressed by a declarative sentence.” A declarative sentence is any sentence making a claim that is either true or false. The following sentences are declarative: Carbon is an element. The Moon has craters.

The Wizard of Oz debuted in August 1939.

In each case, a proposition is expressed, and in each case the proposition happens to be

true. The following sentences are not declarative because they do not express claims that are either true or false. What time is it? Thisisa question. A question, or interrogative sentence, is neither true nor false. Ifsome-

one said to you, “What time is it?” it would not be right to reply, “That is true.” Shut the door!

This is a command. A command, or imperative sentence, is neither true nor false. If someone said, “Please shut the door,” it would not be proper to reply, “True.”

Ugh! This is an exclamatory sentence. An exclamation such as this is simply an expression of

an emotion or feeling; it is neither true nor false. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

This is called a performative sentence because a function is performed when the sentence is spoken. However, no proposition is expressed that is either true or false. Although there are exceptions, the sentences making up an argument should normally be declarative in nature, expressing claims (propositions) that are either true or false.

CHAPTER

3.

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

QUESTIONS

3. A premise in an argument is a statement presenting evidence for a conclusion.

Premises are properly expressed using declarative sentences. 4. The conclusion of an argument is the statement said to be supported by the prem-

ises. Conclusions are also properly expressed using declarative sentences.

It is important to note that according to our definition, every argument contains

exactly one conclusion. If a passage contains three conclusions, then it contains three arguments. It is also important to remember that according to our definition, every argument contains one or more premises. It follows that some arguments have only one premise, while others have more than one.

When someone makes a controversial and unsubstantiated claim, ask him or her the Socratic questions: Why do you believe that? What is your evidence? When you make a controversial claim, offer your audience an argument in support of your claim. Back it up!

Sample Arguments The following argument offers just one premise in support of its conclusion: 1. Mary is Sue’s mother. 2. Therefore, Sue is younger than Mary.

Although only one premise doesn't it? The conclusion is then the conclusion must be The following argument

is offered, the conclusion certainly seems well supported, well supported in the following sense: ifthe premise is true, true. offers two premises in support of its conclusion:

1. All whales are mammals. 2. No mammal is a fish. 3. Therefore, no whale is a fish.

The conclusion also seems to be well supported by the premises. Do you agree? Compare this argument: 1. Not one of Ann’s pets is a dog. 2. No dog is a reptile. 3. Thus, not one of Ann’s pets is a reptile. What’s wrong with the reasoning here? Does the conclusion logically follow from the premises?

71

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Exercise 3.8

Consider each of the following statements to be the conclusion of an argument. For

e

each statement, state one or two premises that would support it.

Nw

1

. Some ferrets are pets.

. Jan deserved to win the triathlon. That drink in your hand is probably not good for your health.

SOPNnNRY

UNIT

a

72

Your car is not worth much money.

You are not treating me respectfully. The war against Ruritania is an unjust war.

The government is violating our rights. The Earth is round. The Sun warms the Earth.

Soap removes dirt.

DETECTING THE FLOW OF AN ARGUMENT: PREMISE AND CONCLUSION INDICATOR WORDS

Have you ever listened to someone presenting an argument when all of a sudden you realized you were lost? You weren’t sure what the person was trying to prove, or you weren't sure what he or she had offered as evidence? Sometimes, when an argument is long or complicated, it is hard to tell which statement is the conclusion and which statements are the premises. In other words, it is hard to follow the flow. This is why premise

and conclusion indicator words are important. A conclusion indicator is a word or phrase

that, in the context of an argument, flags the conclusion. In the following argument, the

word therefore signals the presence of the conclusion:

1. All electrons are negatively charged particles. 2. All negatively charged particles attract positively charged particles. 3. Therefore, all electrons attract positively charged particles.

Incidentally, does the above argument seem to be a good piece of reasoning? Here is one desirable feature of this argument: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

CHAPTER

SOME

therefore so ergo

TYPICAL

hence it follows that thus

CONCLUSION

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

INDICATORS

consequently accordingly asa result

in conclusion this entails that we may conclude that

A premise indicator is a word or phrase that, in the context of an argument, indi-

cates the presence of a premise. In the following argument, the words since and because

identify the premises:

Since all zombies are mindless slaves, and because all mindless slaves lack free wills, it follows necessarily that all zombies lack free wills.

SOME

TYPICAL

PREMISE

INDICATORS

because

since

given that

for one thing for the reason that

may be inferred from as shown by

due to the fact that assuming that

inasmuch as

owing to

as indicated by

Is the zombie argument good reasoning? When presenting an argument, use indicator

words to help your audience follow the flow of your reasoning.

Exercise 3.9 In each case, is the expression a premise or a conclusion indicator? 1. Thus 2. Since

7. Hence 8. Inasmuch as

3. Ergo 4. Because

9. As indicated by 10. Accordingly

S. 6.

11. Seeing that 12. So

For Therefore

QUESTIONS

73

74

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Exercise 3.10 Each of the following passages contains an argument. Identify or list the premises, conclusions, and indicator words in each passage. 1. Government statistics show that it is safer to fly than to drive. Since government statistics are generally reliable, it follows that if you are traveling across the coun-

try this summer, your chance of surviving the trip will be higher if you fly than if

you drive. . According to the moral theory known as “simple ethical egoism” (from ego, the

Latin word for “I”), the only moral obligation anyone has is this: do whatever you

want to do at the moment. However, if everyone followed this principle, the result

would be not only chaotic but morally horrific. Social life would turn into a war of all against all, human relations would disintegrate, and life would be hellish. If a theory has absurd implications, that is a good reason to reject it. Therefore, simple ethical egoism is an absurd theory of ethics. . Simple ethical egoism is a false ethical theory. For if it were true, it would follow that

it is morally acceptable for someone to make a living robbing little old ladies who just cashed their meager Social Security checks (if that is what the robber wants to do at the moment). But upon careful reflection on all the facts, including the interests of everyone involved, robbing little old ladies clearly seems morally wrong. Simple ethical hedonism (from hedon, the Greek word for “pleasure”) is the view

that the only moral obligation is to do whatever brings you pleasure at the moment.

But if simple ethical hedonism is true, then it follows that if someone takes pleasure in robbing little children who are selling lemonade on their neighborhood sidewalk in the summer, then doing so is morally acceptable. But upon cool reflection on all the facts and on the interest of everyone involved, this is clearly morally outrageous, even monstrous. So, simple ethical hedonism has absurd implications

and is a false theory of morality.

. All differences in income and wealth between people are due solely to luck. Since

nobody deserves something if they have it due solely to luck, it follows that all differences in income and wealth are undeserved.

Nobody deserves something if it is due solely to luck. When communism finally arrives at some point in the distant future, those lucky enough to be alive at the time will all be guaranteed by the state a roughly equal income and wealth. Thus, under communism, people will not deserve what they have, for it will ultimately be a matter of luck that they happen to live in a communist society and have equal income and wealth.

7. Justice is giving each person what he or she morally deserves. Each person is equally morally deserving of well-being. Only wealth and income can guarantee wellbeing. So, justice requires an equal distribution of wealth and income for everyone.

8. Eating all your meals at a fast-food restaurant does not automatically make you

gain weight. For ifan ordinary person went to a fast-food joint three times a day for

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

a year and ate one small breakfast sandwich every morning, one small hamburger for lunch each day, and one small hamburger for dinner, and nothing else, he or she

would lose weight.

THE TWO BASIC KINDS OF ARGUMENTS: DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE Logic, as we have stated, is the study of the standards of correct reasoning. Logicians divide all arguments into two broad categories: deductive arguments and inductive arguments. Every argument, if clearly stated, can be classified as either deductive or inductive. A deductive argument is put forward with the aim of proving its conclusion with complete certainty, in such a way that its conclusion must be true if its premises all are

true. The author ofa deductive argument (if sincere) intends to show conclusively, with complete certainty, that the conclusion must be true. An inductive argument, on the other hand, is put forward with a quite different goal in mind: an inductive argument is intended to show that its conclusion is probably or likely true, though not certainly true, if its premises all are true. The author of an inductive argument (if sincere) only aims to establish the intended conclusion with a high degree of probability although not with complete certainty. The following arguments are deductive because each is intended to show conclusively that the conclusion must be true if the premises all are true: 1. All whales are mammals. 2. All mammals are animals. 3. Therefore, certainly all whales must be animals. 1. Dinner will be tacos or dinner will be burritos. 2. It is not the case that dinner will be tacos. 3. Therefore, it is certain we'll have burritos for dinner.

1. If the roof leaks, then the ceiling leaks. 2. If the ceiling leaks, then the carpet gets wet. 3. So, surely if the roof leaks, then the carpet gets wet. In contrast, the following arguments are inductive because each aims to show only that the conclusion is probably, though not certainly, true:

1. In all of recorded history, it has never snowed in Seattle, Washington, in June. 2. Therefore, it is highly probable, though not totally certain, that it won't snow in Seattle next June.

QUESTIONS

75

76

UNIT

1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

1. The Rolling Stones have sold out every concert they've given over the past fifty years. 2. Therefore, it is quite probable that their next concert will sell out. 1. It has been raining for the past ten days. 2. All the weather reports predict more rain tomorrow. 3. Therefore, although it is not absolutely certain, it is reasonable to conclude that it will rain tomorrow. Deductive and Inductive Indicator Words If you are presenting an argument, and you want to make it crystal clear that your argument is deductive, place words in the conclusion that indicate the presence of deductive

reasoning. Words such as must, necessarily, certainly, for sure, definitely, and absolutely

indicate that you aim to conclusively establish your conclusion, in such a way that the conclusion must be true if the premises all are true. Notice that each deductive argument just given contains a deductive indicator word in its conclusion. If you want to make it clear that your argument is inductive, use words in the conclusion that indicate the presence of inductive reasoning. Words such as “probably,” “likely,”

and “it is reasonable to conclude” suggest that you intend your argument to show that the conclusion is probably, but not certainly, true, if the premises all are true. Each of the inductive arguments just given contains an inductive indicator word in its conclusion.

Exercise 3.11 Is the argument deductive or inductive?

1. A burglar broke into the Gotrocks home and stole the family jewels. Witnesses reported seeing an unusually tall man with long, red hair and a long, red beard

running from the residence at about the time of the burglary. Joe Blow’s fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. Hair matching Joe’s hair was found at the crime scene. Joe Blow is unusually tall and has long, red hair and a long, red

beard. The day after the crime, Joe tried to hawk the Gotrocks jewels at the local pawn shop, claiming he found them in the street. Since no other suspects fit the

evidence, the best explanation is that Joe is the burglar. It is therefore very likely Joe is the burglar. 2. If time has no beginning, then the present moment of time is the endpoint of an

infinite series of past moments of time. But it is impossible that an infinite series of things has an actual endpoint. Therefore, there must have been a first moment of time.

3. Everything has a cause. The universe is a thing. Therefore, the universe must have

a cause.

CHAPTER

4.

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

Ifan all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God exists, then evil (defined as “any kind of suffering”) does not exist, for an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being would not allow any suffering to exist. But the world contains massive amounts of suffering. Therefore, it is certain that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God does not exist. . Itis true today, right now, that tomorrow either you will eat a burrito for lunch or you will not eat a burrito for lunch. If it is true (right now) that tomorrow you will eat a burrito for lunch, then tomorrow at lunch you must eat a burrito; you cannot do anything else but that, for nobody can alter the truth. On the other hand, if it is true (right now) that tomorrow you will not eat a burrito for lunch, then tomorrow

at lunch you won’t and can’t eat a burrito, for nobody can change the truth. Either way then, what you do tomorrow at lunch has already been determined or fixed ahead of time, and there is nothing you can do about it; there is no way you can deviate from what must be. But this reasoning applies to every moment of the future. Therefore, it follows with complete certainty that the future has already

been fixed or determined and nobody has free will. Drug X cures heart disease in monkeys. But monkey hearts are similar in many

relevant ways to human hearts. Therefore, drug X will probably cure heart disease in humans.

We polled one thousand people at random around the city of Centerville and asked them if they approve or disapprove of the job the mayor is doing. We

questioned people from all walks of life, all ethnic and racial groups, and all genders, at all times of the day. Over 80 percent said they disapprove. Therefore,

it is very likely that most citizens of Centerville disapprove of the job the mayor is doing.

. We've observed one hundred possums at random, and each one had a short, pointy tail. Thus, it is probable that the next possum we observe will have a short, pointy tail. Ifit rains, then the roof gets wet. But it is raining. Therefore, certainly the roof must be getting wet. 10. Under the test conditions, blue litmus paper only turns red in the presence of an acid; never otherwise. We just dipped blue litmus paper into the unknown substance S, and the paper turned red. Therefore, substance S must be an acid. ll. If Sue’s hypothesis is true, then we can expect to see the solution turn green when we add boric acid to it. We just added the acid, and the solution turned green. Therefore, Sue’s hypothesis is probably true. 12. Four students got sick after lunch. The health department interviewed the students, and hot dogs were the only item they all ate in common. Therefore, the cause

of the illness was probably the hotdogs or something in the hotdogs.

13. 14.

Some cats are pets. Therefore, necessarily, some pets are cats.

Ten students ate lunch in the school cafeteria, and five got sick. All ten students ate the same things for lunch with one exception: The five who got sick all ate salad, but

the five who did not get sick did not eat the salad. The salad was the only difference

QUESTIONS

77

78

UNIT1

WHAT

1S.

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

between the two sets of cases. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that something in the salad caused the outbreak. One thousand people were interviewed about their eating habits and their history of cancer. The research found that the more tomatoes a person eats, all else equal, the less the chance of stomach cancer. Therefore, it is likely that eating tomatoes

reduces one’s risk of stomach cancer.

16.

Every meson is composed of a particle called a “quark” and a particle called an “antiquark.” (Mesons are a type of subatomic particle.) Anything composed of particles is composite. So, every meson must be composite.

17. All cats are mammals. No mammals are reptiles. So, necessarily, no cats are reptiles. 18. Some cats are pets. All cats are mammals. So, certainly one or more mammals must

be pets. 19. No birds are mammals. Therefore, certainly no mammals are birds.

20.

21.

Life requires the presence of water. No water in any significant quantity has yet been

found on the Moon. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that life does not exist on the Moon. Sodium burns with a yellow flame. This metal is burning with a yellow flame. Furthermore, the instructor told us the metal is sodium. Therefore, the metal is

probably sodium.

22. All the evidence says that fusion cannot take place at room temperature. This reaction looks a bit like fusion, but it is occurring at room temperature. Consequently, this reaction is probably not fusion. 23. Annis taller than Pete. Therefore, Pete is certainly shorter than Ann. 24. Ann is Pete’s mother. Therefore, Ann must be older than Pete. 25. Annis taller than Beth. Beth is taller than Ed. Therefore, Ann must be taller than Ed. 26. Ed is twenty-eight years old. Therefore, certainly Ed is older than twenty-one. 27. Omaha is in Nebraska. Nebraska is in the United States. Therefore, quite certainly Omaha is in the United States.

Valid versus Invalid Deductive Arguments Ifa deductive argument succeeds in its aim and shows that its conclusion must be true if its premises are true, it is called a valid deductive argument (or a “valid argument” for short). Thus, a valid deductive argument has this feature: if its premises all are true, then its conclusion must be true. If a deductive argument fails to succeed in its aim, and thus does not show that its conclusion must be true ifits premises are true, it is called an invalid deductive argument (or an “invalid argument” for short). Thus, an invalid deductive argument has this feature: it is not the case that its conclusion must be true ifits premises all are true.

CHAPTER

3:

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

The following arguments are all valid. Using your natural reasoning abilities, think each argument through and verify that each is indeed valid:

1. All cats are mammals. 2. All mammals are animals. 3. Therefore, certainly all cats are animals. 1. If it rains, then the roof gets wet. 2. It is raining. 3. Therefore, the roof must be getting wet. 1. If it rains, then the roof gets wet. 2. If the roof gets wet, then the attic gets wet. 3. Therefore, if the roof gets wet, then certainly the attic gets wet. Each of the deductive arguments just given is valid because in each case, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. However, unlike the arguments above, each of the following deductive arguments is invalid:

1. All cats are mammals. 2. All dogs are mammals. 3. So, surely all cats are dogs.

1. Every time it rains, the roof gets wet. 2. The roof is wet. 3. So, it must be raining. 1. Some cats are pets. 2. Some pets are dogs. 3. So, certainly some cats are dogs. Each of these deductive arguments is invalid because in each example, it is not the case that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

Exercise 3.12 Each of the following arguments is deductive. In each case, use your natural reasoning abilities to decide whether the argument is valid or invalid. 1. Chris is shorter than Ed, and Ed is shorter than Pat. So, Pat must be taller than Chris.

2. All comedians are persons. Jose

is a person. So, Jose must be a comedian.

QUESTIONS

79

80

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

. Some cars are painted fluorescent purple, and some cars are made by Honda. Therefore, some Hondas must be painted fluorescent purple. All of Sue’s pets are birds. Some birds are blue. Therefore, some of Sue’s pets must

be blue.

. Ifthere is a drought, the crop will be small. The crop will be small. So, it is abso-

lutely certain there will be a drought.

Sodium burns with a yellow flame. This material is burning with a yellow flame. Hence, this material absolutely must be sodium. If Smith wins, then Jones will be happy. However, Smith won't win. Thus, it is cer-

tain that Jones won't be happy.

. Some members of the Chan family are historians. No historians live in the town of Midvale. So, certainly at least some members of the Chan family do not live in Midvale.

Jones is over eighty years old. Smith is not as old as Jones. Therefore, Smith must

be less than eighty. 10. If the Chicago Bulls win, then Ed will win ten bucks. The Chicago Bulls will win. So, with certainty we can conclude that Ed will win ten bucks. ll. We will either skip breakfast, or we will skip lunch. But we won't skip breakfast. So, it necessarily follows that we will skip lunch. 12. If Sue wins, then Ed will be happy. If Ed is happy, then George will be happy. It

follows with certainty that if Sue wins, then George will be happy. 13. A Malaysian Airlines commercial jetliner is missing near the coast of Vietnam.

The Vietnamese Air Force just reported spotting two large oil slicks close to where the plane was last seen. The two oil slicks are said to be “consistent” with the kinds that would be produced by a crashed passenger jet. Therefore, it is certain the jet crashed off the coast of Vietnam.

Strong versus Weak Inductive Arguments If an inductive argument succeeds in its aim and shows that its conclusion is probably, though not certainly, true if its premises are all true, it is called a strong inductive argu-

ment (or a “strong argument” for short). Thus, a strong inductive argument has this feature: if its premises all are true, then its conclusion is probably or likely true, though not certain. (For now, let us say that a conclusion is probably true if it is more than 50 percent likely.) Ifan inductive argument fails to succeed in its aim, and thus does not show that its conclusion is probably (though not certainly) true if its premises all are true, it is called a weak inductive argument (or a “weak argument” for short). Thus, a weak inductive argument has this feature: it is not the case that ifits premise all are true, then its conclusion is probably, though not certainly, true.

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

The following inductive arguments are all strong. Using your natural reasoning abilities, think each argument through and verify that each is indeed an inductively strong argument:

1. There has never been a large blizzard in Panama City, Panama. 2. Therefore, there probably will not be a large blizzard in Panama City this summer.

1. About 90 percent of the trees in Centerville are deciduous. 2. This is a picture of a tree in Centerville. 3. Therefore, the tree in the picture is probably deciduous. 1. We've eaten at Grinders Hot Sands hundreds of times, and the food has always been terrific. 2. We are eating there tonight. 3. Therefore, it is likely the food tonight will be terrific. Each of these inductive arguments is strong because in each case, if the premises are true, then the conclusion probably is true. However, each of the following inductive arguments is clearly weak:

1. It has been raining for three days in a row now. 2. Therefore, it will probably be raining a month from now when we go on our hike. 1. Some cats are feral. 2. Dexter is a cat. 3. So, Dexter is very probably feral. Each of the inductive arguments just given is weak because in each example, it is not the case that if the premises all are true, then the conclusion is probably true.

Exercise 3.13 Each of the following arguments is inductive. In each case, use your natural reasoning abilities to decide whether the argument is strong or weak.

1. Almost every week for the past year Martha has gone to Gorditos and ordered a burrito. She just left for Gorditos. Therefore, it is probable she will order a burrito. 2. The last time I went to Spud’s Fish ‘n’ Chips with Ed, he ordered extra tartar. We are

going to eat there again tonight. Hence, Ed will likely order extra tartar tonight.

QUESTIONS

81

82

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

. Professor Jones came down with bronchitis last quarter. Thus, he’ll probably get bronchitis this quarter. . Over the past month, Fred has eaten eight hamburgers at Burgerville. All eight were

good. He plans to have a burger there tonight. So, his burger will likely be good. . This season the Roosevelt Roughriders have won twenty games and lost just one. The Nathan Hale team has won only two out of twenty games. Therefore, tonight

when Roosevelt plays Hale, Roosevelt will probably win. . Every week for the past year, Wimpy has borrowed money to buy a hamburger at Burger Master. So, this week, he will probably borrow money to buy a burger at Burger Master.

7. Every time Pat drinks coffee, she gets hives. She never gets hives otherwise. Therefore, drinking coffee probably causes her hives.

. Monkeys and humans have very similar cardiovascular systems. Drug X improves cardiovascular functioning in monkeys. Therefore, drug X probably improves car-

diovascular functioning in humans. . Four students got sick after lunch. Each ate different items for lunch, except for one

thing: all four students ate the salad. Therefore, the salad, or something in the salad, probably caused the illness. . One thousand people were randomly selected and polled as they came out of

church last Sunday at churches all over Seattle. Each person was asked if he or she believed in God. Ninety-nine percent answered “yes.” Thus, it is probable that 99 percent of all Seattleites believe in God.

In this section, you have been using your natural reasoning abilities to evaluate deductive arguments as valid or invalid and to evaluate inductive arguments as strong or weak. In unit 4 we will examine some of the methods discovered by logicians to help us evaluate deductive and inductive arguments with more precision and confidence. Some of the methods devised by logicians for the evaluation of deductive and inductive arguments are as precise as anything in mathematics, as you will see.

Exercise 3.14 For extra practice applying the concepts of validity, invalidity, strength, and weakness, refer back to Exercise 3.11 and critically evaluate each argument.

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

Make Your Case! Five Steps to Writing an Argumentative Essay Presenting an argument in essay form can be a challenging task; however, the following

advice can help you follow through. The ability to construct a good argument in support of a claim or thesis, in writing, is one of the most valuable critical thinking skills of

all. It is also a skill that is in demand in numerous careers and in many areas of life today. Businesses and organizations always need people who are skilled at presenting a good case. This is also a skill that is highly valued in the field of law, of course.

Step 1. First, state your thesis—the position you intend to support—as clearly and as exactly as you can. This will be the conclusion of your argument. Define your terms to avoid ambiguity and vagueness. Your goal now will be to back up this statement with premises that adequately support it. Step 2. Next, ask yourself, What are my reasons for believing that my conclusion is true? What evidence will I offer in support of my conclusion? You will probably need to look up information to complete this step. (The task of identifying reliable sources of information is examined in Unit 3.) For now, you will probably be relying on common sense or on easily accessible sources. List your reasons as clearly and succinctly as you can. When needed, define your terms to avoid ambiguity and vagueness. These will be the premises of your argument.

Step 3. You now have a rough outline of your main argument. Continue by asking yourself: If a thoughtful person were to disagree with me, what might he or she say in response to my argument? How might he or she object? There are two ways someone might criticize your argument: (a) by arguing that one of your premises is false; and (b) by arguing that the reasoning within your argument is not good reasoning. State a strong objection to your argument, one an informed person might make. As you formu-

late the objection, keep in mind the principles of charity and faithfulness. Let us pause to examine these important rules of argument. The Principles of Charity and Faithfulness The principle of charity advises us to treat the opposing view with respect when stating an objection to our argument. This means two things. First, present the opposing view

in its best light, as logically and clearly as possible. Don’t try to make it look stupid or half-baked! Assume the advocate of the opposing view is a logical person, and try to present his or her logic in a reasonable way. Second, don’t insult, ridicule, or make fun of the

advocates of the opposing view. To do so is to commit the ad hominem fallacy (attacking the person rather than his or her argument). The only thing that should matter in this context is the quality of the reasoning at issue, not the character of the advocates of that reasoning. (Logical fallacies like the ad hominem are the topic of chapter 8.)

The principle of faithfulness advises us to present the opposing view accurately. It is easy to knock down someone’s view when that view has been presented in an incomplete or distorted way. (To do so is to commit the straw man fallacy—see chapter 8.)

QUESTIONS

83

84

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Gary Seay and Susanna Nuccetelli put the principle this way: “[T]ry to set out as carefully as possible exactly what the arguer meant to say.” The more charitably and faithfully you present an opposing view to your own, the better your argument.

Step 4. Next ask, How would I defend my position against this objection? How would Ianswer this objection to my view? State your reply to the objection as clearly and succinctly as possible. Step 5. Your argument now exists in rough outline form. It is time to flesh it out. (Your instructor may want you to turn in your outline before you fill it in.) Now expand your outline into an essay with complete sentences, so that your reasoning flows from start to finish. Add an introduction to the beginning to set the context, provide definitions as needed, explain important ideas, insert indicator words to help your reader follow the flow, and so on.

As you fill in your argument, keep in mind the following suggestions. Start with Common Ground In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates always begins his argument with premises that the other person already accepts. Statements accepted by all sides to an argument can be called “common ground.” If you begin with premises the other person does not accept, your argument may not go very far. Start your premises with common ground if you want to

be effective when you reason with others. State Your Case Recall that arguments are best expressed with declarative sentences that state true or false claims.

Use Indicator Words to Mark the Flow of Your Reasoning Keep in mind that unless an argument is very simple, it can be hard to follow the reasoning unless indicator words are present. Help your readers or listeners follow the flow of your reasoning by marking your premises and conclusion with well-placed indicator words. Support Your Thesis Your ultimate goal is to provide adequate logical support for your thesis. Supply premises that adequately back up the conclusion of your argument and give others a good reason to suppose your conclusion is true. (In unit 4, we will examine numerous ways to strengthen an argument.)

A Concluding Reflection: Socratize It! When we discuss serious ideas with others, the conversation sometimes veers off course and onto an irrelevant tangent. Other times the discussion ends up in the ridiculous, or in the mundane. When this happens, ask Socratic questions that get the conversation

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

back on track. When people are asked a difficult question, they sometimes change the subject to avoid the topic or to avoid having to think hard. We have all had such experiences. (And haven't we all been guilty at times of evading critical thinking?) In such cases, you can help move the conversation forward by asking questions Socrates would have asked, starting with his two favorite ones: What do you mean by that? What is

your evidence? Listen thoughtfully to the answers others give—they just may have insights you had never thought of. Listening is an important component of critical thinking. But don’t be afraid to contribute—you may have insights they have never thought of. If someone is having trouble communicating clearly, don’t talk over him or her; be charitable and help the person clarify the point before proceeding. After you get to

know Socrates, you may find yourself thinking at times, What would Socrates say? In

sum, when a discussion bogs down or veers off track, help everyone present: Socratize it!

Exercise 3.15 Writing Module: State Your Case! Pick a topic you feel passionate about—perhaps something to do with politics, morality, current events, or religion—anything that matters to you. Write an argumentative

essay on the topic, following the five steps explained above. The length of your essay will be determined by your instructor. Give your readers good reasons to believe that your thesis is true. In short, make your case! Exercise 3.16 Locate the “Letters to the Editor” section of your local newspaper, and select a letter that contains an interesting argument. Summarize the argument in your own words, as

faithfully to the original as possible. Did the writer present a good argument? Why or why not? If you do not think the writer presented a good argument, explain how the argument could be improved. Exercise 3.17 We probably do not understand an idea very well if we cannot explain it in our own words.

CO PNAMEYN

Demonstrate your understanding by answering these questions in your own words. What What What How What

is an argument? is a premise? is a conclusion? is truth defined in this chapter? is a declarative sentence?

What is an interrogative sentence? What is an imperative sentence?

What is an exclamatory sentence? What is a conclusion indicator word? What is a premise indicator word?

QUESTIONS

85

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

Exercise 3.18 True or false?

Bed re

UNIT

nn

86

Every argument has exactly one conclusion. Every argument has at least two premises.

When reasoning is put into words, the result is an argument. As the word argument is used in critical thinking contexts, two people yelling at each other would qualify as an argument. Every argument is deductive or inductive. A deductive argument aims to show that its conclusion must be true if its premises are all true. An inductive argument aims to show that its conclusion is probably true, but not certain, if its premises are all true. The presence of the word must in the conclusion indicates deductive reasoning. The presence of the word probably in the conclusion indicates inductive reasoning. The presence of the word necessarily in the conclusion indicates inductive reasoning. The presence of the word likely in the conclusion indicates deductive reasoning. The word so is a conclusion indicator. The word thus is a conclusion indicator. The word for is a premise indicator. The word because is a premise indicator. The word since is a conclusion indicator. Some arguments are both deductive and inductive at the same time. The word ergo is a premise indicator.

10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 1S. 16. 17. 18. 19. The principle of charity urges us to donate money to those in need. 20. The principle of faithfulness urges us to present opposing views accurately when we must summarize them.

Exercise 3.19 Choose the best answer.

1. Which of the following is not a premise indicator? a. because b. therefore c.

since

d. for 2. Which of the following is not a conclusion indicator? a. therefore b. thus c.

since

d.

ergo

CHAPTER

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

TWO

FAVORITE

3. Which of the following is a premise indicator? a. because b. therefore c. thus d. henceforth 4. Which of the following is a conclusion indicator? a. because b. thus c. also d. for

S. Every argument includes aogtpPoaage

at least two premises at least one premise

a

two conclusions exactly one conclusion both b and d deductive argument aims to show that the opposing view is absurd the conclusion might be true if the premises are true the conclusion must be true if the premises are true the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true 7. An inductive argument aims to show that

a.

the opposing view is simply unbelievable

b. c. d.

the conclusion might be true if the premises are true the conclusion must be true if the premises are true the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true

Exercise 3.20

More ideas for critical thinking-based argumentative essays.

1. Choose an issue that you feel strongly about. State your position. Next, answer the

two questions frequently asked by Socrates: What exactly do you mean by that? Why do you believe that is true? 2. Create a fictional Socratic dialogue of your own in which (a) Socrates travels to the present time and meets a famous contemporary figure; (b) the two discuss an issue of importance; and (c) through carefully chosen questions, Socrates helps the person discover his or her own error or lack of knowledge. For a sample of a Socratic dialogue, see the Interlude “Socrates at Work” in this book. 3. Look in a newspaper or magazine and choose an editorial or a letter to the editor that interests you. Summarize the argument presented by the writer. Do you agree or disagree? Why? State your reasoning.

QUESTIONS

87

88

UNIT

1

IS CRITICAL

WHAT

4.

THINKING?

Go to the Huffington Post, Townhall.com, or some other website that contains political arguments. Find an argument that interests you and critically evaluate it

in light of what you have learned in this chapter. Is the argument a good one? Does

it prove its point? What objections could be lodged against one of the premises?

NOTES L From Plato,

Euthyphro, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Each of Plato’s dialogues is named after either a key character or central concept in the dialogue. The Greek word pious also included connotations of holiness and religious obligation, but for our purposes, “moral rectitude” will do. The possibility of universal justice coming into conflict with the demands of filial piety was much discussed in the ancient world by the Greeks and by others as well. It was a theme of the major tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles; it was also debated by ancient Chinese and Indian philosophers. In chapter 8 we will identify logical fallacies (errors in reasoning) that may result when words are used with shifting meanings.

David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu Enterprises, 2013), 97.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. Quoted in Arthur DiQuattro, “Liberal Theory and the Idea of Communist Justice,” American Political Science Review 92, no. 1 (March 1998), 89. Diogenes, a contemporary of Socrates and Plato, is the founder of the school of thought known as “cynicism.” Like Socrates, he claimed to be a doctor of the soul, but Plato described Diogenes as

10.

“Socrates gone mad.” Plato and Diogenes were philosophical opponents. To oversimplify, the cynics rejected social convention and sought to live according to nature rather than according to human rules or conventions. Essence can also be explained in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. To state the essence of an Xis to state the necessary and sufficient conditions for anything to be an X. Translation by Benjamin Jowett. Questions about the existence and nature of the soul are part of the branch of philosophy known as the “philosophy of mind.” Three excellent introductions to this fascinating field of thought are John Searle, Mind: A Brief Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.); Edward Feser, Philosophy of Mind: A Beginner’s Guide (New York: One World Books, 2007); and David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search ofa Fundamental Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

11.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke.

12. 13.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth and http://www.hollowearththeory.com.

Gary Seay and Susanna Nuccetelli, How to Think Logically, 2nd ed. (New York: Pearson Publishers,

2012), 75.

CHAPTER

KEY TERMS

ambiguous conclusion conclusion indicator deductive argument invalid deductive argument valid deductive argument definition extensional definition factual disagreement inductive argument

3

ON

SOCRATES’S

intensional definition necessary condition premise premise indicator principle of charity principle of faithfulness sufficient condition vague verbal disagreement

strong inductive argument

weak inductive argument

INTERNET ON

THE

RESOURCES

ART

OF

DEFINING

WORDS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions

ON THE NATURE

OF AN ARGUMENT:

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

ON CREATING

A GOOD

ARGUMENT:

http://www.roanestate.edu/owl/argument.html http://homeworktips.about.com/od/essaywriting/a/argument.htm http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/arguments.html

EXAMPLES

OF NONARGUMENTS:

http://www.wordig.com/definition/Nonargument

TWO

FAVORITE

QUESTIONS

89

Interlude Socrates at Work: Part One The Euthyphro

by Plato

THIS TRANSLATION of the Euthyphro was produced by the great nineteenthcentury Plato scholar Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893), who also taught theology at Oxford University and served as Master of Balliol College, Oxford. I have interspersed comments along the way to help provide context and to help you follow the logical flow of the discussion. Recall that most of the Platonic dialogues are named after a chief dramatic character. Euthyphro was obviously a friend of Socrates’s. He may also have been a priest who offered sacrifices at one of the temples in Athens. Little more is known about him than this.' The opening scene is set on the steps of a courthouse in downtown Athens. Euthyphro: Why have you left the Lyceum, Socrates? And what are you doing in the Porch of King Archon? Surely you cannot be concerned in a suit before the King, like myself? Comment: The King Archon was the judge in charge of religious cases, and the location of this scene is the porch of the religious courtroom, located on the northwest corner of the agora in downtown Athens. Socrates will soon be standing trial for his life on this

very spot.”

Socrates: Not in a suit, Euthyphro; impeachment is the word which the Athenians use. Euthyphro: What? I suppose that someone has been prosecuting you, forI cannot believe that you are the prosecutor of another. Socrates: Certainly not. Euthyphro: Then someone else has been prosecuting you? Socrates: Yes. Euthyphro: And who is he? Socrates: A young man who is little known, Euthyphro; and I hardly know him: his name is Meletus, and he is of the deme of Pitthis. Perhaps you may remember his appearance; he has a beak, and long straight hair, and a beard which is ill grown. Euthyphro: No, I do not remember him, Socrates. But what is the charge which he brings against you? 90

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Socrates: What is the charge? Well, a very serious charge, which shows a good deal of character in the young man, and for which he is certainly not to be despised. He says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who are their corruptors. I fancy that he must be a wise man, and seeing that I am the reverse of a wise man,

he has found me out, and is going to accuse me of corrupting his young friends. And of this our mother the state is to be the judge. Of all our political men he is the only one who seems to me to begin in the right way, with the cultivation of virtue in youth; like a good husbandman, he makes the young shoots his first care, and clears away us who are the destroyers of them. This is only the first step; he will afterwards attend to the elder branches; and if he goes on as he has begun, he will be a very great public benefactor. Euthyphro: I hope that he may; butI rather fear, Socrates, that the opposite will turn out to be the truth. My opinion is that in attacking you he is simply aiming a blow at the foundation of the state. But in what way does he say that you corrupt the young? Socrates: He brings a wonderful accusation against me, which at first hearing excites surprise: he says that I am a poet or maker of gods, and that I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones; this is the ground of his indictment. Euthyphro: I understand, Socrates; he means to attack you about the familiar sign which occasionally, as you say, comes to you. He thinks that you are a neologian, and he is going to have you up before the court for this. He knows that such a charge is readily received by the world, as I myself know too well; for when I speak in the assembly about divine things, and foretell the future to them, they laugh at me and think me a madman. Yet every word that I say is true. But they are jealous of us all; and we must be brave and go at them.

Comment: A neologian is someone who invents new gods, from the Greek word neo for new” and logos for “word,” or “the universal reason underlying the cosmos.

Socrates: Their laughter, friend Euthyphro, is not a matter of much consequence. For a man may be thought wise; but the Athenians, I suspect, do not much trouble themselves about him until he begins to impart his wisdom to others, and then for some reason or other, perhaps, as you say, from jealousy, they are angry. Euthyphro: I am never likely to try their temper in this way. Socrates: I dare say not, for you are reserved in your behavior, and seldom impart your wisdom. But I have a benevolent habit of pouring out myself to everybody, and would even pay for a listener, and I am afraid that the Athenians may think me too talkative. Now if, as I was saying, they would only laugh at me, as you say that they laugh at you, the time might pass gaily enough in the court; but perhaps they may be in earnest, and then what the end will be you soothsayers only can predict. Euthyphro: I dare say that the affair will end in nothing, Socrates, and that you will win your cause; and I think that I shall win my own. Socrates: And what is your suit, Euthyphro? are you the pursuer or the defendant?

PART

ONE

91

92

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Euthyphro: I am the pursuer. Socrates: Of whom? Euthyphro: You will think me mad when I tell you. Socrates: Why, has the fugitive wings? Euthyphro: Nay, he is not very volatile at his time of life. Socrates: Who is he? Euthyphro: My father. Socrates: Your father? My good man! Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: And of what is he accused? Euthyphro: Of murder, Socrates. Socrates: By the powers, Euthyphro! how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth. A man must be an extraordinary man, and have made great strides in wisdom, before he could have seen his way to bring such an action. Euthyphro: Indeed, Socrates, he must. Socrates: I suppose that the man whom your father murdered was one of your relatives—clearly he was; for if he had been a stranger you would never have thought of prosecuting him. Euthyphro: I am amused, Socrates, at your making a distinction between one who is a relation and one who is not a relation; for surely the pollution is the same in either case, if you knowingly associate with the murderer when you ought to clear yourself and him by proceeding against him. The real question is whether the murdered man has been justly slain. If justly, then your duty is to let the matter alone; but if unjustly, then even if the murderer lives under the same roof with you and eats at the same table, proceed against him. Now the man who is dead was a poor dependent of mine who worked for us as a field laborer on our farm in Naxos, and one day in a fit of drunken passion he got into a quarrel with one of our domestic servants and slew him. My father bound him hand and foot and threw him into a ditch, and then sent to Athens to ask of a diviner what he should do with him. Meanwhile he never attended to him and took no care about him, for he re-

garded him as a murderer; and thought that no great harm would be done even if he did die. Now this was just what happened. For such was the effect of cold and hunger and chains upon him, that before the messenger returned from the diviner, he was dead. And my father and family are angry with me for taking the part of the murderer and prosecuting my father. They say that he did not kill him, and that if he did, [the] dead

man

was but a murderer, and I ought not to take any

notice, for that a son is impious who prosecutes a father. Which shows, Socrates,

how little they know what the gods think about piety and impiety. Socrates: Good heavens, Euthyphro! And is your knowledge of religion and of things pious and impious so very exact, that, supposing the circumstances to be as you state them, you are not afraid lest you too may be doing an impious thing in bringing an action against your father?

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Comment: The theme of filial piety coming into conflict with universal justice was a much-debated topic in the ancient world. It was the subject of the major Greek tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and the same theme was discussed in other ancient cultures as well. For example, this was a point of contention between the Confucians and the Mohists in classical China.

Euthyphro: The best of Euthyphro, and that which distinguishes him, Socrates, from other men, is his exact knowledge of all such matters. What should I be good for without it? Socrates: Rare friend! I think that I cannot do better than be your disciple. Then before the trial with Meletus comes on I shall challenge him, and say thatI have always had a great interest in religious questions, and now, as he charges me with rash imaginations and innovations in religion, I have become your disciple. You, Meletus, as I shall say to him, acknowledge Euthyphro to be a great theologian, and sound in his opinions; and if you approve of him you ought to approve of me, and not have me into court; but if you disapprove, you should begin by indicting him who is my teacher, and who will be the ruin, not of the young, but of the old; that is to say, of myself whom

he instructs, and of his old father whom

he admonishes

and chastises. And if Meletus refuses to listen to me, but will go on, and will not

shift the indictment from me to you, I cannot do better than repeat this challenge in the court. Comment: This passage is an example of what is often called “Socratic irony.” What is irony? You are being ironic when your words convey a message that is the opposite of their literal meaning. In this passage, Socrates is praising Euthyphro for his wisdom, even as he prepares to help Euthyphro discover his (Euthyphro’s) own ignorance and lack of wisdom. Socrates is flattering Euthyphro here; he is “buttering him up.” Some have found this mannerism of Socrates’s (he does it all the time) to be disingenuous and irritating. However, if the interlocutor takes the praise seriously and believes it, he probably needs to be buttered up before the Socratic cross-examination can begin. If the interlocutor does not take the praise seriously, it serves an innocent purpose as a conversation opener or, as we might say today, an “icebreaker.”* Euthyphro: Yes, indeed, Socrates; and if he attempts to indict me I am mistaken

ifI do not find a flaw in him; the court shall have a great deal more to say to him than to me. Socrates: And I, my dear friend, knowing this, am desirous of becoming your disciple. For I observe that no one appears to notice you—not even this Meletus; but his sharp eyes have found me out at once, and he has indicted me for impiety. And therefore, I adjure you to tell me the nature of piety and impiety, which you said that you knew so well, and of murder, and of other offences against the gods. What are they? Is not piety in every action always the same? and impiety, again—is it not

PART

ONE

93

94

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

always the opposite of piety, and also the same with itself, having, as impiety, one notion which includes whatever is impious?

Comment: The ancient Greek word for “piety” is often translated as “moral rightness.” However, the Greeks meant more than this. Piety also included connotations of holi-

ness and religious obligation. Thus, although everything that is morally required was considered a sacrifice were our purposes, tude.” Notice

duty of piety owed to the gods, the reverse was not true, for prayer and considered acts of piety, but they were not considered moral duties. For however, the meaning of piety can be translated roughly as “moral rectithat Socrates is asking Euthyphro to explain the nature of piety. He wants

to know what it is that makes any act a pious act. Put another way, What is it that all pious acts have in common? Whatis the property or set of properties that distinguishes them from nonpious acts? Socrates, in short, is seeking an analytic, intensional definition.

Euthyphro: To be sure, Socrates. Socrates: And what is piety, and what is impiety? Euthyphro: Piety is doing as I am doing; that is to say, prosecuting anyone who is guilty of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime—whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be—that makes no difference; and not to prosecute

them is impiety. And please to consider, Socrates, what a notable proofI will give you of the truth of my words, a proof which I have already given to others: of the principle, I mean, that the impious, whoever he may be, ought not to go unpunished. For do not men regard Zeus as the best and most righteous of the gods?— and yet they admit that he bound his father (Cronos) because he wickedly devoured his sons, and that he too had punished his own father (Uranus) for a similar reason, in a nameless manner. And yet when I proceed against my father, they are angry with me. So inconsistent are they in their way of talking when the gods are concerned, and when I am concerned.

Comment: This is Euthyphro’s first attempt at defining piety. Notice that he is offering an ostensive, extensional definition. (This was explained in chapter 3.) Does his definition succeed in clarifying the general nature of piety? Does he explain what all pious acts have in common, namely, the property or properties that make them pious acts (rather than nonpious acts)? Is the definition given here the kind of explanation Socrates seeks? Socrates: May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, whyI am charged with impiety— that I cannot [get] away with these stories about the gods? and therefore I suppose that people think me wrong. But, as you who are well informed about them approve of them, I cannot do better than assent to your superior wisdom. What else can I say, confessing as I do, that I know nothing about them? Tell me, for

the love of Zeus, whether you really believe that they are true.

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates; and things more wonderful still, of which the world is in ignorance. Socrates: And do you really believe that the gods fought with one another, and had dire quarrels, battles, and the like, as the poets say, and as you may see represented in the works of great artists? The temples are full of them; and notably the robe of Athene, which is carried up to the Acropolis at the great Panathenaea, is embroidered with them. Are all these tales of the gods true, Euthyphro? Comment: Socrates is now setting up an elenchus. If this were a play and we were in the audience, we would be saying under our breath, “Watch out, Euthyphro!”

Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates; and, as I was saying, I can tell you, if you would like to hear them, many other things about the gods which would quite amaze you. Socrates: I dare say; and you shall tell me them at some other time when I have leisure. But just at present I would rather hear from you a more precise answer, which you have not as yet given, my friend, to the question, What is “piety”? When asked, you only replied, Doing as you do, charging your father with murder. Euthyphro: And what I said was true, Socrates. Socrates: No doubt, Euthyphro; but you would admit that there are many other pious acts? Euthyphro: There are. Socrates: Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious. Do you not recollect that there was one idea which made the impious impious, and the pious pious?

Comment: Socrates is critiquing Euthyphro’s account of piety here. A specific example of one pious thing, Socrates argues, does not explain the general nature or “form” of piety, that is, the common feature that makes all pious things pious. Euthyphro: I remember. Socrates: Tell me what is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look, and by which I may measure actions, whether yours or those of any one else, and then I shall be able to say that such and such an action is pious, such another impious.

Comment: Recall the definition of critical thinking with which we began our study. Astandard is a criterion. Socrates is seeking a criterion by which to measure his thinking. In other words, he is engaging Euthyphro in criterial, or critical, thinking. Euthyphro: I will tell you, if you like. Socrates: I should very much like.

PART

ONE

95

96

UNIT

1

WHATIS

CRITICAL

THINKING?

Euthyphro: Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them.

Comment: This is Euthyphro’s second attempt at defining piety. What kind of definition is he giving here? Will Socrates be satisfied? Socrates: Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer which I wanted. But whether what you say is true or not I cannot as yet tell, although I make no doubt that you will prove the truth of your words. Euthyphro: Of course. Socrates: Come, then, and let us examine what we are saying. That thing or person which is dear to the gods is pious, and that thing or person which is hateful to the gods is impious, these two being the extreme opposites of one another. Was not that said? Euthyphro: It was. Socrates: And well said? Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates, I thought so; it was certainly said. Socrates: And further, Euthyphro, the gods were admitted to have enmities and hatreds and differences? Euthyphro: Yes, that was also said. Socrates: And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum? Euthyphro: True. Socrates: Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring? Euthyphro: Very true. Socrates: And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine? Euthyphro: To be sure. Socrates: But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which

therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences,

you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel? Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates, the nature of the differences about which we quarrel is such as you describe. Socrates: And the quarrels of the gods, noble Euthyphro, when they occur, are of a like nature?

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Euthyphro: Certainly they are. Socrates: They have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil, just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences—would there now?

Euthyphro: You are quite right. Socrates: Does not every man love that which he deems noble and just and good, and hate the opposite of them? Euthyphro: Very true. Socrates: But, as you say, people regard the same things, some as just and others as unjust,—about these they dispute; and so there arise wars and fightings among them. Euthyphro: Very true. Socrates: Then the same things are hated by the gods and loved by the gods, and are both hateful and dear to them? Euthyphro: True. Socrates: And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious? Euthyphro: So I should suppose. Socrates: Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked. For I certainly did not ask you to tell me what action is both pious and impious: but now it would seem that what is loved by the gods is also hated by them. And therefore, Euthyphro, in thus chastising your father you may very likely be doing what is agreeable to Zeus but disagreeable to Cronos or Uranus, and what is acceptable to Hephaestus but unacceptable to Here, and there may be other gods who have similar differences of opinion.

Comment: Has Euthyphro’s second definition satisfied Socrates? Was it what Socrates was seeking? Euthyphro: But I believe, Socrates, that all the gods would be agreed as to the propriety of punishing a murderer: there would be no difference of opinion about that. Socrates: Well, but speaking of men, Euthyphro, did you ever hear any one arguing that a murderer or any sort of evil-doer ought to be let off? Euthyphro: I should rather say that these are the questions which they are always arguing, especially in courts of law: they commit all sorts of crimes, and there is nothing which they will not do or say in their own defense. Socrates: But do they admit their guilt, Euthyphro, and yet say that they ought not to be punished? Euthyphro: No; they do not. Socrates: Then there are some things which they do not venture to say and do: for they do not venture to argue that the guilty are to be unpunished, but they deny their guilt, do they not? Euthyphro: Yes.

PART

ONE

97

98

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Socrates: Then they do not argue that the evil-doer should not be punished, but they argue about the fact of who the evil-doer is, and what he did and when? Euthyphro: True. Socrates: And the gods are in the same case, if as you assert they quarrel about just and unjust, and some of them say while others deny that injustice is done among them. For surely neither God nor man will ever venture to say that the doer of injustice is not to be punished? Euthyphro: That is true, Socrates, in the main.

Socrates: But they join issue about the particulars—gods and men alike; and, if they dispute at all, they dispute about some act which is called in question, and which by some is affirmed to be just, by others to be unjust. Is not that true? Euthyphro: Quite true. Socrates: Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my better instruction and information, what proof have you that in the opinion of all the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is put in chains by the master of the dead man, and dies because he is put in chains before he who bound him can learn from the interpreters of the gods what he ought to do with him, dies unjustly; and that on behalf of such a one a son ought to proceed against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show that all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live. Euthyphro: It will be a difficult task; but I could make the matter very dear indeed to you. Socrates: I understand; you mean to say that I am not so quick of apprehension as the judges: for to them you will be sure to prove that the act is unjust, and hateful to the gods. Euthyphro: Yes indeed, Socrates; at least if they will listen to me. Socrates: But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a good speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were speaking; I said to myself: “Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are not adequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them.” And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety? Euthyphro: Why not, Socrates? Socrates: Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro, there is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly assist you in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a matter for you to consider.

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Euthyphro: Yes, I should say that what all the gods Love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious. Comment: This is Euthyphro’s third attempt at defining piety. Consider it carefully.

Socrates: Ought we to inquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say? Euthyphro: We should inquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of inquiry. Socrates: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

Comment: This passage is the heart of the dialogue. Read it very carefully. Socrates has just raised a blockbuster question. His question is great because it causes Euthyphro to think of things he had never thought about, and it opens up a whole new area of investigation. The question Socrates raises here will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophical questions ever asked. Translated into monotheistic terms, Socrates is asking Euthyphro: Does God command what is right because it is right? Or is something right because God commands it? This question is known in philosophy as the “Euthyphro dilemma.”

Euthyphro: I do not understand your meaning, Socrates. Socrates: I will endeavor to explain: we speak of carrying and we speak of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen. You know that in all such cases there is a difference, and you know also in what the difference lies?

Euthyphro: I think that I understand. Socrates: And is not that which is beloved distinct from that which loves? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: Well; and now tell me, is that which is carried in this state of carrying because it is carried, or for some other reason? Euthyphro: No; that is the reason. Socrates: And the same is true of what is led and of what is seen? Euthyphro: True. Socrates:

And

a thing is not seen

because it is visible,

but conversely, visible

because it is seen; nor is a thing led because it is in the state of being led, or carried because it is in the state of being carried, but the converse of this. And now I think, Euthyphro, that my meaning will be intelligible; and my meaning is, that any state of action or passion implies previous action or passion. It does not become because it is becoming, but it is in a state of becoming because it becomes;

neither does it suffer because it is in a state of suffering, but it is in a

state of suffering because it suffers. Do you not agree?

PART

ONE

99

100

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: Is not that which is loved in some state either of becoming or suffering? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: And the same holds as in the previous instances; the state of being loved follows the act of being loved, and not the act the state.

Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro: is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason? Euthyphro: No, that is the reason. Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: And that which is dear to the gods is loved by them, and is in a state to be loved of them because it is loved of them? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: Then that which is dear to the gods, Euthyphro, is not holy, nor is that which is holy loved of God, as you affirm; but they are two different things. Euthyphro: How do you mean, Socrates? Socrates: I mean to say that the holy has been acknowledged by us to be loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved. Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: But that which is dear to the gods is dear to them because it is loved by them, not loved by them because it is dear to them.

Euthyphro: True. Socrates: But, friend Euthyphro, if that which is holy is the same with that which is dear to God, and is loved because it is holy, then that which is dear to God would

have been loved as being dear to God; but if that which [is] dear to God is dear to him because loved by him, then that which is holy would have been holy because loved by him. But now you see that the reverse is the case, and that they are quite different from one another. For one is of a kind to be loved cause it is loved, and

the other is loved because it is of a kind to be loved. Thus you appear to me, Euthyphro, when I ask you what is the essence of holiness, to offer an attribute only, and not the essence—the attribute of being loved by all the gods. But you still refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness. And therefore, if you please, I will ask you not to hide your treasure, but to tell me once more what holiness or piety really is, whether dear to the gods or not (for that is a matter about which we will not quarrel) and what is impiety? Euthyphro: I really do not know, Socrates, how to express what I mean. For somehow or other our arguments, on whatever ground we rest them, seem to turn round

and walk away from us.

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Socrates: Your words, Euthyphro, are like the handiwork of my ancestor Daedalus; and ifI were the sayer or propounder of them, you might say that my arguments walk away and will not remain fixed where they are placed because I am a descendant of his. But now, since these notions are your own, you must find some other gibe, for

they certainly, as you yourself allow, show an inclination to be on the move. Euthyphro: Nay, Socrates, I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned.

Socrates: Then I must be a greater than Daedalus: for whereas he only made his own inventions to move, I move those of other people as well. And the beauty of it is, that I would

rather not. For I would give the wisdom

of Daedalus, and the

wealth of Tantalus, to be able to detain them and keep them fixed. But enough of this. As I perceive that you are lazy, I will myself endeavor to show you how you might instruct me in the nature of piety; and I hope that you will not grudge your labor. Tell me, then—Is not that which is pious necessarily just? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: And is, then, all which is just pious? Or, is that which is pious all just, but that which is just, only in part and not all, pious? Euthyphro: I do not understand you, Socrates. Socrates: And yet I know that you are as much wiser than I am, as you are younger. But, as I was saying, revered friend, the abundance of your wisdom makes you lazy. Please to exert yourself, for there is no real difficulty in understanding me. What I mean I may explain byan illustration of what! do not mean. The poet (Stasinus) sings— Of Zeus, the author and creator of all these things,

You will not tell: for where there is fear there is also reverence. Now I disagree with this poet. Shall I tell you in what respect? Euthyphro: By all means. Socrates:

I should

not say that where there is fear there is also reverence; for

I am sure that many persons fear poverty and disease, and the not perceive that they reverence the objects of their fear. Euthyphro: Very true. Socrates: But where reverence is, there is fear; for he who has a and shame about the commission of any action, fears and is afraid Euthyphro: No doubt. Socrates: Then we are wrong in saying that where there is fear

like evils, but I do

feeling of reverence of an ill reputation. there is also rever-

ence; and we should say, where there is reverence there is also fear. But there is not always reverence where there is fear; for fear is a more extended

notion, and

reverence is a part of fear, just as the odd is a part of number, and number is a more extended notion than the odd. I suppose that you follow me now? Euthyphro: Quite well. Socrates: That was the sort of question which I meant to raise when I asked whether the just is always the pious, or the pious always the just; and whether

PART

ONE

101

102

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

there may not be notion of which Euthyphro: No, Socrates: Then, part? If you had

justice where there is not piety; for justice is the more extended piety is only a part. Do you dissent? I think that you are quite right. if piety is a part of justice, I suppose that we should inquire what pursued the inquiry in the previous cases; for instance, if you had

asked me what is an even number, and what part of number the even is, I should

have had no difficulty in replying, a number which represents a figure having two equal sides. Do you not agree? Euthyphro: Yes, I quite agree. Socrates: In like manner, I want you to tell me what part of justice is piety or holiness, that I may be able to tell Meletus not to do me injustice, or indict me

for impiety, as I am now adequately instructed by you in the nature of piety or holiness, and their opposites. Euthyphro: Piety or holiness, Socrates, appears to me to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men. Socrates: That is good, Euthyphro; yet still there is a little point about which I should like to have further information. What is the meaning of “attention”? For attention can hardly be used in the same sense when applied to the gods as when applied to other things. For instance, horses are said to require attention, and not every person is able to attend to them, but only a person skilled in horsemanship. Is it not so? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: I should suppose that the art of horsemanship is the art of attending to horses? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: Nor is every one qualified to attend to dogs, but only the huntsman? Euthyphro: True. Socrates: And I should also conceive that the art of the huntsman is the art of attending to dogs? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: As the art of the ox herd is the art of attending to oxen? Euthyphro: Very true. Socrates: In like manner holiness or piety is the art of attending to the gods? That would be your meaning, Euthyphro? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: And is not attention always designed for the good or benefit of that to which the attention is given? As in the case of horses, you may observe that when attended to by the horseman’s art they are benefited and improved, are they not? Euthyphro: True. Socrates: As the dogs are benefited by the huntsman’s art, and the oxen by the art of the ox herd, and all other things are tended or attended for their good and not for their hurt?

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Euthyphro: Certainly, not for their hurt. Socrates: But for their good? Euthyphro: Of course. Socrates: And does piety or holiness, which has been defined to be the art of attending to the gods, benefit or improve them? Would you say that when you do a holy act you make any of the gods better? Euthyphro: No, no; that was certainly not what I meant.

Comment: Why is Euthyphro so certain here? Is it because the thought that a god could be improved upon is abhorrent to his religious sensibility? Socrates: And I, about the nature Euthyphro: You I mean. Socrates: Good: called piety?

Euthyphro, never supposed that you did. I asked you the question of the attention, because I thought that you did not. do me justice, Socrates; that is not the sort of attention which but I must still ask what is this attention to the gods which is

Euthyphro: It is such, Socrates, as servants show to their masters.

Socrates: I understand—a sort of ministration to the gods. Euthyphro: Exactly. Socrates:

Medicine is also a sort of ministration

or service,

having in view the

attainment of some object—would you not say of health? Euthyphro: I should. Socrates: Again, there is an art which ministers to the ship-builder with a view to the attainment of some result? Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates, with a view to the building of a ship. Socrates: As there is an art which ministers to the house-builder with a view to the building of a house? Euthyphro: Yes. Socrates: And now tell me, my good friend, about the art which ministers to the gods: what work does that help to accomplish? For you must surely know if, as you say, you are of all men living the one who is best instructed in religion. Euthyphro: And I speak the truth, Socrates. Socrates: Tell me then, oh tell me—what is that fair work which the gods do by the help of our ministrations? Euthyphro: Many and fair, Socrates, are the works which they do. Socrates: Why, my friend, and so are those of a general. But the chief of them is easily told. Would you not say that victory in war is the chief of them? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: Many and fair, too, are the works of the husbandman, ifI am not mistaken;

but his chief work is the production of food from the earth? Euthyphro: Exactly.

PART

ONE

103

104

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

Socrates: And principal one? Euthyphro: I rately will be how to please the salvation

THINKING?

of the many and fair things done by the gods, which is the chief or have told you already, very tiresome. Let me the gods in word and of families and states,

Socrates, that to learn all these things accusimply say that piety or holiness is learning, deed, by prayers and sacrifices. Such piety is just as the impious, which is unpleasing to

the gods, is their ruin and destruction.

Socrates: I think that you could have answered in much fewer words the chief question which I asked, Euthyphro, if you had chosen. But I see plainly that you are not disposed to instruct me—dearly not: else why, when we reached the point, did you turn, aside? Had you only answered me I should have truly learned of you by this time the nature of piety. Now, as the asker of a question is necessarily dependent

on the answerer,

whither

he leads, I must follow; and

can only ask

again, what is the pious, and what is piety? Do you mean that they are a sort of science of praying and sacrificing? Euthyphro: Yes, I do. Socrates: And sacrificing is giving to the gods, and prayer is asking of the gods? Euthyphro: Yes, Socrates. Socrates: Upon this view, then piety is a science of asking and giving? Euthyphro: You understand me perfectly, Socrates. Socrates: Yes, my friend; the reason is that I am a votary of your science, and give my mind to it, and therefore nothing which you say will be thrown away upon me. Please then to tell me, what is the nature of this service to the gods? Do you mean that we prefer requests and give gifts to them? Euthyphro: Yes, I do. Socrates: Is not the right way of asking to ask of them what we want? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: And the right way of giving is to give to them in return what they want of us. There would be no [use] in an art which gives to any one that which he does not want. Euthyphro: Very true, Socrates. Socrates: Then piety, Euthyphro, is an art which gods and men have of doing business with one another? Euthyphro: That is an expression which you may use, if you like. Socrates: But I have no particular liking for anything but the truth. I wish, however, that you would tell me what benefit accrues to the gods from our gifts. There is no doubt about what they give to us; for there is no good thing which they do not give; but how we can give any good thing to them in return is far from being equally clear. If they give everything and we give nothing, that must be an affair of business in which we have very greatly the advantage of them. Euthyphro: And do you imagine, Socrates, that any benefit accrues to the gods from our gifts?

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

Socrates: But if not, Euthyphro, what is the meaning of gifts which are conferred by us upon the gods? Euthyphro: What else, but tributes of honor; and, as I was just now saying, what pleases them? Socrates: Piety, then, is pleasing to the gods, but not beneficial or dear to them? Euthyphro: I should say that nothing could be dearer. Socrates: Then once more the assertion is repeated that piety is dear to the gods? Euthyphro: Certainly. Socrates: And when you say this, can you wonder at your words not standing firm, but walking away? Will you accuse me of being the Daedalus who makes them walk away, not perceiving that there is another and far greater artist than Daedalus who makes them go round in a circle, and he is yourself; for the argument, as you will perceive, comes round to the same point. Were we not saying that the holy or pious was not the same with that which is loved of the gods? Have you forgotten? Euthyphro: I quite remember. Socrates: And are you not saying that what is loved of the gods is holy; and is not this the same as what is dear to them—do you see? Euthyphro: True. Socrates: Then either we were wrong in former assertion; or, if we were right then,

we are wrong now. Euthyphro: One of the two must be true. Socrates: Then we must begin again and ask, What is piety? That is an inquiry which I shall never be weary of pursuing as far as in me lies; and I entreat you not to scorn me, but to apply your mind to the utmost, and tell me the truth. For, if any man

knows, you are he; and therefore I must detain you, like Proteus, until

you tell. If you had not certainly known the nature of piety and impiety, I am confident that you would never, on behalf of a serf, have charged your aged father with murder. You would not have run such a risk of doing wrong in the sight of the gods, and you would have had too much respect for the opinions of men. I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge. Euthyphro: Another time, Socrates; for I am in a hurry, and must go now. Socrates: Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of piety and impiety; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Euthyphro, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life. The end.

PART

ONE

105

106

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EUTHYPHRO The Euthyphro is one of the aporetic dialogues—those that leave the question unanswered in the end. However, the discussion has not been pointless. By raising critical

questions, Socrates has hopefully gotten Euthyphro to see for himself that although he thought he knew the meaning of piety, he really did not. Socrates has helped Euthyphro discover his own ignorance and think more deeply about the nature of piety as well. Socrates’s questions have also opened up new lines of investigation—for Euthyphro and for all subsequent philosophers. However, in the end, the ball is in Euthyphro’s court. He will now have to think further about piety on his own. Hopefully, if he exam-

ines the matter critically, he will find the truth for himself. Professor Gregory Vlastos imagines someone present during the conversation asking Socrates, “Why didn’t you just tell [Euthyphro] that piety has nothing to do with what he thinks it is? You don’t seem too interested in his soul.” Vlastos imagines Socrates answering thusly: That is what I did try to show him. But I wanted him to find it out for himself. For this purpose it would have been no use telling him his notion of piety was all wrong, which would not even have been true. It was not all wrong, but was a

jumble of right and wrong beliefs, and my job was to show him that he could not

hold both sets at once. If he could see this, he would become his own critic, his own teacher, even his own preacher, for if this man could see the implications of

some things he already believes, I would not have to preach to him that he should

care for his soul as it should be cared for. He would be doing his own preaching to

himself.*

On the Euthyphro Dilemma Nearly every time Euthyphro answers a question, he refers to Zeus or to the gods of the Greek pantheon. If Euthyphro had owned a chariot, and if chariots of the day had sported bumper

stickers, Euthyphro’s bumper

sticker might have been the Greek

equivalent of “WWZD?” This dialogue is a classic example of mythical thinking confronted by critical thinking. Let us paraphrase Socrates’s blockbuster question, raised in response to Euthyphro’s third attempt at a definition, this way: The Euthyphro Dilemma: Does God command (or will) that which is morally right because it is truly right, or is it right because God commands (or wills) it? With this question, Socrates poses a dilemma for anyone who, like Euthyphro, main-

tains that morality is ultimately rooted in the commands of God and nothing more. In philosophy, this position is known as “the divine command theory of morality.” Let us pause for a moment to define this widely held view concerning the origin of morality or “moral rectitude.”

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

The Divine Command Theory of Morality One of the great philosophical questions is this: Where does morality ultimately come from? What is its ultimate basis? Many philosophical theories have been proposed. Some have argued that morality is something we create, something we freely make up, like the rules of a board game. Others have argued that morality is something society

invents to maintain social order. Some have suggested that morality is just our feelings or emotions speaking loudly. In Plato’s Republic, one of Socrates’s associates, the Sophist

Thrasymachus, argues that morality is nothing more than rules that the strong impose on the weak. The British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that moral-

ity is a bargain we negotiate and voluntarily agree to as members of a society, for no reason other than to maintain peace. In the nineteenth century, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) argued that morality is rules the weak impose on the strong. Opposed to all such constructivist theories of morality is the view that moral principles are not something we construct or make up, nor are they a bargain we strike with each other; rather, they are discovered. On the discovery view, morality is part of the universe. It is something we find ourselves under; it is something we experience as imposed on us from above, not as a thing we create. But if we discover moral truth, then where does it come from? What is its origin? Who or what “above us” created it and imposed it on us in the first place? The divine command theory of morality, as traditionally understood, offers a solu-

tion to this great philosophical problem. Morality, claims the theory, ultimately originates in God, specifically, in obligations imposed on us by God’s commands, where God is understood in the traditional way as the supreme being, the ultimate source of all existence. Essentially, morality is the commands of God, written on the heart, or in the intellect, or in some sense made directly knowable to us. This, claim the defenders

of the theory, is the best explanation of the origin of moral obligation. This was Euthyphro’s view,

history.

and

it has been

a common

understanding

of morality

throughout

Back to the Dilemma The dilemma posed by Socrates, as we said, is posed for anyone who holds, with Euthyphro, that morality originates in the commands of God issued from above for our guidance. The problem is this: there appear to be only two ways to respond to the Euthyphro dilemma, but both answers appear to contradict the divine command theory of morality. The two possible answers, called the two “horns” of the dilemma, may be put this way:

Answer 1. God commands what is right because it is truly right. According to this answer, God first recognizes that something is right, and then on that basis commands it. Something is right entirely on its own, before God commands it, and then God sees that it is right and after seeing this, commands it.

PART

ONE

107

108

UNIT1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

Answer 2. Things that are right are right solely because they are commanded by God. According to this answer, God’s command alone makes something right. Something is neither right nor wrong in its own right, before God issues a command. Once the divine command is issued, it becomes right, and it becomes right solely in virtue of the divine

command. Here is an analogy: a new ship has no name until someone in authority

breaks a champagne bottle over it and formally christens it. The act of christening the ship gives it its name.

The Problem with Answer 1 The divine command theory of morality, when it is suitably elaborated, includes, as an essential internal element, the doctrine of divine sovereignty (also called the doctrine of absolute sovereignty). This is the claim that God is the ultimate authority in the universe: nothing stands above God; nothing that is outside of God obligates God or determines God’s commands. It is natural to reason that if God is the supreme being, the ultimate source of all existence, then God is absolutely sovereign. The classical conception of God, which informs the divine command theory of morality as traditionally understood, naturally includes this component, the claim of divine sovereignty. However, answer | appears to contradict the doctrine of absolute sovereignty. For according to answer 1, God wills what is right because it is truly right. In other words, God commands us to do right things because those things are right. Thus, the fact that they are right is God’s reason or basis for commanding them. But this seems to imply that God judges things as right in relation to an independent standard—a criterion above God that even God must follow. This criterion would be an independent standard of moral rightness binding even God. But if there is such an independent standard of morality, then morality is not actually based in God (or in God’s commands) at all. Instead it is based in something above even God, something existing independently of God, something binding even God. If so, then God, like us, is under the commands of morality. In which case God is not universally sovereign and is not the highest moral authority. Even more important, however, it follows that God is not (according to answer 1) really the source of the moral law; rather, the ultimate source of morality is the independent standard that binds even God (since even God judges things in terms of it), in which case morality is not ultimately based in God at all. The Problem with Answer 2 The problem with answer 2 is that it requires rejecting a different but equally important component of the traditional divine command theory of morality (when that theory is suitably elaborated): the doctrine of divine rationality. According to this doctrine, God, being the ultimate source of all things, is the source of reason. As the source of reason, God must therefore be fully and inherently reasonable—indeed reasonable to the highest degree. The importance of this doctrine to the traditional divine command

INTERLUDE

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

theory, which is itself based on the classical concept of God as the supreme being, can

be appreciated by asking the question: Would a capricious God be worthy of worship and thus still properly be called “God”?

If what is right is right solely because it is commanded or willed by God, it would

seem to follow that God decides what is right on the basis of no independent criteria or reason whatsoever. Indeed, on the basis of nothing at all. But then it would seem to follow that God’s commands are arbitrary, like deciding an issue by flipping a coin. For on this view, God’s commands are based on no reasons or rational criteria whatsoever. God, in other words, is not a critical thinker! But if God’s commands are capricious, then they are nonrational (in the sense that they are not based on any reasons, or facts,

whatsoever). This horn of the dilemma avoids saying that God’s commands are constrained by a higher authority above God, at the cost of making God’s commands completely arbitrary, making God seem capricious and nonrational.

Answer 2 seems to have additional problems. If God’s commands are arbitrary and thus constrained by nothing, then there are no limits on what God can command. It would seem to follow that if God were to command that we all hate each other, then hatred would be morally good. It would also seem to follow that if God were to command lying, then lying would be good, and so on. For if God’s command is not based on an independent standard of goodness, or on any reason at all, or on any facts at all, then whatever God commands is automatically morally good—no matter what. Even universal hatred, lying, and murder are good if commanded by God. These consequences of answer 2 have seemed absurd to most who have thought hard about the matter. Grasping the second horn of the dilemma can land us into all sorts of other difficul-

ties. Some defenders of the divine command theory who grasped the second horn, for example, have been driven by the logic of this position to the conclusion that if God commanded us to hate him, then we would be morally obligated to hate God—and then God would have to send us all to hell (because we hated him)!

The traditional defender of divine command morality seems to be caught in a dilemma, a double bind. It appears that only two answers to the dilemma are possible, and he must choose one. But either answer contradicts his own view of God! In other words, whichever way he turns, the traditional advocate of divine command morality contradicts himself. It would seem to follow that the traditional divine command theory of morality contradicts itself. Many interpreters of the Euthyphro have believed that this argument, or one like it, is the argument Socrates is ultimately suggesting or getting at in

the dialogue. Or more exactly, that this is the reasoning he hopes Euthyphro will discover for himself.

The questions Socrates asked people were great because they got people to think

about issues they otherwise might never have thought about. His questions also opened up new lines of investigation; in doing so, they almost always moved the discussion forward—even when the discussion ended in aporia.

PART

ONE

109

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

On Socrates’s Conclusion S. Marc Cohen, professor emeritus of philosophy, University of Washington, argues that one of the important implications of Socrates’s argument is that

if the gods do have reasons for loving what is pious, it is to these reasons that we

should look in trying to define “pious.” If the gods have a reason for loving pious acts, it will be that these acts have . . . certain features. It is these features, then, that should serve to define piety. The fact that the gods have a rational love for

what is pious may be relevant to the problem of defining piety. But then it would

be in the rationality, and not in the love, that the answer to this problem lies. The more general point I take to be this. Ifa moral concept M is such that there is an authority whose judgment whether or not something falls under M is decisive and

is rationally grounded, then ‘M’ cannot be defined in terms of that authority’s

judgment. This may be taken to be a generalization of the conclusion of the central argument in Plato’s Euthyphro. Is this the correct interpretation of the conclusion of the Euthyphro? Professor Cohen

supports his claim with a careful analysis of the dialogue. His academic paper is available online and is accessible to the serious student. I leave the answer to this question to your thoughtful consideration.>

QUESTIONS For class or small group discussion, short papers, or self-reflection. 1. What is irony? Can you cite a passage in this dialogue where Socrates employs irony? SOPnnrrwDh

UNIT1

Why does Socrates employ irony? Is it effective? Is it deceitful? What is an aporetic dialogue? Can you cite passages comprising an elenchus?

What do you think Socrates means by the “form” of piety? Restate each of Euthyphro’s attempted definitions of piety, in your own words. What is Socrates’s critique of the first attempted definition of piety? What is Socrates's critique of the second definition? Why does Socrates think Euthyphro’s second attempted definition is an improvement? What has been accomplished in this dialogue? What conclusion, if any, do you think emerges from the discussion? ll. Does the Euthyphro dilemma call the divine command theory of morality into question? Does it refute the divine command theory? If so, what is the argument? 12. Can the divine command theory be defended against the Euthyphro argument? If

e

110

so, how would you defend it?

13. Explain the problem associated with each of Euthyphro’s definitions. 14. Why did Socrates bring up the point about disagreements among the gods?

INTERLUDE

15. What is wrong with supposing 16. What is wrong with supposing 17. Could the doctrine of divine theory of morality? 18. What do you believe Socrates Euthyphro?

SOCRATES

AT

WORK:

that God wills the right because it is right? that an action is right because God wills it? sovereignty stand without the divine command is trying to accomplish in his conversation with

Socrates at Work: Part Two The Apology _ by Plato

BY AN “APOLOGY” (from the Greek apologia) the Greeks meant “a rational defense of one’s position.” In this dialogue, Plato presents in dramatic form the actual speech Socrates gave at his trial, in front of a jury of S01 fellow citizens of Athens. Plato’s account is probably accurate. He was, after all, present at the trial. In addition, as Gregory Vlastos has observed, most of the jurors who heard the case would still have been alive when the Apology was published, and the trial would have been a fresh memory. It is very unlikely that Plato would have fabricated his account and that it would have stood the test of time. The Apology is an eyewitness re-creation of Socrates’s apologia, his defense before the jury, and in the end, his final defense of his way of life—the way of philosophy. Read the Apology by Plato here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

PNNANMEYY

QUESTIONS For class or small group discussion, short papers, or self-reflection. Does Socrates employ irony in his defense? If so, cite the passages. Does Socrates want to be acquitted? Argue your case by citing passages.

Does an elenchus take place in this dialogue? If so, cite the passage. If Meletus had been sharper, how might he have responded to Socrates? How does Socrates characterize philosophy in his speech to the jury? How does Socrates define wisdom? What answers does Socrates give to the charges against him? Why, according to Socrates, would the Athenians be harming themselves rather than him if they put him to death? 9. Were the prosecutors completely off base, or did they have something of a case?

PART

TWO

111

112

UNIT 1

WHAT

IS CRITICAL

THINKING?

10. What is Socrates’s attitude toward death? ll. Why does Socrates think the unexamined life is not worth living? 12. What does Socrates mean when he calls himself a gadfly? 13. Does Socrates treat the jurors with respect? Can you cite passages that support your claim? 14. Can you cite other individuals in history who were executed for ideas they espoused? 1S. Does a society ever have the right to execute a person solely for ideas the person espouses?

16. Why does Socrates say that he has never been anyone’s teacher? 17. Why does Socrates refuse to stop philosophizing? 18. Why would it have been out of character for Socrates to have brought his wife and family into the courtroom and have them wail in front of the jurors and plead for his life? in the foot when he makes his case to the jury? Could 19. Does Socrates shoot himself he have won an acquittal? 20. If you had been a member of the jury, how would you have voted and why? 21. Should Socrates have proposed a moderate penalty and saved his own life? Should he have slipped out of Athens and into exile? What would you have done after the

verdict if you had been in his shoes? 22. Socrates often makes statements which seem to have a dual aspect: logically, they support his acquittal, yet psychologically and rhetorically they antagonize his jury. What is going on here? What point do you think Plato may be making?

NOTES 1.

Socrates mentions Euthyphro favorably in another Platonic dialogue, Cratylus (at 396d), referring to Euthyphro as his “muse.” Socrates: “I am at a loss how to explain fire; either the muse of Euthyphro has deserted me, or there is some very great difficulty in the word.” This map of Athens in the fifth century BCE notes the location of the “Royal Stoa”: www -emersonkent.com/map_archive/athens_points_Sth_century.htm Socrates's irony takes other forms. Often Socrates will profess his utter ignorance ona topic, when he is anything but clueless on the matter; other times Socrates will pretend to be the weaker arguer, when in fact he could argue the person under the table. In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates’s famous irony gets people to open up; it starts the conversation. Some commentators find this trait of his to be irritating; I personally find it amusing, even charming. Gregory Vlastos, “The Paradox of Socrates,” in Gregory Vlastos, ed., The Philosophy of Socrates:

A Collection of Critical Essays (New York: Anchor Books, 1971), 13.

See S. Marc Cohen, “Socrates on the Definition of Piety: Euthyphro 10a-11b” at his faculty website

http://faculty:washington.edu/smcohen/Publications.html or directly at http://faculty.washington

.edu/smcohen/Euthyphro.pdf. Professor Cohen’s essay is a good example of a scholarly academic work on the philosophy of Socrates.

Unit 2 OBSTACLES

TO CRITICAL THINKING

IN PLATO’S DIALOGUES, Socrates usually wins the argument but often fails to win over his opponent. Why is it that people can lose an argument but not admit they

were mistaken? Why do people sometimes refuse to see the obvious?! Why are people

often unwilling to follow reasoning to its ultimate conclusion? One reason is that critical thinking is not like breathing. Most of us need instruction before we become good critical thinkers. It also takes effort. Some people put a great deal of effort into their thinking, and become deeper, more highly developed persons because of it; others don’t and, as a result, fail to realize their potential as human beings. However, success in critical thinking is never guaranteed. Two kinds of obstacles

must be overcome before one can become a good critical thinker. A psychological

obstacle to critical thinking is an unconscious impulse or mechanism, often called a “cognitive bias,” which can skew our perception of the world and distort our judg-

ment. A philosophical obstacle is a fundamental belief the adoption of which can

block critical thinking. Chapter 4 introduces some of the most common cognitive biases. Chapter 5 introduces the two most common philosophical obstacles to critical thinking.

NOTE

1. However, Socrates’s student Xenophon claims that Socrates often got through to his interlocutor. Socrates, he says, “gained a greater measure of assent from his hearers than any man I have ever known.” (Xenophon’s Memorabilia, 4.6.16).

113

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4 Cognitive Biases

A COGNITIVE BIAS isa psychological impulse that can unconsciously cause a person to jump to a conclusion, or make a decision, before having sufficient information to draw the logically appropriate conclusion or make a good decision. Cognitive biases can steer us into reacting on the basis of an unduly restricted or nonrepresentative subset of the total information, thus making our judgment less accurate than it otherwise would

be. In some ways, a cognitive bias operates in our mind the way a background program

operates on a computer: both run silently in the background of a bigger program, doing their work from behind the scenes. A cognitive bias is a psychological obstacle to critical thinking. Everyone has cognitive biases—they appear to be part of the human condition.

However, our biases are not always “on”: they are triggered from time to time by various

kinds of events. Once triggered, though, they can cause us to make poor decisions— ones we would not make if we were thinking more intentionally and on the basis of more information. Fortunately, because we are rational creatures, we have the power to control our biases and counter their effect on our thinking. For we all have the ability to look in the mirror, examine our beliefs from a more objective standpoint, and identify biases skewing our judgment. Cognitive biases, in short, are correctable; they are not inevitable. Because the poor judgments they cause can harm not only ourselves but others, uncorrected cognitive biases constitute moral as well as intellectual vices that we have

amoral duty to combat. Once we become consciously aware of their influence, once we

shine the light of day on them, we can nullify their effects and thereby attain more realistic beliefs and make better decisions in life. This is certainly part of what Socrates called “living an examined life.” Critical thinkers are therefore not people who have eliminated all cognitive biases from their minds. Rather, they are people who have learned how biases can affect their thinking and, having attained this awareness, continually examine their beliefs and test

them against reality in order to minimize the effects of unconscious bias. Once we

become aware of our biases, we can tell when one is kicking in, and we can push the pause button and make a correction. Although scores of cognitive biases have been

identified by psychologists and social scientists, time permits a look at only the most common.!

115

116

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

CONFIRMATION

BIAS

We like to think that our beliefs are all based on solid evidence.

But new information arises all the time, and sometimes the evi-

dence supports, or confirms, a particular belief, and sometimes it goes against, or disconfirms, a belief we hold. Confirmation bias is the unconscious tendency to look harder for confirming evidence than for disconfirming evidence when investigating a matter. Confirming evidence is information that backs up something a person already believes, while disconfirming evidence is infor-

Figure 4-1. Disbalance.

mation that counts against a belief. Under the influence of this bias, we tend to welcome evidence that supports a belief in question while downplaying evidence that counts against it—without weighing all the evidence in a balanced and reasonable manner.

For example, suppose Jack strongly believes that Sasquatch live in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. One day Jill gives him an article from a scientific journal. The article, by a leading scientist, claims to prove that Sasquatch do not exist. Jack skims the piece and after a few minutes throws it in the garbage. Later in the day, however, he finds time to read every page of the latest issue of his favorite magazine, Sasquatch Hunter's Digest. The exciting stories (and colorful drawings) in his favorite Sasquatch magazine confirm his preexisting belief and make it even stronger. A balanced review of all the evidence, however, might have led him to a different conclusion. Some people become so emotionally invested in a viewpoint that they go out of their way to look for supporting evidence, while putting

little effort into the examination of disconfirming evidence. This is confirmation bias.

Educate yourself by reading widely on many different subjects. When you investigate a controversial issue, read materials from many different points of view. Don’t read only things that confirm what you already believe.

SELECTIVE

ATTENTION

BIAS

Closely related to this is the selective attention bias. This is the unconscious tendency

to notice evidence that supports one’s belief system, while not noticing evidence that contradicts it. For example, while watching the evening news, Jack’s ears perk up when a local story airs about a possible Sasquatch sighting near the town of Cle Elum. The next night, without consciously realizing it, he completely blanks out during the news segment reporting that the sighting was actually a hoax. When his wife asks him about

the segment on the hoax, he replies, “I guess I missed that one.” People affected by this bias don’t realize they see the world through a selective filter. Their filter lets in favorable information (facts that support their favorite beliefs)

CHAPTER

4

COGNITIVE

and screens out unfavorable information (anything that goes against their cherished beliefs). They will never change their minds on anything, thanks to their filters, for everything they see supports their belief system. The problem, of course, is that they are missing half of what is going on. People afflicted with selective attention bias see only what they want to see. A scientific study was conducted with two groups of people: those who believed very strongly in ESP and those who doubted its validity. Both groups were shown evidence for and against the validity of ESP. Later, the doubters recalled seeing both the evidence for and against, but the believers only recalled seeing evidence for ESP. The study showed that when people hold a belief strongly enough, contrary evidence may not register—even when it is staring them in the face.”

SOCRATES

AND

COGNITIVE

BIASES

Socrates knew that people do not always form beliefs on the basis of a critical review of all the relevant evidence. That is why he constantly asked people questions designed to cause them to look in the mirror and examine their beliefs and values in light of rational standards. He spurred them to ask themselves, Are my assumptions really true? Why do I believe this? What evidence do I have? Am I sure? How do I know? He asked himself the same questions. The effects of cognitive bias can sometimes be counteracted by asking the questions Socrates encouraged everyone to ask. Another thing you can do to counteract the effects of cognitive bias is to make a conscious effort to examine all sides of an issue before drawing a conclusion on a controversial matter. Socrates was ahead ofhis time in his understanding of the human psyche and the irrational impulses that lurk within it.

BELIEF BIAS Belief bias is the psychological tendency to rate the logical strength of an argument on the basis of whether we favor (agree with) the conclusion, without bothering to evaluate the evidence actually offered for the conclusion by the premises. Someone affected by belief bias rates an argument as good or bad not on the basis of how much evidence

the premises actually provide, but on whether the person already agrees with the conclusion (before the argument has even been given). As a result, the evidence provided makes no difference. Deciding on the basis of a belief bias is taking the lazy way out, for it takes mental effort to evaluate a whole argument. Suppose, for example, that a politician gives a speech in favor of gun control. Jack, an ardent opponent of gun control, is in the audience. He doesn’t like the conclusion that will be argued for, so he pays no attention whatsoever to the premises. When the speech is over, he mutters, “What a lousy argument!” Of course, he is at a total loss when someone nearby asks him, “Which part of the argument do you object to?” Standing

next to Jack is Jill, a passionate advocate of gun control, who is also under the influence of belief bias. Like Jack, she has already made up her mind and “needs” no new information. She is texting during the speech and doesn’t pay attention to even one premise.

BIASES

117

118

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

However, at the end of the speech, because she likes the conclusion, she says, “I think he

makes a very good case for his position.” When someone asks her why she thinks his argument is good, she too is at a total loss for words. Neither judged the argument on the basis of its logical merits—on how much support the speaker actually provided for

his conclusion. Jill thought highly of the argument because she liked the conclusion, and Jack felt the argument was weak simply because he disliked the conclusion. The actual evidence offered for the conclusion did not matter to them at all. People under the spell of belief bias are surrounded by an invisible force field that prevents any argument from having any effect on their beliefs. If an argument is given for a conclusion that they do not agree with, they automatically dismiss the argument as weak. If an argument is given for one of their favored beliefs, they automatically count the argument as one more reason backing up their belief system—all without

any real look at the evidence. Their belief system is immune from all criticism. Counterarguments to their belief system bounce back like bullets ricocheting off a brick wall.

BANDWAGON BIAS Bandwagon bias (sometimes called “conformism bias”) is the unconscious tendency to adopt certain beliefs simply because many others hold them, or because they are held by those in a group one belongs to, when a logical, more balanced look at the evidence would not support the beliefs in question. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, a 2002 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, conducted experiments showing that people’s perceptions were affected by what others around them said they were seeing, even when what the others said made no sense in the test situation. Marketing managers often appeal to this bias to sell products. When an advertise-

ment suggests that everybody likes Brand X potato chips, the goal may be to trigger the

bandwagon bias in consumers’ minds. Political campaigns exploit this bias when they try to show that their candidate is hugely popular. (We'll examine the relation between critical thinking and advertising in chapter 9.) Of course, adopting the beliefs of our group, or of people around us, is easier than

weighing the evidence and thinking for ourselves. Like all logical fallacies, uncritically going with the group is a lazy way of thinking. The problem, of course, is that the beliefs of our group or crowd are not an adequate logical basis for truth, for groups are not

always right. The behavior associated with this bias is sometimes called “herd behavior”

and “groupthink.” This bias may stem from a deep-seated need to be in solidarity with

others. Whatever its origin, a critical thinker strives to be aware of the many ways that

groupthink can distort judgment. Mothers have been known to oppose this bias in

their children by uttering the following words at the proper moment: “If everyone jumped offa cliff, would you jump offa cliff?”

STEREOTYPING AND ETHNOCENTRISM Someone influenced by bandwagon bias is more likely to hold ethnocentric beliefs. Ethnocentrism is an irrational belief in the innate superiority of one’s own society, culture,

CHAPTER

4

COGNITIVE

or ethnic group. Ethnocentric thinkers have an unconscious tendency to see their own group only in its best light, while seeing other groups in their worst light, thus ignoring relevant facts about both groups. A more balanced look at the evidence would lead to a different judgment; however, because of the blinders they are wearing, ethno-

centric people miss the bigger picture. Surely a great deal of human suffering and social discord throughout history have been caused, at least in part, by this cognitive failure—ethnocentric bias. Stereotyping is a closely related phenomenon.

A stereotype is an oversimplified

generalization about the members of a group, usually inaccurate and unflattering and

usually based on an inadequate review of all the evidence. For example, during the nineteenth century, many Americans living on the East Coast believed that Irish immigrants were violent, dumb, and even subhuman. Of course, there was no good evidence to support this harmful image (and no good evidence supports it to this day). A stereotype restricts our vision because it acts like a filter, letting in only a limited subset of the available information. The sad fact remains that many people unconsciously tend to form very positive opinions about members of their own group, while readily believing negative things about those in other groups. The history of humanity is full of horrible acts of aggression, oppression, and genocide that were based on unjustified stereotypes of the “other.”

“There are many obstacles to block the path of mental advance ... to rightly correct these add some training in at least elementary logic.”—Lady Victoria Welby, nineteenth-century British logician and philosopher.*

EGOCENTRISM Everyone is egocentric to some degree. (One could hardly live without some degree of self-concern.) However, some people are more self-centered than others. People who are exceptionally egocentric become so self-absorbed they fail to see the full picture, which includes the existence and intrinsic value of other people. As a result, their vision is restricted; they are tunnel-minded. In this way, egocentrism can lead people to neglect relevant considerations when making decisions and forming beliefs.* Developing the ability to empathetically understand others is the most effective antidote to the egocentric bias. Someone with this ability understands what it is like to be in the other person’s shoes and because of this ability can make judgments that take everyone's interest into account—judgments that are more impartial, less ego-driven,

and more moral. The philosopher William Talbott in Which Rights Should Be Universal?

argues that the imaginative, empathetic understanding of others is a crucial part of all moral reasoning and that it has played an important role in driving moral progress.° (We will examine the nature of moral reasoning in chapter 13.)

BIASES

119

120

UNIT

2.

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

SELF-INTEREST Whether we realize it or not, self-interest can have a powerful effect on our beliefs, values, and actions. When we believe something or do something simply because it benefits us in some way (“feathers our nest”) and thus advances our own interest,

without considering the effect on others, or without considering the evidence or the total situation, our thinking has probably been distorted by self-interest bias. This bias may also cause us to advance a claim merely because it protects our ego or helps

us save face. One problem with overly self-interested thinking is that our own interest is not always a reliable guide to what is true or to what is the right thing to do. Thinking only of how something will benefit us can cause us to overlook, or underestimate, relevant

considerations (such as the cost to other people). Indeed, self-interest can blind us to many of the things in life that matter and that need to be taken into account. For example, imagine two people. One is a wealthy man who believes in unregulated free-market capitalism. The second is a highly-paid government official in a socialist state who believes in cradle-to-grave socialism. It is possible that both individuals base

their beliefs (in the value of their respective systems) on philosophical reasoning and

critical thinking. However, if they are not reflective individuals, it might be that they hold their political beliefs simply on the basis of self-interest —whether they realize it or

not. In Which Rights Should Be Universal? Talbott examines historical cases where selfinterested rationalizations have been used by those in power to justify their position

and the injustices that resulted.°

Of course, the mere fact that a claim or view coincides with one’s self-interest does not in itself show that the claim is false. A claim might be true at the same time that it furthers one’s self-interest. There is nothing improper about holding a claim that

happens to coincide with one’s self-interest—as long as one has independent reasons

to believe that the claim is true. The self-interest bias can be amplified by intellectual

laziness: it takes less mental effort to think only of yourself than to take into account the existence, and needs, of others.

If, during a discussion, someone asks you a question and you don’t know the answer, don’t make something up in order to save face. Instead, simply say something like, “I’m sorry, I don’t know the answer. Perhaps you can enlighten me.”

NEGATIVITY BIAS Few (if any) things in this life are perfectly good or completely bad, wholly right or totally wrong. Thus, everything, or nearly everything, around us has positive and negative characteristics. The negativity (or negative information) bias is the unconscious

CHAPTER

4

COGNITIVE

tendency to attach a much greater weight to negative information than an objective look at the evidence would justify, while assigning a much lower weight to positive information than the evidence would justify. This bias is in play, for example, when people unconsciously weight negative information about a certain type of political regime more heavily than an objective look at the evidence would warrant, while underrating positive information. Political campaigns exploit this bias all the time. Their managers know that a dose of negative information about the opposing candidate will probably weigh more heavily on the minds of the voters than an equivalent dose of positive information about the campaign’s own candidate.

AVAILABILITY BIAS How often do liquor stores get robbed? How frequent are celebrity divorces? When we try to answer such questions simply by counting examples that easily come to mind, or by looking at cases close at hand, without putting in some effort and searching all the evidence, our judgment is probably affected by availability bias. This bias leads us to base a conclusion on evidence not because it is good evidence but simply because it is easily available, when a broader search for information would probably lead to a different conclusion. As a result, we make a decision based on a very limited subset of the total information. An often-used example is the inebriated man who only searches for his lost keys under the streetlamp because “that’s where the light is.” Daniel Kahneman, the scientist who first studied this bias, introduces the idea this way: On another occasion, Amos [Tversky] and I wondered about the rate of divorce among professors in our university. We noticed that the question triggered a search of memory for divorced professors we knew or had heard about, and that we judged the size of categories by the ease with which instances came to mind. We called this reliance on the ease of memory search the availability heuristic.” The problem is that the data readily at hand may be more representative of our own limited situation than of the broader state of affairs. Another problem with relying only on easily available data is that the cases that immediately come to mind, when we survey only our available data, may be more a function of the media’s focus than of what really is going on, for we are all influenced to one degree or another by the mass media. But media coverage is not always representative. (We'll examine the mass media from a critical thinking perspective in chapter 9.) The availability bias may be part of the cause of the problem when a juror decides, before any evidence has been presented—and on the basis of the defendant’s looks alone—that the defendant is guilty. Before a trial begins, during voir dire, attorneys question prospective jurors to eliminate those who are biased and those who will likely not evaluate the evidence in a fair and objective way.

BIASES

121

122

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

FIRST-PERSON BIAS AND SOCIAL INJUSTICE In Which Rights Should Be Universal? Talbott identifies a bias that appears to be closely related to availability bias. We all naturally have unique (first-person) knowledge of what we personally enjoy in life. The first-person bias occurs when we “evaluate the good of others using the same framework we use in evaluating our own good.” One result is that “most people tend to [then] underestimate the negative effects and to overestimate the positive effects of their actions on the good of others.” Talbott provides historical examples of autocratic rulers who, by falsely identifying their own personal tastes with the tastes of “their” subjects, inflict grave harms on others.®

FALSE CONSENSUS BIAS The false consensus bias is the unconscious tendency to think that our own beliefs and attitudes, and those of our friends, are representative of the larger society, without checking to see if the correspondence is real. A political junkie who spends all of his time with

the members of one party and who only listens to his favored news network is especially liable to this cognitive error. Political thinkers on the right often claim that their core views are representative of the majority of Americans; political thinkers on the left often

argue that their core views are representative of the majority. Which side is right can only be decided by careful empirical investigation. The consequences can be real: a political party that only listens to its own echo chamber may come to falsely believe that its views represent the mainstream. Such thinking loses elections. (We'll examine different forms of statistical thinking in chapter 10 and in the appendix to chapter 11.) STORY-FITTING Sometimes, to make sense of our life, we make up a story that explains why certain things have happened to us, and then we interpret everything in the light of our story.

The story we created may have been accurate at one time, say, when we were young, but we all change over time, and the world changes, too. That story may not be accurate when we are older, and may, in fact, be obsolete. Story-fitting occurs when we continue to fit events into a narrative, ignoring or denying anything that does not fit, long after

the story has ceased to correspond to reality. Holding to an old story can be more com-

forting than confronting the reality that our world has changed—and that we have changed with it. Incidentally, the narrative that leads one astray does not have to be personal: it can be political, historical, ideological, religious, or mythological. In politics, for example, Marxists claim that capitalist ideologists have created a mythological story about capi-

talist freedom that has misled many in capitalist societies into thinking they are free

when they are not. Of course, opponents of Marx argue that he created a mythological

story about capitalist exploitation and communist freedom that misled many in communist societies into thinking they were free when they were not. This is one philosophical dispute we are not going to touch.

CHAPTER

EXPECTATION

4

COGNITIVE

BIAS

Sometimes, when we strongly expect something to happen, our expectation can affect

our perception. In the extreme case, our minds actually create the expected reality so that our expectation will not be disappointed. For example, Joe is about to meet someone from Ruritania for the first time. He strongly expects the visitor to be rude, obnoxious, and boring because he has heard all his life that Ruritanians are all like this. Sure enough, he leaves the meeting with nothing but negative things to say about the man

from Ruritania. We sometimes call this type of belief a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The

expectation bias can color our experiences, and even create them, if it is not checked by a more sober, objective look at the evidence. (In chapter 7, we will discuss the relation between critical thinking and the interpretation of personal experience.)

SHORT-TERM THINKING Thinking only about the short term, while neglecting relevant long-term considerations, is another psychological impediment to critical thinking. A shortsighted person is blind to many matters in life that should be taken into account—specifically, those concerning the future. We have all acted in ways that seemed right at the moment, from the short-term perspective, but that seemed unwise in retrospect, after we had taken into account the long-term consequences. Some of the greatest mistakes in life result from actions we would not have taken if we had thought more critically about the longterm consequences. All of us, after we reach a mature age, can look back on shortsighted choices we made in our youth and say things like this: “How could I have been so foolish?” What on earth was I thinking?” On a personal note, now in my sixties, I look back in amazement on many ill-advised things that I did in the past and often say to myself, “How could I have been that dumb?” When we are young, we tend to think in shortsighted ways, when a longer-term view would lead to better decisions, and better results.

EXTERNALIZE IT Some people have an unconscious tendency to externalize responsibility whenever they make a mistake or their behavior falls short. After messing up, they look everywhere but in the mirror for someone (or something) to blame. The problem with this “life strategy” is that it usually causes them to overlook the real cause of their problem. In most cases, they will not improve until they take responsibility for the choices they have been making, which in many cases are choices that could have been made differently and which can be changed in the future. It can actually be liberating to discover that you are not simply a victim of external circumstances, that you have been making choices, and that choices can be changed. (And that the person who can change them is you.)

BIASES

123

124

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

AFFECT BIAS An affect is a positive or negative feeling toward something. For most people, the word Nazi generates a negative feeling, or “affect,” while the word love produces a warm, positive affect. The affect bias is at work when someone's “judgments and decisions are

guided directly by feelings of liking or disliking, with little deliberation or reasoning.” When our judgment is influenced by the affect bias, the decisions we make will differ from the ones we would have made if we had conducted a judicious review of all rele-

vant considerations. Professor Kahneman tells the following story:

Many years ago I visited the chief investment officer of a large financial firm, who told me that he had just invested some tens of millions of dollars in the stock of Ford Motor Company. When I asked how he had made that decision, he replied

that he had recently attended an automobile show and had been impressed. “Boy, do they know how to make a car!” was his explanation. He made it very clear that he trusted his gut feelings and was satisfied with himself and with his decision. I found it remarkable that he had apparently not considered the one question that an economist would call relevant: Is Ford stock currently underpriced? Instead, he had listened to his intuition; he liked the cars, he liked the company, and he liked the idea of owning its stock.'®

“Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. The heated mind resents the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of logic.”—William Gladstone, nineteenthcentury Liberal Party statesman and four-time prime minister of the United Kingdom."

RESISTANCE Serious critical thinkers are usually willing to discuss a matter when someone tells them they are mistaken or accuses them of wrongdoing. Not only are they willing to admit error if it is called for, they are eager to find the truth or improve their conduct when shown that they are in error. This is openness to constructive criticism. This is intellectual honesty. Serious critical thinkers do not believe they are either saints or the “World’s Foremost Authority” and are not trying to look like one. In contrast, some people get angry and lash out when they are corrected. (Recall the exchange between Thrasymachus and Socrates, in chapter 1.) Others try to change the subject, or just walk away. Some people go into serious denial when questioned or challenged. These

and other forms of resistance are unconscious ways we sometimes protect a vulnerable ego ora cherished self-image from correction.

One problem with being overly resistant to criticism is that you pass up opportunities

for self-improvement. Experience teaches that if you always resist criticism and challenge, you will never grow as a person. Sadly, in the end, you will be the one losing the most.

CHAPTER

CAN

REASON

4

COGNITIVE

BE TRUSTED?

Some people say that we can never get beyond our biases to attain undistorted beliefs. We are doomed to be biased in everything we think and do. However, their position contradicts itself. To claim that something is “biased” or “distorted” logically presupposes the existence of a known benchmark that is itself not biased or distorted. For the very act of identifying a bias presupposes an unbiased reference point against which the bias has been measured. But if this unbiased reference point can be used to detect and measure bias, certainly it can also be used to correct for bias and reach an unbiased conclusion. Here is an analogy: someone cannot claim that a board has been cut “off center” unless the person knows where the center really is (and thus how to correct the cut). Others claim that the existence of cognitive biases proves that reason cannot be trusted (since it can be distorted by bias). For this reason, they disdain reason. Actually, our knowledge of cognitive biases indicates exactly the opposite. Consider first the fact that the cognitive biases were discovered and first studied by scientists such as Daniel Kahneman. But science is based on applying logical reasoning to data. Scientists use the principles of reasoning as their benchmark. (We will examine the logic of science in chapter 11.) Thus, if reason cannot be trusted, then we have no basis for believing in the existence of the cognitive biases in the first place, since the cognitive biases were themselves discovered through reasoning! Instead of undermining reason, the existence of cognitive biases points to the real existence of unbiased reasoning that can serve as a corrective to biased reasoning. Far from supporting an attitude of disdain toward reason, knowledge of the cognitive biases should lead us to appreciate all the more our unique human ability to separate good from bad reasoning, in other words, our potential to overcome bias and reason well.

SUBSTITUTION BIAS An interesting bias discovered by Kahneman and his colleague, Amos Tversky, is the substitution bias. When presented with a difficult question, we sometimes replace the problem question with an easier one—without realizing it—and then we answer the easier question in place of the harder one. Kahneman gives the following example: Original question: How popular will the president be six months from now? Substitute question: How popular is he now?”

We find a good example of this bias at work in the Euthyphro. When Socrates asks what the gods achieve using us as their servants, Euthyphro responds by telling him what humans (the servants) allegedly achieve by serving the gods. Ofall people, politicians seem to be especially affected by this bias. This is imaginary, but it illustrates a common pattern: Reporter: Senator, are you for, or against, the new housing bill, SB 1012? Senator: Why I have always believed that everyone should live in a house, and I believe strongly that nobody should be living on the street.

If you observe politicians in action, you will see them succumbing to this bias just about every time they are asked a difficult question.

BIASES

125

126

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

ANCHORING

THINKING

BIAS

For many people, the first thing they learn about a subject becomes an “anchor” belief that governs everything else they will learn about the subject. In other cases, things

learned at an early age become anchors that color all subsequent beliefs. Anchoring bias occurs during a thought process when one idea becomes dominant and controls everything else—when a more balanced look at the evidence would not justify giving this idea such weight. The anchor’s importance has been blown out of all proportion to reality; but

all subsequent information must now be interpreted to conform to the anchor. The anchor bias distorts because the anchor idea is given more weight than it logically deserves. For example, because of early childhood experiences, a young boy becomes con-

vinced that horsepower is all that matters in a car. When he goes to buy his first car,

he makes his choice based on horsepower alone, when other considerations (such as mechanical reliability, mileage, tires, and the quality of the transmission) should be considered as well. A more balanced approach, one that takes account of more informa-

tion, would be to consider all the above factors, perhaps attaching a weight to each one.

When things in life become difficult or do not go well, ask yourself this Socratic question: What can I learn from this?

Imagine someone who evaluates other people on the basis of one single attribute: Do

they, or do they not, belong to the Society for the Ethical Treatment of Garden Snails?

If someone belongs to the group, they are good; if not, then they are bad, case closed.

But people are not one-dimensional creatures. It is shallow to judge human beings on so slim a basis, or anchor. To do so misses much of what makes a person a person. The

Nazis judged human beings on the basis of one single attribute—and completely missed the boat as far as what makes a person valuable and wonderful. Anchoring bias can lead to bad results. This is one more example of why some cognitive biases are moral vices. “TULIPOMANIA”:

A FAMOUS

FAILURE

OF CRITICAL THINKING

Tulips did not exist in Europe until travelers brought them to the continent from Turkey during the sixteenth century. Few people paid much attention to the new flower, until a botanist at the University of Leiden in Holland started studying and producing many beautifully colored varieties. Interest in the plant now began to sprout. Within a few years, the tulip had become a national obsession among the Dutch, and prices for bulbs of the prettiest varieties started rising. As the tulip market heated up, speculators fueled the frenzy by purchasing futures contracts at the beginning of the growing season for bulbs that would be harvested the following spring. Soon, most Dutch cities had a tulip exchange, and Dutchmen from all walks of life were speculating in

CHAPTER4

COGNITIVE

tulip bulbs. Not surprisingly, prices soared. At the height of the mania, during the 1630s, a tulip bulb was worth more than its weight in gold. One farmer offered twelve acres of land for a single tulip bulb. A price list of the day indicates that a single bulb might fetch four “fat oxen,” eight “fat swine,” twelve “fat sheep,” a “suit of clothes,” or “1,000 pounds of butter.” When the bubble finally burst in February 1637, many people lost everything—thanks to a widespread failure in critical thinking. Tulipomania is considered the first financial bubble in world history.’*

CONCLUSION: BOATING, DEADHEADS, AND CRITICAL THINKING Surrounded by forests, orchards, wineries, mountains, and desert canyons, fifty-fivemile-long Lake Chelan is the largest lake in the state of Washington. It is also a beautiful body of water. However, local boaters know that dangers hide just beneath the surface of this lovely lake. The dangers? Deadheads floating just a few feet underwater, each one capable of sinking a boat if struck from the right direction. I am not referring to followers of the Grateful Dead. A deadhead is the waterlogged carcass of an old log or tree, floating a few feet underwater. If you are operating a power boat at high speed on Lake Chelan, you might not see one of these old logs until you are almost on top of it. If you hit one head on, it might sink your boat. On the surface, the lake may look calm and lovely, but experienced boaters know that in this case appearances can be deceiving. In some ways, our minds are like Lake Chelan, and critical thinking is like piloting a boat on it at high speed. While our usual thought processes may seem to us to be calm, routine, and right on target, cognitive biases may be lurking just beneath the surface of conscious awareness, each capable of distorting our judgment and steering us into error. Thinking critically is a little like watching for deadheads. Educated critical thinkers are aware of the dangers posed by cognitive biases and are on the lookout for ways they may distort their judgment—just as good boaters on Lake Chelan are constantly on the lookout for deadheads floating just beneath the surface. How can we correct for our cognitive biases? The first step is to become aware of their existence and of how they can affect our judgment. The next step is to counteract the effects of bias by deciding what to believe on a subject only after a careful review of all the relevant evidence and on good reasoning applied to that evidence. This is why critical thinkers are not afraid of evidence that may go contrary to what they already believe. Ideally, critical thinkers try to look at all the relevant facts, and carefully consider all the views, and not just the evidence that supports their present view, before making up their minds on a controversial subject.

BIASES

127

128

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

APPENDIX CRITICAL THINKING IN DICKENS’S A CHRISTMAS CAROL An instructive literary example of critical thinking can be found in Charles Dickens's 1843 novel, A Christmas Carol. Millions have read this Christmas classic or watched one of the movie versions. The central character is Ebeneezer Scrooge, a wealthy London businessman, around seventy years old, who lives by himself in a small, drab apartment. Scrooge is a self-absorbed miser who doesn’t care at all about his fellow human beings. Making money and squirreling it away is all that matters to him. Dickens describes Scrooge as a “tight-fisted ... grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner” who walks “the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance.”"* Like the little man sitting in the box in the William Steig cartoon, the semireclusive Scrooge seems to be saying, “People are no damn good.”!*

The story begins on Christmas Eve day. Scrooge is keeping an eye on his employee,

Bob Cratchit, to make sure the man does not leave work a minute early. It does not

matter to Scrooge that his clerk has a family anxiously waiting for him to come home

to begin Christmas festivities. In the afternoon, two men from a local charity enter Scrooge’s office and ask for a contribution “for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time.” They remind him that “thousands are in want of common neces-

saries.” When Scrooge turns them down, they warn that many of the poorest may die. Scrooge’s reply shows how heartless he has become: Let them die, he says, “and decrease the surplus population.”

After closing his office for the day, Scrooge retires to his apartment to spend the

evening alone as usual. However, this will be a most unusual Christmas Eve. Scrooge

will be visited by four ghosts in succession. Each will have a Socratic lesson to teach.

One of the ghosts magically takes Scrooge back in time and allows him to watch episodes from his past life from the sidelines. As Scrooge sees his life from a more objec-

tive standpoint, he realizes how empty and morally bankrupt his life has been. He

begins to see the value in other people that he refused to see; the good in the little things

of life that he turned away from; the chances to exhibit kindness and warmth to others

that went untaken. He sees that life had lessons to teach him that he refused to learn. As he realizes that the life he has lived has not been a good life, he is overcome with shame

and regret. “Remove me!” Scrooge says at one point, “I cannot bear it!” The second spirit allows Scrooge to watch the Cratchit family holiday dinner. The Cratchits are poor, but there is love in their midst, and they find joy and happiness in what little they have. As Scrooge watches from the sidelines, the Cratchits drink a toast to him. Scrooge discovers that the Cratchit’s young son, Tiny Tim, is crippled and sick, but the

family is too poor to pay for his treatment. The little boy walks with a crutch and is carried to the table. The scene awakens long dormant feelings in Scrooge. He asks about the little boy: “Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.” “I see a vacant seat,” replied the Ghost, “in the poor

CHAPTER

4

COGNITIVE

chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.” “No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind Spirit. Say he will be spared.” “If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. The Ghost replies, “Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child.” Scrooge trembles and “casts his eyes upon the ground.” The third spirit is the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Dressed in a dark cloak, its approach is “slow, grave, and silent.” “Ghost,” Scrooge exclaims,

“I fear you more than any spectre I have seen. But as I know your purpose is to do me good, and as I hope to live to be another man from what I was, I am prepared to bear you company, and do it with a thankful heart.” The silent specter leads Scrooge to the city, to a moment in the future when a group of men are discussing the death of a business associate. They wonder what the man did

with all his money. “It’s likely to be a very cheap funeral,” said one speaker; “for upon

my life I don’t know of anybody to go to it.” Scrooge hopes the men are not talking about him. Now the ghost leads Scrooge to a cemetery and points toward a grave, but first, a question: “Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point,” said Scrooge, “answer me... Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?” The ghost points to the grave marker, and a trembling Scrooge sees his own name on the grave. “No, Spirit! Oh no, no!” he cries: “Spirit, hear me. lam not the man I was. I will not be the man I must have been but for this intercourse. Why show me this, ifI am past all hope?” .. . “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!” The ghost vanishes. Was it all a dream? A lesser man might assume it was, and after

making this assumption, might return to his old ways. Scrooge faced an existential

choice. Scrooge is now awake in his bed. The church bells are ringing. He runs to the window: “Merry bells. Oh, glorious. Glorious! What’s to-day?” cried Scrooge, calling downward to a boy in Sunday clothes....” The boy replies, “Why, Christmas Day.”

Here is how Dickens tells the rest of the story:

BIASES

129

130

UNIT2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

“It’s Christmas have done it all Of course they next street but

THINKING

Day!” said Scrooge to himself. “I haven’t missed it. The Spirits in one night. They can do anything they like. Of course they can. can. Hallo, my fine fellow!” “Do you know the Poulterer’s, in the one, at the corner?” Scrooge inquired. “I should hope I did,” re-

plied the lad. “An intelligent boy!” said Scrooge. “A remarkable boy! Do you know

whether they’ve sold the prize Turkey that was hanging up there—Not the little

prize Turkey: the big one?” “What, the one as big as me?”returned the boy. “What a delightful boy!” said Scrooge. “It’s a pleasure to talk to him. Yes, my buck.” “It’s hanging there now,” replied the boy. “Is it?” said Scrooge. “Go and buy

it...and tell them to bring it here, that I may give them the direction where to take it. Come back with the man, and I'll give youa shilling. Come back with him in less

than five minutes and I'll give you half-a-crown.” The boy was off like a shot....

“Tl send it to Bob Cratchit’s!” whispered Scrooge, rubbing his hands, and splitting with a laugh. “He shan’t know who sends it. It’s twice the size of Tiny Tim.”

He had not gone far, when coming on towards him he beheld the portly gen-

tleman, who had walked into his counting-house the day before. . . “My dear sir,” said Scrooge... taking the old gentleman by both his hands. “How do you do? I

hope you succeeded yesterday. It was very kind of you. A merry Christmas to you, sir! ... Allow me to ask your pardon. And will you have the goodness”— here Scrooge whispered in his ear. “Lord bless me!” cried the gentleman, as if his breath were taken away. “My dear Mr. Scrooge, are you serious?” “If you please,”

said Scrooge. “Not a farthing less. A great many back-payments are included in it, lassure you. Will you do me that favour?” “My dear sir,” said the other, shaking hands with him. “I don’t know what to say to such munificence.”

“Don't say anything please,” retorted Scrooge. “Come and see me. Will you

come and see me?” “I will!” cried the old gentleman. And it was clear he meant to

do it. “Thank you,” said Scrooge. “I am much obliged to you. I thank you fifty times. Bless you!” He went to church, and walked about the streets, and watched the people hurrying to and fro, and patted children on the head, and questioned beggars, and looked down into the kitchens of houses, and up to the windows, and found that

everything could yield him pleasure. He had never dreamed that any walk—that anything—could give him so much happiness. .. . Dickens concludes:

Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew. .. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset ... His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

CHAPTER4

COGNITIVE

Exercise 4.1 Questions for class or group discussion, short essays, or self-reflection.

1. What is a cognitive bias? How are cognitive biases detected? 2. Choose a cognitive bias and explain it in your own words. Give an example of how this bias might affect our judgment. What can we do to correct for this bias? 3. Can you think ofa mistake you, or someone in the news, made that was probably due to the influence of a cognitive bias? Name the bias and explain the circumstance. 4. How does egocentric bias differ from self-interest bias? 5. Explain a belief you once held due to a cognitive bias—one you no longer hold.

What led you to change your belief?

6. What

do you believe is the most common

cognitive bias of all? Support your

answer with an argument.

7. Identify and explain a historical example of genocide, aggression, or oppression

that was justified on the basis of a stereotype of the “other.” (This question is for history buffs.)

8. Imagine entering a very realistic haunted house. How might your expectations color your experience?

9. Was the financial crash of 2007 caused by failures in critical thinking driven by cognitive biases? Biases on the part of whom? Argue for your position.

Exercise 4.2

Identify the cognitive bias or biases at work in each example.

1. Most Americans own their own homes. How do I know this? I know a lot of people, and most of them own their own homes.

2. Italians are violent people. Why do I think so? Every time I see a news story about a violent crime, and the story contains a picture of the criminal, it is almost always an Italian guy (who looks like a Mafioso). 3. Germans are very mean people. How do I know? Look, from the time I was little, I grew up watching programs about the Holocaust and seeing pictures of the atrocities. I know what I am talking about. 4. They fired me because I am Catholic. It was not because I insulted the company’s biggest customer and flipped him off during a meeting. How do I know this is

why they fired me? People have always disliked my religion. It is the story of my life. 5. [believe that “Jonesism” is the best plan for our economy. Jonesism is a plan devised by that neglected political philosopher Claude Jones. Why do I think his plan would work? Look, you idiot, I’ve spent my life studying the philosophy of

Jonesism. (In fact, that is all I have studied in political theory. I haven't had time to study anything else.) So I have the facts, man.

BIASES

131

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

Most homeless people are mentally ill. I know. I see them all the time on the street corners talking to themselves. You can’t trust Ruritanians. I know, because I’ve been cheated by them twice in a

row now. Icelanders are noisy people. How do I know? A family from Iceland moved into our neighborhood when I was a kid, and they were really noisy. Their parties kept us up every night. Ever since, I’ve noticed noisy Icelanders everywhere I go. I bet that noise right now is coming from an Icelander party. The Vikings were really a bunch of rude and filthy bums. Why do I think so? I’ve been watching old Viking movies. You can’t say they aren’t rude and obnoxious. 10. I believe in Sasquatch. Why? I just spent weeks reading all the pro-Sasquatch websites and materials and, you know, they have some really good arguments. I also looked at a couple opposing sites Tuesday afternoon for a few minutes but didn’t see anything that rang my buzzer. Exercise 4.3 True or false?

Cognitive biases are philosophical obstacles to critical thinking. Only mentally ill people have cognitive biases. People with high IQs have no cognitive biases. Belief bias is defined as “being biased in favor of what you want to believe.” The effects of cognitive bias can be corrected or counteracted. According to the text, the existence of cognitive biases proves that reasoning cannot be trusted. Everyone has at least some cognitive biases.

DAPWYN

UNIT

Seren

132

Daniel Khanemen and Amos Tversky launched the scientific study of cognitive biases. Cognitive biases were first studied scientifically in the 1970s. Scrooge never did change his life after the visits by the ghosts.

1 ll. An affect is a feeling. 12. Short-term thinking is a cognitive bias. 13. Bandwagon bias is also called “conformism bias.” 14. An anchor belief is usually the first thing a person learned about a subject. 1S. According to the text, Socrates was the only person born without any cognitive biases. Exercise 4.4

Choose the best answer.

1. An effective antidote to egocentric thinking is a. looking in the mirror b. reading books

CHAPTER

c. d. 2. The a. b. c. d. 3. The

4

COGNITIVE

thinking about yourself more deeply developing an ability to empathetically understand others negativity bias is the unconscious tendency to attach more weight to positive than to negative information attach more weight to negative than to positive information be against everything dish the dirt on everyone inebriated man who searches for his keys under the searchlight is an example

of the

a.

negativity bias

b. selective attention bias c. confirmation bias d. availability bias e. searchlight bias 4. According to the text, many autocratic rulers have been subject to this bias: a. affect bias

b. first-person bias c. pedestal bias d. conformism bias 5. The substitution bias involves a. substituting an easier question for a harder question b. making a decision before all the evidence is in c. conforming to the group d. relying only on easily available evidence 6. Confirmation bias involves a.

trying too hard to prove your views true

b. c.

associating only with like-minded people liking an argument only because you agree with its conclusion

d. looking harder for confirming evidence than for disconfirming evidence 7. Availability bias involves a. only reading what is available for free b. assuming that anything that is easily available is true

c.

looking no further than easily available materials when investigating an issue

d.

refusing to be available when an opposing view is stated

Exercise 4.5 Instructions in context.

1. Analyze Dickens’s Christmas Carol in terms of what you have learned about critical thinking so far. 2. Why do some people need a visit by a ghost before they can critically examine their own lives?

BIASES

133

UNIT

2

OBST. ACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

3. What did Scrooge learn about his life when he viewed it from a more objective vantage point?

4. If Christmas ghosts were to take you back in time to revisit a scene from your life,

what moment in time would they likely choose? What lesson would you learn from

the experience?

Exercise 4.6 In. structions in context.

1. Describe a scene in a movie, in which a character’s judgment is affected by a cognitive bias. Describe the bias. How would you explain the error to the character? 2. Find a famous disaster from history that you believe was probably due to cognitive bias. Explain the disaster and identify the cognitive bias you believe was respon-

sible. Argue your case. (This is a question for history buffs.)

NOTES 1. ‘The scientific

study of cognitive biases was launched during the 1970s by the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. A good place to begin is Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011). This example is from Lewis Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 44.

David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu

Enterprises, 2013), 93. In The Thinkers Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning, (Tomales, CA: Founda-

tion for Critical Thinking, 2011), Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder argue that there is a tendency

in human nature toward egotism, prejudice, and self-deception. This tendency is exacerbated, they argue, by powerful cultural influences that include the mass media. They argue that the active cultivation of fair-mindedness, self-knowledge, and a concern for others is the only known corrective. The only antidote, in short, is critical thinking. Much of their work is available here: http://www

CO PINnn

134

10. ll. 12. 13.

.criticalthinking.org See William Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). See Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal? Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 7. Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal?, 125. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 12. Kahneman defines the affect bias as “letting your likes and dislikes determine your beliefs about the world.”

Ibid., 12.

Marans, Logic Gallery, 70. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 98.

For more information see www.thetulipomania.com. See also Charles Mackay’s quaintly wonderful book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1980,

CHAPTER4

COGNITIVE

originally published in 1841), 92-101. For more on the history of human folly, see Stephen Weir, Encyclopedia Idiotica: History's Worst Decisions and the People Who Made Them (New York: Barrons,

2005).

14.

The quotations from Dickens in this appendix are from www.literature.org /authors/dickens-charles/

15.

christmas-carol. See it at www.condenaststore.com/-sp/PEOPLE-ARE-NO-DAMN-GOOD-Cartoon-Prints_

i9717289_.htm.

KEY TERMS

cognitive bias confirming evidence

INTERNET ON

disconfirming evidence psychological obstacle to critical thinking

RESOURCES

COGNITIVE

BIASES

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

BIASES

135

Chapter 5 Relativism and Skepticism

A PHILOSOPHICAL OBSTACLE to critical thinking is a fundamental belief that blocks critical thought. Surely no such obstacle to thinking critically is more prevalent today than relativism about truth, roughly, the claim that if you believe that something is true, then that makes it true for you, or relative to you, and, furthermore, there is no objective basis for anyone to say that your belief—or anyone else’s belief for that matter—is false or mistaken. According to this view, if one person believes that the Earth is hollow, then that is true for that person (that the Earth is hollow). If another person believes that the Earth has a solid core, then that is true for that person (that the Earth has a solid core). Moreover, there is no objective basis for saying that one person’s beliefis true and the other person’s belief is false regarding the Earth’s core. Rather, it is true for the first person that the Earth is hollow, and it is true for the second person that the Earth’s core is solid, and nothing more can be said. A related philosophical obstacle to critical thinking is relativism about morality. This is the claim that if you believe something is right or good, then that makes it right or good for you, or relative to you, and there is no objective basis for anyone to say that you are mistaken. According to moral relativism, if one person believes that genocide is a good thing, then that is true for that person (that genocide is good). If another person believes that lying is a good thing, then that is true for that person (that lying is good). Moreover, there is no objective basis for saying that one person’s moral belief is correct or true and the other person’s moral belief is false. It is simply true for the first person that genocide is good, and it is true for the second person that lying is good, and nothing more can be said of the matter. Relativism about truth is sometimes called alethic relativism (from the ancient Greek personification of truth, alethia) to distinguish it from relativism about morality, which is moral relativism. Although many people today believe that both forms of relativism are cutting-edge ideas, alethic and moral relativism are actually as old as the hills: both types of relativism were advocated in ancient Athens over twenty-four hundred years ago by some of the Sophists—a group of Greek philosophers who have gone down in history as Socrates’s main opponents. This chapter looks at both alethic and moral relativism, distinguishes different varieties of each, and introduces some of the Sophists who advocated relativistic views about truth and morality. We will also examine some of the reasons why Socrates opposed both alethic and moral relativism.

136

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

Skepticism, the claim that knowledge is impossible, is another philosophical barrier to critical thinking that has surprisingly many adherents today. This idea was also advocated by some members of the Sophist movement, and it too was opposed

by Socrates. This chapter will also examine skepticism, distinguish several varieties of skepticism, and introduce some of the Sophists who advocated the view. An examination of several Socratic lines of argument against skepticism will conclude this chapter.

THE SOPHISTS: PUBLIC OPPONENTS OF SOCRATES By the middle of the fifth century BCE, when Socrates was a young man, a new profession had come into existence in the land of the Greeks. A group of itinerant teachers known as Sophists (“wise men”) were traveling from one city-state to another, offering instruction in everything from mathematics, science, and poetry to wrestling, mythology, religion, music, and philosophy.’ Their specialty, however, was teaching rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech, which included public speaking, debate, and grammar: this was Speech Communications 101 ...in the fifth century BCE! The birth of the sophistic movement in Greece coincided with the birth of Greek democracy. As we have seen, at this time, the Greeks were conducting the world’s first experiment

in

democratic

government—complete

with

citizen

activists

giving

speeches in front of large crowds, ordinary people holding political office and serving on juries (for pay), and unbridled public criticism of those in power, protected by the

right of free speech.’ The birth of both the sophist movement and of democracy, at the same time and in the same place, was probably not a coincidence. Democracy, as the Greeks discovered, is a demanding form of government because it requires educated citizens and citizen activists. It also requires that these citizens have effective communication skills and that they be capable of critical thinking.* The Sophists claimed to

teach both.* We have seen that the goal of the Socratic method is not simply to reinforce every-

thing one already believes. Rather, the goal is to test one’s beliefs on the basis of rational criteria in order to dispel illusion and find truth. And for Socrates, this meant

discovering the way things really are (which is not always the way people may believe they are or may want them to be), on the basis of reliable criteria. Socrates, as we saw, held the commonsense, or traditional, view of truth, known as the “correspondence

theory”: truth is “the correspondence ofa claim or belief with reality.” Put another way,

a statement expressing a claim is true if it correctly describes or specifies reality; it is false if it does not. The most famous (and likely the wealthiest and highest paid) of all the traveling Sophists was a man who rejected the traditional concept of truth, arguing that the very idea is a myth. Truth is relative, not objective, he proclaimed. It was inevitable that

Socrates and the Sophist Protagoras would lock horns when they finally met. And lock horns they did.

137

138

UNIT

2.

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

PROTAGORAS Protagoras of Abdera (c. 490-420 BCE) was one of the more colorful of Socrates’s interlocutors. In Plato’s dialogue Protagoras, Socrates recalls the day he met the famous Sophist:

Socrates: Last night . . . Hippocrates, the son of Apollodorus and the brother of Phason, gave a tremendous thump with his staff at my door. . . and he came rushing in and bawled out: Socrates, are you awake or asleep? I knew his voice, and said: Hippocrates, is that you? and do you bring any news? Good news, he said; nothing but good. Delightful, I said; but what is the news? and why have you come hither at this unearthly hour? He drew nearer to me and said: Protagoras is come... At the same time he . . . sat down at my feet . . . I, who knew the very courageous madness of the man, said: What is the matter? Has Protagoras robbed you of anything? He replied, laughing: Yes, indeed he has, Socrates, of the wisdom which he keeps from me. But, surely, I said, if you give him money, and make friends with him, he will make you as wise as he is himself. Would to heaven, he replied, that this were the case! He might take all thatI have, and all that my friends have, if he pleased. But that is whyI have come to you now, in order that you may speak to him on my behalf; for I am young, and also I have never seen nor heard him; (when he visited Athens before I was but a child) and all men praise him, Socrates; he is reputed to be the most accomplished of speakers. There is no reason why we should not go to him at once, and then we shall find him at home. He lodges, as I hear, with Callias the son of Hipponicus: let us start. I replied: Not yet, my good friend; the hour is too early. But let us rise and take a turn in the court and wait about there until daybreak . . . we shall be sure to find him; never fear.

Young Hippocrates (no relation to the father of Western medicine) is so eager to bring Socrates and the great Sophist together that Socrates has to calm him down and basically say, “Not so fast, young man.” The day Socrates met the famous Sophist and engaged him in philosophical dialectic must have been an exciting one indeed, especially for youth (like Hippocrates) who gathered around to watch the spectacle. Man Is the Measure In a single line that is considered the first recorded expression of the relativist viewpoint, Protagoras had opened his book On Truth with words that have become famous: Man is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

Unfortunately, it is not certain exactly what Protagoras meant by measure, for the rest of his book was lost over the ages. However, we can infer his likely meaning. Suppose we go fishing and you claim the fish you caught is bigger than the one I caught, and I claim the reverse. How would we normally settle the matter? We would measure our fish against an objective criterion, wouldn't we? This would be something that is independent of the two fish being measured—a standard against which the two could be compared. A yardstick would do. We would place our fish next to it and then determine

whose fish is really bigger. Notice that the yardstick is an objective measure—a criterion that exists outside our minds and that is independent of the things being measured. We measure the fish against it, and the result indicates what we should believe. Inside my own mind, subjectively, I may believe my fish is bigger. But when I look at the yardstick and see that yours takes the prize, I see the sad truth. Most of us would naturally say that the yardstick gives us the objective truth about the fish—it tells us whose fish really is bigger. With measure so understood, the rest of Protagoras’s view can be stated. Socrates understood Protagoras to be claiming three things: (a) if you believe that such and such

is the case (no matter what it is), then that is true for you; (b) if believe that so and so is the case (no matter what it is), then that is true for me; and (c) there is no measure or criterion beyond our beliefs by which our beliefs can be tested and found to be mistaken or false. Thus, no objective basis or criterion exists by which we might measure

and compare our beliefs, the way we measure our fish, so as to discover which of our claims correspond to something called “reality” (and thus are true) and which do not. Truth, in short, only exists relative to each individual person, not objectively or universally for all. Protagoras used the wind to illustrate his point. Suppose we are standing outside, and I say the wind seems cold while you say it seems warm. Who is right? What is the correct answer? What is the truth? According to Protagoras, there is no such thing as the correct answer or the objective truth. This is because there is no one way that the wind really is, apart from how it seems to be to you and how it seems to be to me. Thus, how it appears to be from your perspective is your truth, and how it appears to be from

my perspective is my truth, and there’s no higher truth or objective benchmark beyond

our subjective perceptions that our perceptions can be compared to or be measured against. This is the way it is on every matter, argued the famous Sophist. Protagoras was advocating alethic relativism, relativism about truth. Global versus Limited Forms of Alethic Relativism To make matters more precise, philosophers distinguish several different forms of alethic relativism. Some people hold that science gives us objective, nonrelative truth but that religious claims are relative. This would be religious alethic relativism. Others maintain that all claims are objective and nonrelative except for judgments of beauty, which are relative. This would be “aesthetic relativism,” and so forth. Protagoras took alethic relativism all the way, advocating, as we have seen, that all truth is relative.

139

140

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

This view is called global alethic relativism since it claims that all truth claims, about all subject matters, are relative. From this point on, when we speak of alethic relativism, let it be the global version that we have in mind. Of course, if all truth claims are relative, then moral claims, such as the claim that genocide is wrong, are relative as well. Protagoras realized this. He followed global relativism to its logical conclusion by teaching that moral claims are also relative, arguing that “if a man sincerely believes that it is good to steal, then for him, so long as he believes it, it is good.”> This, of course, is moral relativism. We will examine moral relativism, and Socrates’s response to it, after we examine alethic relativism.

Individual and Cultural Alethic Relativism Distinguished To make matters still more precise, two additional important forms of alethic relativism can be distinguished. Individual alethic relativism claims that all truth is relative to the individual. If you believe something is true, then it is true for you, and there is no basis for

anyone to say that you are mistaken. Each person just is his or her own criterion of truth. Cultural alethic relativism claims that truth is relative to culture. If one culture believes that witches cause disease, then it is true for that culture (that witches cause disease). If another culture believes that diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria, then that is true

for that culture. Furthermore, there is no basis outside a culture from which to say that one culture is right and another culture is wrong, on any matter. Put another way, each culture is its own criterion of truth. From this point on, unless otherwise noted, when we speak of alethic relativism, let it be the individual form that we have in mind. OBJECTIVE

VERSUS

SUBJECTIVE

TRUTHS

Opponents of global relativism believe in the existence of objective truths. However, the existence of objective truths does not rule out the existence of truths that are subjective. Something is an objective truth if it is true whether or not anyone believes that it is true. Its truth, in other words, does not depend on its being believed to be true. Put another way, it would be true even if nobody were to believe that it is true. Its truth is thus independent of what we may think. For example, it is (objectively) true that the standard helium atom contains two protons. It was true ten thousand years ago, before anyone believed it was true that the standard helium atom contains two protons. (Helium had not even been discovered ten thousand years ago—nobody then even knew what helium was back then.) And it would remain true that helium’s atomic number is 2 even if everyone were to suddenly stop believing it. The truth in this case is objective because its being true does not depend on its being believed to be true. In contrast, suppose I claim that peach ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream, orI say that the Beatles were a better band than the Rolling Stones. These are subjective claims—they are more about me, and my inner subjectivity, than about the ice cream itself or the bands themselves. If one of these claims can be said to be true, it is at best true only relative to me, and it is my feelings or beliefs that make it true for me. In this case, the truth of the statement depends on what I believe or feel, and probably on nothing else. This is subjective truth. A truth is subjective ifits being true depends only on its being believed to be true. Some people just subjectively feel,

CHAPTERS

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

or believe, that peach beats strawberry, or that the Beatles were a better rock band than the Stones. There is no objective fact of the matter. The point is that belief in objective truth does not require the denial of subjective truth. The two types of truth can, and do, exist side by side. A critical thinker, of course, learns to recognize the difference between the two. It is important to emphasize that in the case of an objective truth, belief does not create truth.

Suppose Joe claims that there is human-like life on the planet Pluto. The “Plutoans,” Joe says, live underground. This is an objective claim: it is either objectively true, or it is objectively false. That is to say, Joe’s claim either corresponds to (accurately specifies) reality, or it does not. Now, merely believing that there are Plutoans living in underground dwellings on the outermost (or “dwarf”) planet will not conjure them into existence. There is no cause-and-effect connection between a belief inside one’s head and what actually exists on Pluto. Put another way, merely believing in Plutoans, no matter how strongly, will not cause Plutoans to pop into existence on Pluto. Whether these creatures exist is an objective matter, for it is true or false as the case may be— independent of what we may believe. The truth in this case is objective, not subjective.

Logical Implications of Alethic Relativism

In logic, to say that one statement P “implies” a second statement Q is to say that if P is true, then Q must be true. In the following conversation between Socrates and his student Theaetetus, dramatized by Plato in the dialogue named Theaetetus, Socrates helps the younger philosopher draw out a remarkable claim that is logically implied by Protagoras’s relativism.

Socrates: Well, you have delivered yourself of a very important doctrine about knowledge; it is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it, Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not: You have read him?

Theaetetus: 0 yes, again and again. Socrates: Does he not say that things are to you such as they appear to you, and to me such as they appear to me, and that you and I are men? Theaetetus: Yes, he says so. Socrates: A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him: the same wind is blowing, and yet one of us may be cold and the other not, or one may be slightly and the other very cold? Theaetetus: Quite true. Socrates: Now is the wind, regarded not in relation to us but absolutely, cold or not; or are we to say, with Protagoras, that the wind is cold to him who is cold, and not to him who is not? Theaetetus: I suppose the last. Socrates: Then it must appear so to each of them? Theaetetus: Yes. Socrates: And “appears to him” means the same as “he perceives.” Theaetetus: True.

141

142

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

Socrates: Then appearing and perceiving coincide in the case of hot and cold, and in similar instances; for things appear, or may be supposed to be, to each one such as he perceives them?

Theaetetus: Yes. Socrates: Then perception is always of existence, and being the same as knowledge is unerring?® The remarkable logical implication of Protagorean relativism is this: nobody can ever err. If you perceive that something is so, then it is so for you, and you cannot be mistaken. If I believe that something is otherwise, it is otherwise for me, and I cannot be mistaken. For in general, when people make differing claims, for instance, when I say the wind seems cold and you say it seems warm, there is no objective basis for one of us

to say that the other person is mistaken. That is, I won’t have a leg to stand onifI say you

are wrong, and if you try to correct me, you won't have a leg to stand on either. I can’t

correct you, and you can’t correct me. I can’t be wrong, and you can’t be wrong. We are

both right. Everyone is right; nobody is ever wrong, about anything. The conversation continued:

Socrates: Then, if that which acts upon

me has relation to me and to no other,

I and no other am the percipient of it? Theaetetus: Of course. Socrates: Then my perception is true to me, being inseparable from my own being; and, as Protagoras says, to myselfI am judge of what is and what is not to me. Theaetetus: I suppose so. Socrates: How then, if I never err, and if my mind never trips in the conception of being or becoming, can I fail of knowing that which I perceive? Theaetetus: You cannot.’ It is important to understand this crucial point. If Protagoras is right, we can never get beyond our own subjective perspectives, via the use of reason or by any other means, to

criteria that point to the way things really are, that is, to the way things are objectively or “in themselves” beyond us. All J can ever know is the way things appear to be relative

to me, and all you can ever know is how things appear to be relative to you. If we were to

try to get beyond our subjective perceptions, beyond the relativity of it all, to so-called

objective criteria that we can all refer to so as to test our beliefs against reality, we would find that we have nothing to stand on. We would land on thin air. As the classical scholar W. K. C. Guthrie observed, it’s almost as if each of us is locked in his or her own private inner world—if Protagorean relativism is true.*

Two Socratic Arguments against Alethic Relativism Socrates saw where this was headed. If the mere act of believing something to be true makes it true for a person, and if there is no objective basis beyond that person’s belief

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

from which anyone might say that he or she is mistaken, then that person is infallible. An infallible person would be someone who could not possibly be mistaken about anything. If alethic relativism is true, then each of us is infallible! Nobody is, or ever has been, mistaken about anything. Is the claim that everyone is infallible even remotely plausible? Isn’t it simply absurd to suppose that nobody has ever been mistaken about anything? Weren't people mistaken when they believed that the Earth is flat? This suggests the following Socratic argument: 1. If alethic relativism is true, then everybody is infallible—nobody has ever been mistaken about anything. 2. But this implication of alethic relativism is absurd. 3. It is an established principle of logic that if a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false.? 4. Therefore, alethic relativism is false. A second implication of Protagorean relativism also seemed absurd to Socrates. If each person is infallible, he argued, then critical thinking is impossible. For critical thinking requires testing one’s beliefs against independent criteria to see whether one’s

beliefs are really true or false. It entails the possibility of being mistaken and requires a willingness to admit error if one is mistaken. But if Protagorean relativism is correct, such independent criteria do not exist, one can never be mistaken about anything... and critical thinking is a mirage. However, if critical thinking is impossible, then so is the very idea of self-improvement. Are these logical implications of the relativist view believable? This suggests a second Socratic argument:

1. If alethic relativism is true, then critical thinking is impossible, and the very idea of self-improvement is an impossible idea. 2. But these implications of alethic relativism are absurd. 3. If a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, alethic relativism is false.

THEN

WHAT

IS REASON

GOOD

FOR?

An interesting question arises: If objective truth is a myth and if each person is always correct no matter what he or she believes, then what is the point of reasoning with others? The point, answered Protagoras, is definitely not to find some mythical will-o’-the-wisp called “the Truth.” The point, he claimed, is simply to win the argument, to get one’s way, to advance one’s agenda. In short, victory, not truth or justice, is the goal of reasoning with others. Protagoras often used military metaphors when discussing reason, famously teaching that “any discussion is a verbal battle in which one must be the victor and one must be vanquished.”'” Does this view of reason encourage egocentrism? Does it give free reign to the cognitive biases? Is it compatible with critical thinking?

143

144

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

Can Relativism Undermine Freedom? Socrates worried that if relativism becomes widely accepted in a democratic society, the result could be a loss of freedom and a descent into tyranny. Why? Suppose people reject the traditional idea of truth and instead believe that the only point of reasoning with others is victory (without regard for truth and justice as traditionally understood). What would exist to keep clever, power-hungry men, trained in sophistic rhetoric, who care nothing about truth or justice, from winning the support of their fellow men and climb-

ing to the top? But if such men were to attain power over everyone else, the result might eventually be tyranny and a loss of freedom. Today, as in the days of Socrates, many find relativism to be an exciting idea. Socrates, however, believed it to be a dangerous one.

Socrates's predictions seemed partly confirmed when some of the Sophists advertised that they could teach anyone how to make any view appear true, how to make any action appear just or moral, and how to win any argument—no matter what one’s cause. Protago-

ras taught his students how to argue both sides of every case and bragged that he could teach anyone “how to make the weaker argument the stronger.” Since his students received no training in the pursuit of real truth or justice, this meant that “if they only mastered the art of persuasion they could have the world at their feet; what they did with it was their affair.”"! Today the word sophist carries some of the same negative connotations it carried in the days of Socrates, suggesting a self-seeking person whose only concern is winning the argument, getting his way, or attaining power over others, without regard for real truth, justice, or the interests of other people.

PROTAGORAS

AND

HIS

RETINUE

IN MOTION

In this amusing excerpt from Plato’s Protagoras, Socrates describes the scene that greeted him when he entered the house where the great Sophist was lodging: When we entered, we found Protagoras taking a walk in the cloister; and next to him, on one side, were walking Callias, the son of Hipponicus, and Paralus, the son of Pericles... and Charmides, the son of Glaucon. On the other side of him were Xanthippus, the other son of Pericles, Philippides .. . also Antimoerus of Mende, who... intends to make sophistry his profession. A train of listeners followed him. . . [many] appeared to be foreigners, whom Protagoras had brought with him out of the various cities visited by him in his journeys, he, like Orpheus, attracting them and they following. I should mention also that there were some Athenians in the company. Nothing delighted me more than the precision of their movements: they never got into his way at all; but when he and those who were with him turned back, then the band of listeners parted regularly on either side; he was always in front, and they wheeled round and took their places behind him in perfect order.

Is Alethic Relativism Self-Contradictory? Truth, says Protagoras, is relative to each person. Objective truth is a myth. It does not exist. Let us look more closely at what is being claimed. Protagoras seems to be

CHAPTER 5

RELATIVISM

saying that the believer in objective truth, whether he realizes it or not, Protagoras also seems to be saying that he, the global relativist, is the the correct view—whether or not the believer in objective truth realizes to be saying, in other words, that whether one believes it or not, truth

AND

SKEPTICISM

is mistaken. one who has it. He seems really is rela-

tive. Put another way, his claim seems to be that relativism describes the way truth

really is.

But the claim that alethic relativism describes the way truth really is, seems to be a nonrelative claim. For it at least appears to be a claim about how something (truth) really is in itself{—apart from what we may, or may not, believe. In short, the Protagorean claim seems to be a claim to nonrelative truth. But this implies that there is at least one nonrelative truth, which in turn entails that the doctrine of global relativism is false (since then not all truth is relative)! In short, it appears that the doctrine of global relativism cannot be asserted without self-contradiction. To assert the doctrine is to contradict oneself! Is global relativism self-contradictory? Socrates thought so. This was another reason why he rejected the view. Or is there a mistake in the preceding argument? I leave this to your thoughtful consideration. But note this: if you think there is a fact of the matter, as to whether the argument above is, or is not, a good one, then you are not a global relativist; if you conclude that the argument just given against relativism is not sound, that in itself implies that global relativism is false. Here is another way to put the point. Protagoras’s claim seems to be that it really is the case that all truth is relative. He seems to be saying that this is the way truth really is, whether you believe it or not. Isn’t this equivalent to saying that the statement “Relativism is true” is objectively true?

Application to Cultural Alethic Relativism Parallel arguments can be given with regard to the cultural version of alethic relativism. Recall that according to cultural alethic relativism, truth is relative to each culture,

and there is no objective basis beyond any culture against which the truth claims of a particular culture can be examined and found to be mistaken. In some cultures, it is believed that witches cause disease. In other cultures, it is believed that diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria. According to cultural alethic relativism, there is no objective basis for saying that one culture is right and another culture is wrong (regarding the cause of disease). It is true for culture A that witches cause disease; it is true for culture B that viruses and bacteria cause disease; and that is all that can be said. Both cultures are right, each in its own (relative) way. However, modern science has amassed tons of evidence showing that disease

is caused not by witches’ spells but by virus and bacteria. Hence the following argument:

1. If cultural alethic relativism is true, then every culture is infallible—no culture has ever been mistaken about anything. 2. But this implication of the view is absurd.

145

146

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

3. It is an established principle of logic that if a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, cultural alethic relativism is false. And 1. If cultural alethic relativism is true, then critical thinking with respect to a culture’s belief is impossible, and the very idea of a culture's beliefs being mistaken is an impossible idea. 2. But these implications of the view are absurd. 3. If a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, cultural alethic relativism is false.

THE QUESTION

OF MORAL

RELATIVISM

Parallel to the distinction between individual and cultural relativism about truth, phi-

losophers distinguish individual and cultural relativism about morality. Individual

moral relativism, also called moral subjectivism, holds that morality is relative to each

individual. According to this view, believing something to be morally right or good makes it morally right or good for you and there is no rational or objective basis for anyone to say you are mistaken. According to cultural relativism (with respect to morality), moral principles are true or false only relative to the culture or society in which one lives (rather than to each individual), and there is no rational or objective standard above the moral codes of the various cultures or societies by which any of those moral codes may be judged or criticized. Implications of Individual Moral Relativism Socrates noted the obvious implication: if individual moral relativism is true, and believing something to be morally right makes it right for that person, and there is no

rational basis from which anyone might say that he or she is mistaken, then that person is morally infallible. He or she cannot be mistaken on any moral matter. Thus, if indi-

vidual moral relativism is true, each of us is morally infallible! Nobody is, or has ever been, mistaken on any moral matter. But is this view at all believable? Is the claim that Hitler, for example, was not mistaken on any matter of morality at all believable? This suggests a Socratic argument against moral subjectivism.

1. If individual moral relativism is true, then everyone is infallible on matters of morality—each person is an infallible moral authority and nobody has ever been mistaken on any moral matter. 2. But these implications of individual moral relativism are absurd. 3. If a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, individual moral relativism is false.

CHAPTERS5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

A further consequence must be noted. If each person is an infallible moral authority, then critical thinking about moral matters is impossible, since critical thinking about moral matters involves testing one’s moral beliefs against independent criteria in order to separate truth from illusion. But if critical thinking on matters of morality is impossible, then moral self-improvement is an impossible idea. Is either of these logical consequences of

moral subjectivism even remotely plausible? Is it believable that nobody has ever improved himself or herself morally? Is it believable that nobody has ever thought critically about morality? (The principles of critical moral reasoning are examined in chapter 13.) These considerations give us a second Socratic argument against individual moral relativism:

1. If individual moral relativism is true, then thinking critically about morality is impossible, nobody has ever improved morally, and nobody can ever improve morally. 2. But these implications of individual moral relativism are absurd. 3. If a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. 4.

Therefore, individual moral relativism is false.

Socrates had an additional concern. He worried that if everyone gives up on critical thinking about morality, then nobody will have any rational basis for moral selfimprovement. The very idea of moral improvement will die. But surely we all could improve morally, in one way or another. Socrates also worried that if moral subjectivism were to become widely accepted, the result might very well be moral anarchy and a descent into social chaos. As Socrates saw it, moral subjectivism is not only a false idea; it might be a deadly one.

Problematic Implications of Cultural Relativism In some societies today, homosexuality is considered morally wrong (and is punishable by death), while in other societies it is considered morally permissible and is not against the law. In some cultures today, honor killing is still considered morally acceptable,

while in other cultures it is considered morally wrong for a father to kill his daughter

because he believes she brought dishonor on the family. According to cultural relativism, homosexuality is morally wrong relative to some societies or cultures, while it is morally acceptable relative to others, and there is no rational basis above, or outside, any culture from which to criticize the moral code of any culture. Likewise, according to cultural relativism, for honor killing. Every society or culture is thus right in itself with respect to morality; no society or culture is ever wrong on any matter of morality.

Each culture, in short, is its own ultimate criterion of moral truth, and there is no objective basis from which to criticize the morals of any society. Is it even remotely plausible to suppose that no society or culture has ever been mistaken in its moral code? Is it believable that the Nazis were not mistaken in any of their moral beliefs? Is it believable that there is no reasonable basis from which to criticize any society’s moral code? Isn't there a rational basis from which to criticize, for example, Nazi ethics? How about this: genocide is absolutely morally wrong.

147

148

UNIT

2.

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

(In chapter 13 we'll examine some of the methods used by philosophers to support moral claims such as the claim that genocide is wrong.) These considerations suggest a Socratic argument against cultural relativism: 1. If cultural relativism is true, then no society or culture has ever been mistaken on a moral matter, and there is no rational basis from which to criticize any

society's moral code or the moral code of any culture. 2. But these implications of cultural relativism are absurd. 3. If a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, cultural relativism is false.

Many are attracted to cultural relativism because it sounds on the surface like a tolerant theory (since it claims that every societal or cultural moral code is right or correct), and tolerance is a good thing. However, the theory has a problematic consequence

for anyone who truly values tolerance. Since cultural relativism implies that no society or culture has ever been mistaken or can be mistaken on any moral matter, cultural rela-

tivism implies that each society or culture is an infallible moral authority. However, if each society is infallible on moral matters, then it follows that everyone in each society ought to obey his or her society’s moral code and never question it or deviate from it. In other words, the doctrine of social conformism is a logical consequence of cultural rela-

tivism. Social conformism is the view that one’s only moral obligation is to completely obey one’s society’s moral code and never criticize it, no matter what it requires.'” However, it follows from this that people who live in a society with an intolerant moral

code ought to be intolerant, while people who live in a society with a tolerant moral code have a moral duty to follow that code and be tolerant. Cultural relativism, in short, does not

automatically encourage tolerance as a moral value at all. Indeed, in the world in which we

live today, full of intolerant moral codes, cultural relativism more often counsels intolerance. These considerations suggest a Socratic argument against cultural relativism: 1.

If cultural relativism is true, then social conformism is true, and thus intolerance

is required if one lives in an intolerant society. 2. But these logical consequences of cultural relativism are absurd. 3. If a view has absurd implications, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, cultural relativism is false. A third implication of cultural relativism is equally problematic. Cultural relativism logically implies that it is impossible that a culture might improve morally. The very idea of a culture making moral progress is incoherent or impossible if cultural relativism is true. For consider what we mean when we say that something has improved. To say that something X has improved is to claim that there is an external standard of value—a standard of value outside of X—against which X can be measured and in terms of which X can be said to have improved. But if cultural relativism is true, there are no standards of

CHAPTERS

RELATIVISM

AND

moral value outside of, or above, any given culture. Therefore, the very concept of moral improvement fora culture is impossible, if cultural relativism is true. Is this consequence

of cultural relativism remotely plausible? Is it believable that no society has ever made

moral progress? Haven't at least some societies improved morally? Hasn't at least some moral progress occurred? Wasn't ending slavery a moral improvement? These consider-

ations yield one last Socratic argument against cultural relativism: 1. 2. 3. 4.

If cultural relativism is true, then no culture has ever improved morally. But this implication of cultural relativism is absurd. If a view has an absurd implication, then the view is false. Therefore, cultural relativism is false.

Exercise 5.1 We generally understand an idea better after we have explained it in our own words. Answer each question below in your own words.

yo PND

me}

1. What is global relativism about truth? What does it claim? How does it differ from a limited relativism such as religious relativism? Why did Socrates oppose global relativism about truth? What is the difference between a subjective and an objective claim? Does Socrates say that no claims are ever subjective?

How

does

cultural

relativism

subjectivism)? What does infallible mean?

differ

from

individual

relativism

(moral

Why does cultural relativism imply social conformism? What does social conformism claim we ought to do? Why did Socrates believe that critical thinking is impossible if global alethic relativism is true? 10. Why did Socrates believe that moral subjectivism might be a deadly idea?

Exercise 5.2 Topics for class or small group discussion, short essays, or self-reflection.

rR

Yd

1. What do we mean by the word sophist today? Cite a public figure whom you believe is a sophist. Back up your claim with evidence. Was Socrates a Sophist? Cite evidence in support of your answer. Compare and contrast Socrates and the Sophists. Are some lawyers sophists? Clarify and argue for your position.

Are some politicians sophists? Clarify and argue for your position.

SKEPTICISM

149

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

6. Can instruction in the art of persuasion without regard for truth give power-hungry people the ability to fool others and make injustice appear just and make the false appear true? Is this one way that unscrupulous people sometimes get elected to public office? Is this one way unjust people attain power over others? Discuss.

PNNAAAYWN PE

Exercise 5.3 Identify the following claims as objective or subjective. Remember that a claim need not be true in order to be objective.

Sugarless gum does not taste as good as real gum. The Beatles sold more records in 1964 than any other band in the world. The “Summer of Love” (1967) was the best summer of all. The Earth is a sphere. The interior angles of a Euclidean triangle always sum to 180 degrees. Vanilla is my favorite ice cream. It is morally wrong to kill someone just for sport.

The ocean is cold today.

Exercise 5.4

True or false?

. Alethic relativism is a psychological obstacle to critical thinking. . Moral relativism is a philosophical obstacle to critical thinking.

yer

2

PND

UNIT

yo

150

The Sophists were the philosophical allies of Socrates in his crusade against relativism. Socrates advocated moral relativism. Socrates argued for alethic relativism. Protagoras advocated both alethic and moral relativism. Gorgias advocated global skepticism.

Socrates argued that if everyone believed in global skepticism, then critical think-

ing would die out. Socrates argued that if alethic relativism is true, then nobody can ever err. Protagoras believed that the purpose of reasoning is to find the truth. Gorgias believed that the purpose of reasoning is to find the truth.

10. ll. 12. Socrates believed that truth is a purely subjective matter. 13. Gorgias believed that we can know objective truths. 14. Protagoras believed that we can know objective truths. 1S. Atruth is objective if its being true does not depend on its being believed to be true. 16. One problem with cultural moral relativism, according to the text, is that if it is true, then moral progress is impossible. 17. One problem with individual moral relativism, according to the text, is that if it is true, then nobody has ever been mistaken on a moral matter.

CHAPTER

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

One problem with cultural moral relativism, according to the text, is that if it is true, then social conformism is true. The individual form of moral relativism is called “moral subjectivism.” Socrates was a moral subjectivist. Protagoras refused to charge his students for his teaching. Protagoras wrote a book titled On Truth. Socrates was a Sophist. Socrates held that belief in relativism was a threat to freedom. Socrates held that belief in skepticism was a threat to freedom.

Exercise 5.5 For class or small group discussion, or short essay assignments (your instructor will tell

you the length).

1. Is global relativism self-contradictory? Make your case. 2. Ifyou advocate individual relativism, can you sincerely claim, with a straight face,

that Hitler was not wrong to advocate genocide? Can you seriously claim that there is no rational basis from which to criticize his concentration camps and gas chambers? Can you defend the claim that Hitler’s moral beliefs were beyond all

criticism? Can you defend the claim without self-contradiction? Make your case and defend it against an objection.

SOCRATES CHALLENGES THE SOPHISTS Convinced that there are real truths to be discovered and that truth is vitally important to the moral life and to the attainment of human excellence, Socrates stepped forward and challenged the Sophists in the court of public opinion. He did so not for money (unlike the Sophists, he never accepted any fees for his instruction) but rather out of a passionate concern for the ideals of real truth and real justice. The sophistical disregard for truth and justice, he argued, is based on faulty thinking and leads people away from the best form of life a human can live, all things considered, namely, a moral life in correspondence with objective truth. Socrates thus entered the “battle of ideas” of his day, challenging the Sophists, calling their doctrines into question, and arguing against them on the basis of a conviction that people can discover for themselves real truth worth knowing and true justice worth achieving. Socrates was one of the first public intellectuals in world history. For Socrates, that is what philosophy, or “the love of wisdom,” was ultimately all about. In The Clouds, the playwright Aristophanes presented Socrates as a Sophist, but he was wrong. Socrates was the greatest critic of the Sophists.

151

2.

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

Exercise 5.6 Questions for class or small group discussion, essay assignments, or self-reflection. Is critical thinking impossible if global relativism is true?

. Are some people relativists not because they believe it is true, but because it shields them from challenge or criticism? Make your case. Is relativism a cop-out? Is it a way ofavoiding reality? Explain your answer.

Is a global relativist contradicting himself ifhe says to a traffic officer, “But officer, I was only going the speed limit”?

Is a global relativist contradicting himself if he says to a robber who just robbed ND

UNIT

OP

152

him, “You violated my rights”? Isa global relativist contradicting herself if she says she knows that relativism is true?

Can global relativism even be asserted without self-contradiction?

Might the universal adoption of global relativism lead to tyranny? Might the universal adoption of global relativism lead to anarchy?

GORGIAS

THE

SILVER-TONGUED

SKEPTIC

Protagorean relativism was not the only threat to critical thinking in Socrates’s day. The Sophist Gorgias of Leontini (c. 485—c. 380 BCE) was an associate and contemporary of Protagoras’s who also taught rhetoric. (Leontini was a Greek city-state on the island of

Sicily.) Gorgias argued for a view considered by Socrates to be every bit as subversive as

the relativistic views of Protagoras. “It is impossible,” said Gorgias, “to know the truth

about reality.” This is skepticism, the view that knowledge is impossible. It follows, Gorgias argued, that “we are all at the mercy of opinion . . . because there is no permanent and stable truth to be known.” Thus, one man’s unsupported opinion is as good as that of another's since “there is no higher criterion by which [an opinion] can be verified or the reverse.” SOCRATES

QUESTIONS

GORGIAS

Socrates: Gorgias . . . what is the art which you profess? Gorgias: Rhetoric, Socrates, is my art. Socrates: Then I am to call you a rhetorician? Gorgias: Yes, Socrates, and a good one too... Socrates: I should wish to do so. Gorgias: Then pray do.

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

Socrates: And are we to say that you are able to make other men rhetoricians? Gorgias: Yes, that is exactly what I profess to make them, not only at Athens, but in all places. Socrates: And will you continue to ask and answer questions, Gorgias, as we are at present doing and reserve for another occasion the longer mode of speech. . . Will you keep your promise, and answer shortly the questions which are asked of you? Gorgias: Some answers, Socrates, are of necessity longer; butI will do my best to make them as short as possible; for a part of my profession is that I can be as short as any one. Socrates: That is what is wanted,

Gorgias; exhibit the shorter method

now, and the

longer one at some other time. Gorgias: Well, I will; and you will certainly say, that you never heard a man use fewer words.

Different Forms of Skepticism To make matters more precise, philosophers distinguish different forms of skepticism. Global skepticism is the claim that all knowledge, no matter what the subject matter, is impossible. This seems to have been the view advocated by Gorgias. There are, however, limited forms of skepticism. Someone might claim there is such a thing as scientific knowledge but deny that we have knowledge in matters of religion. This person is a “religious skeptic.” Someone might accept the existence of knowledge in other areas

but deny that there is any knowledge to be had in matters of aesthetics. This person is an

“aesthetic skeptic.” From this point on, when we speak of skepticism, let us have in mind global skepticism—the claim that all knowledge is impossible. In towns across Greece, Gorgias would give public exhibitions of his specialty—the art of rhetoric. Standing before a large audience, he would invite questions on any topic. Once a question was asked, he would deliver an impromptu speech on the matter, dazzling the crowd with his oratorical skills and brilliance. Gorgias’s teaching was summed up by W. K. C. Guthrie as the claim that “nothing exists (or is real), that if it did we could not know it, and if we could know it we could not communicate our knowledge to one another.”!> This is a hard teaching to swallow. Was Gorgias

right about all of this? It depends. Before we can say that a certain sort of thing (in this case,

knowledge) does not exist, we must first define it; otherwise we won't know what we are talking about. We have already defined truth. So, what exactly is knowledge?

WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE? Epistemology (from the Greek word for knowledge, episteme, literally “theory of knowledge”) is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of knowledge and attempts to work out a theoretical account of it. The ancient Greeks were the founders of epistemology as a systematic academic discipline, a distinction they deserve because they were the first in history to produce systematic written works of epistemology and subject these to reasoned debate. Epistemology is one of the most active and highly developed fields within philosophy today.

153

154

UNIT2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

Knowing How, Knowing Who, Knowing That To begin with, we use the verb to types of knowledge. We may say “how-to” knowledge. Sometimes someone knows a song. This is

know in several ways, which suggests there are different a person knows how to ride a bike. This is practical or we say that one person knows a second person or that knowledge by acquaintance, or “acquaintance” knowl-

edge. We also say things like “I know that 2 + 2 = 4” or “the Earth is round.” This is called “propositional” knowledge because a proposition, or statement (rather than a skill or a person), is what is known. Recall that a proposition is that which is expressed by a declarative sentence. Our interest from here on will be propositional knowledge. When we use the word knowledge, this is what we shall mean.'® So, what exactly is (propositional) knowledge? Socrates, as we meet him in Plato’s dialogues, was the first person in at least the Western tradition to articulate a definition and give it philosophical expression. Therefore, the Socratic definition, elaborated upon and developed further by his student Plato, is called the “classical account of knowledge.” Socrates and Plato broke the concept of knowledge down into three parts, summed up in this concise definition: knowledge is “justified true belief.” This defini-

tion is sometimes called the “JTB theory of knowledge.” On this account, the general form of a statement ascribing knowledge to a knower is S knows that P

where S stands for the knower (the knowing subject) and P is a variable standing for the statement or proposition known. For example, Sue knows that the ocean is salty. Next, S knows a proposition P just in case all three of the following conditions exist: 1. S believes P is true. (This is called the “belief condition.”) 2. P is indeed true. (This is called the “truth condition.”) 3. S has an adequate justification for believing that P is true, in the form of an adequate reason linking P solidly to reality. (This is called the “justification condition.”)

Socrates and Plato argued that these three conditions are jointly sufficient and individually necessary for the presence of knowledge.'” The consensus among epistemologists

today, incidentally, is that the three conditions cited by Socrates and Plato are not jointly sufficient for knowledge—a fourth condition is required before the account is complete. However, we shall not enter into this very technical discussion here.’*

Why Accept the JTB Theory? Let us examine the conditions one by one. Here is an obvious reason to accept the belief condition: someone who seriously doubts that a particular proposition P is true, and

thus does not really believe that P is true, could hardly be said to know that P is true. Certainly, believing is a necessary condition of knowing.

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

Why accept the truth condition? For one reason, we ordinarily do not dignify a belief by calling it “knowledge” if it is actually false. For example, if someone claimed, “American farmers from New England, not Egyptians, built the Egyptian pyramids five thousand years ago,” we would reply, “That may be your opinion, but it is not genuine

knowledge.” (And surely the reason it is not knowledge is that it is false, right?) Certainly, truth is a necessary condition for something to qualify as real knowledge: to count as knowledge a belief must at least be true. For another example, in ancient times most people believed that the Earth is flat; indeed, they thought they knew that the Earth is flat. But they did not really know—because their belief was false. Socrates suggested a powerful defense of the third condition. First of all, he argued, true belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge. For example, a fortune-teller in the marketplace predicts that I will win the lottery tomorrow. Suppose the prediction

comes true. She was right. Nevertheless, we would not want to say that the fortuneteller knew that I would win the lottery. A lucky guess is not knowledge. The question is, What must be added to true belief to produce real knowledge? A true belief only rises to the level of knowledge, Socrates argued, when it is solidly anchored in reality. But what

anchors a belief to reality and makes it genuine knowledge? Socrates answers: only an adequate justification of its truth, that is, a “sufficiently strong reason or justification for

thinking that a claim is true.”!” What degree of strength is appropriate for knowledge? Typical examples of knowledge guide us as we work out a theoretical account, although we will not examine model cases here, and we will not attempt to specify the appropri-

ate threshold strength.”° Today philosophers call the type of justification appropriate for knowledge epistemic justification and distinguish it from other types of justification that can be given for a belief. For example, some citizens of Hitler's Germany probably had pragmatic justifications for holding Nazi beliefs—professing Nazism may have been good for business, for instance. There are certainly plenty of people who hold beliefs on the basis of wish fulfillment, or on the basis of a heartfelt commitment to a political

party, or on the basis of a hope, or out of loyalty to a friend. These factors may justify a belief in one’s mind, but we would not call the belief “knowledge.” Pragmatic and emo-

tional justifications do not result in knowledge because they are not intrinsically connected to the goal of the cognitive enterprise, which is the attainment of truth. Unlike other types of justification, epistemic justification is truth-conducive. It is, as Laurence BonJour, a leading contemporary epistemologist, puts it, justification that “increases or enhances to an appropriate degree . . . the likelihood that the beliefis true.””! Socrates thus drew a radical distinction between genuine knowledge and unsupported opinions, guesses, and hunches. An opinion (or a guess or a hunch) isan unsupported belief that may be either true or false. But it is not the nature of hunches, opinions, and so forth

to be strictly true: some turn out to be true, and some turn out to be false. We do not count

a belief as real knowledge, Socrates argued, even when it is true, if there is nothing to con-

nect it to reality and tie it to what is really the case. A belief only becomes knowledge when it is solidly connected to reality by an adequate reason to believe it is true.”

155

156

UNIT

2.

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

In The Republic, Socrates compares people who have true opinions but no real knowledge to blind people walking along a road. Possessing some true opinions of the road, but without real knowledge, the blind travelers manage to stay on track for a while, mainly

through luck. However, they eventually slip into the ditch. On the other hand, the traveler with real knowledge of the road knows where it turns and does not fall off.*> This

illustrates the classical, or JTB, account of knowledge. As Socrates put it, knowledge is “true belief with a logos’—true belief with a rational account solidly connecting a statement to reality and showing that it is actually true. OBJECTIONS AND REPLIES

Some argue against the belief condition by pointing out that we sometimes say, “I know

it, but I don’t believe it.” They argue that statements such as this show that knowing does not require believing. However, when someone makes such a statement, he or she

ordinarily does not intend to be taken literally. It’s just a figure of speech, a way of saying, “I’m astonished” or “I’m extremely surprised.” The objection fails. Some object to the truth condition with the following argument: in the Middle Ages it was said to be “common knowledge” that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But the proposition believed in this case is false, so one can know that which is false. However, this counterargument is flawed. In the Middle Ages, people claimed to know

that the Sun revolves around the Earth; and they certainly believed the proposition. But

their belief was false, so in reality they did not know any such thing. For it is improper to

use the word know when the belief in question is actually false. In such a case, we say they believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth but not that they knew it. We simply do not

say a person knows that P when P is actually false; that is not how we use the word. So, ifa

historian says something like, “In the Middle Ages it was common knowledge that the Earth is the center of the universe,” the historian is misusing the word knowledge. It would

be more accurate to say, “In the Middle Ages, it was commonly believed that the Earth is the center of the universe.” The objection fails. Some have objected to the justification condition by pointing out that people some-

times make lucky guesses—on no grounds or evidence whatsoever—and then say,

“See, I knew it!” However, these are not cases of genuine knowledge. People can say

they have knowledge, but saying so doesn’t make it so. A lucky guess or a hunch that turns out right is not normally thought of as real knowledge.

Exercise 5.7

Answer these questions in your own words.

1. According to the JTB account of knowledge, what must be added to true belief to produce knowledge? 2. Summarize the JTB account of knowledge.

CHAPTER 5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

3. State one of the necessary conditions for knowledge according to the JTB account and an argument in support of the claim that this condition is necessary for knowledge.

4. State one argument against the JTB theory. How do supporters of the JTB theory answer this argument?

5. What is epistemology?

SOCRATES’S

CONCERN

Let’s return to Gorgias, who maintained that all knowledge is impossible. Is his claim even remotely plausible? Is it plausible to say that we do not really know that atoms are

smaller than mountains or that the Sun is more than a mile away? Doesn't the view have

absurd consequences? Socrates certainly thought so. These considerations suggest the following Socratic argument:

1. If global skepticism is true, then we do not know that atoms are smaller than mountains or that the Sun is more than a mile away. 2. But these implications of skepticism are simply absurd. 3. If a view has absurd implications, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, global skepticism is false. Socrates was also concerned with Gorgias’s famous teaching because he believed that if knowledge is impossible, then critical thinking is impossible. Why? Thinking critically requires that we examine our deepest beliefs and values, holding them up to the light of day in order to bring them into line with reality. Knowing the truth is the ultimate goal of critical thinking. But if there is nothing to know, then there are no known criteria for critically examining anything—including oneself—and critical thinking is impossible. These thoughts suggest another Socratic argument:

1. If global skepticism is true, then critical thinking and intellectual self-improvement are impossible. 2. But these implications of skepticism are absurd. 3. If a view has absurd implications, then the view is false. 4. Therefore, global skepticism is false. The stakes were therefore high when Socrates challenged Gorgias in the public square. As Socrates and Gorgias both saw, if skepticism is true, then opinions are all we can ever hope for. No opinion can ever be converted into knowledge by an appropriate argument, no matter how good the argumentis. Ifso, then as Gorgias taught, one man’s

157

158

UNIT

2.

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

opinion is as good as that of any other's. All views are equal and “we are all at the mercy

of opinions.”

If reason is not directed at objective truth and the attainment of real knowledge,

then what is reasoning good for? Gorgias gave the same answer previously given by his colleague Protagoras: victory, getting your way and advancing your agenda, is the goal of reasoning. That is all reason is good for.

Is Global Skepticism Self-Contradictory?

A global skeptic such as Gorgias claims that all knowledge is impossible. One wonders

how he knows this. Setting that riposte aside, let us look more closely at what is being

claimed. The global skeptic seems to be saying that the believer in knowledge, whether

he realizes it or not, is mistaken. The skeptic also appears to be claiming that he, the skeptic, is right whether the believer in knowledge realizes it or not. The advocate of

skepticism seems to be claiming, in other words, that whether you believe it or not, the reality is that knowledge simply does not exist. Isn’t the skeptic thus claiming to know

something? Something that the believer in knowledge doesn’t know? Isn’t that a self-

contradiction? Socrates thought so. Thus, we have one more reason why he rejected

global skepticism. Or is there a mistake in the above reasoning?”* I leave this to your consideration.

Exercise 5.8 If you think there is an error in the preceding argument, explain what you take the error

to be. Can you defend skepticism and advocate it without self-contradiction? How would you do it? Make your case.

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

IN RETROSPECT

Socrates argued that relativism and skepticism are both false. But his chief worry was moral. He feared that a widespread belief in sophistic relativism and skepticism would “reduce everything to individual preference and prejudice, and turn philosophy from the search for truth into a means for satisfying the demands of selfishness

and vanity. ... ”** His response was to seek “to win back by reason a deeper founda-

tion for knowledge and morality.”** Did Socrates succeed in his task? Many philoso-

phers today would argue that the success achieved by his students, beginning with Plato, and the persistence of the philosophical tradition that they contributed to, suggest that he did.

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

Exercise 5.9

AYPwWNE

True or false? Socrates argued that knowledge and opinion are two different things. According to the text, cultural relativism does not necessarily lead to tolerance.

Socrates was what we would call today a “public intellectual.”

Wrestling was among the subjects taught by the Sophists. In the days of Socrates, the word Sophist meant “wise man.” On the traditional view, not just any form of justification is sufficient for knowledge—the justification must be an adequate reason to hold that the belief in question is really true. 7. On the JTB account, the justification of a belief must tie the belief to reality by giving a sufficient reason to believe the belief is true.

8. “JTB” stands for “jaundiced but true belief.”

9. Epistemology is the study of opinion. 10. Epistemology is the study of what people do in fact believe. Exercise 5.10 Multiple Choice

1. According to Protagoras, the purpose of reasoning is solely to a. silence your opponents b. find the truth c.

winthe argument and get your way

d. exercise your mind 2. According to Gorgias, the purpose of reasoning is solely to

a. b.

silence your opponents find the truth

c.

win the argument and get your way

d. exercise your mind

3. According to the text, two kinds of truths can be distinguished:

a.

silly and ridiculous

c.

objective and subjective

b. d.

true and false

factual and sublime

e. poetic and factual

ao

oP

4. The two forms of moral relativism are global and factual mythical and rational cultural and individual popular and unpopular

159

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

5. Two major forms of alethic relativism are a. global and limited b. global and universal c. cultural and planetary d. objective and subjective 6. Socrates argued against a. relativism and skepticism b. skepticism but not relativism c. relativism but not skepticism d. neither relativism nor skepticism 7. Cultural relativism is a. alimited form of skepticism b. a form of moral relativism c. aview Socrates advocated d. the same as individual relativism 8. Individual moral relativism is the same as a. moral subjectivism b. cultural relativism c. skepticism d. global skepticism 9. Truth is one of the conditions for a. knowledge b. opinion c. religious belief d. doubt

10. According to the JTB account of knowledge, the following three conditions are required for real knowledge:

a. b. c. d.

justification, justification, justification, justification,

truth, basis trial and error, belief truth, belief truth, balance

Exercise §.11 Questions for class or small group discussion, essay assignments, or self-reflection.

1. In your own words, define global skepticism. How does it differ from other forms of skepticism? Is it a reasonable view? Make your case.

Define religious skepticism.

Pee

160

Does global skepticism contain a self-contradiction? Defend your answer. Why, according to Socrates, is critical thinking impossible if global skepticism is true? Are some people skeptics not because they believe it is true, but because it shields them from challenge or criticism?

CHAPTER

5

RELATIVISM

AND

SKEPTICISM

6. Is global skepticism some kind of cop-out? Is it a way of avoiding reality? Explain 7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12.

your answer. Isa global skeptic contradicting himselfifhe says to a traffic cop, “But officer, I was not speeding”? Is a global skeptic contradicting himself if he says to someone who just robbed him, “You violated my rights”? Isaskeptic contradicting herselfif she says she knows that knowledge doesn’t exist? Isa skeptic contradicting herself if she says she is certain that skepticism is true? Is critical thinking impossible if global skepticism is true? Socrates assumes there is a difference between reality and illusion and that we can at least sometimes know this difference. But suppose someone denies there is a difference between reality and illusion. Is this person contradicting himself? Isn’t he saying that the claim—that there is a difference between reality and illusion— is itself an illusion that should not be believed, and that his claim is really the case? In other words, when he denies there is a difference between reality and illusion and that it can be known, isn’t he operating with a sense of the difference between reality and illusion? Comment.

Exercise 5.12 Keep your critical reasoning skills in shape. Write an argumentative essay in support of

a claim you feel passionate about.

NOTES L In China, 2.

at approximately the same period in history, Confucian and Mohist philosophers were engaged in a similar activity. The Greek experiment in democracy, which we have already remarked upon, was an unprecedented event in human history. In a world of unfree people living under unelected regimes, citizens in the leading Greek city-states were running for office and holding paid elective positions under laws endorsed by the people themselves. Nothing like this had ever occurred anywhere. This was the historical root of the idea of “a government of laws, not of men.”

3. For the historic statement of what democracy meant to the Athenians, read the beautiful Funeral Oration delivered by the Athenian statesman Pericles (495-429 BCE) to commemorate those who had died in battle: www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pericles-funeralspeech.asp.

PINYN

4.

Scholars have identified around thirty of the Sophists, although there were many more, perhaps as many as 150 at the height of the sophistic movement. This was an extraordinary number of professional teachers for such a small country at the time, considering that Greek colony cities could be found from the coast of eastern Spain all the way to Syria. The Sophists visited them all. W.K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 187. Plato, Theaetetus, 152. Ibid., 160d. Guthrie, The Sophists.

161

162

UNIT

2

OBSTACLES

TO

CRITICAL

THINKING

IfP logically implies Q, then if P is true then Q must be true; it is not possible P is true and Qis false. Thus, if Q is known to be false, then it follows that P must also be false. The basic principles of logic are introduced in chapter 10. 10. ll.

Guthrie, The Sophists, 43. See also Plato, Protagoras, 335a.

Ibid., 188. As Socrates saw it, the Sophists taught politicians to win by appealing to emotions and prejudice, rather than to truth, and to get ahead by pandering to the desires of the masses.

12.

For an excellent discussion of the problems with cultural relativism, see Russ Shafer Landau, The

13.

Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), chapter 19; and James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2011), chapter 2. Guthrie, The Sophists, 273.

14. 1S.

16. 17.

Gorgias, 449 a-c.

Ibid., 180.

The Greeks had different words for the different kinds of knowledge distinguished here. Recall from chapter 3 that a condition C is logically sufficient for a phenomenon P if and only if C is all that is needed for P to obtain; in other words, C is enough for P to obtain, and the presence of

C guarantees the presence of P. A condition C is logically necessary for a phenomenon P if and only if C is required for it to be the case that P obtains, in other words, ifP cannot obtain without the presence of C. For example, oxygen is necessary, but not sufficient, for human life, while jumping ina lake is sufficient, but not necessary, for getting wet. 18. 19. 20.

See Laurence BonJour, Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses, 2nd ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010), 34-45.

Ibid, 15.

However, as BonJour and other contemporary epistemologists have observed, careful examination of the way we actually use the word knows reveals that the absence of all possible grounds for doubt is not required for knowledge to exist. Knowledge does not normally require absolute, indubitable certainty.

Ibid., 35. 22. Notice that if Protagorean relativism is true, then no real distinction between opinion and knowledge can be drawn. 23. We see Socrates giving a similar example toward the end of Plato’s Meno. See his example of the guides along the road to Larisa. 24. Both ancient Indian epistemologists and recent philosophers have argued against global skepticism by pointing out that in order to meaningfully attribute even one erroneous belief to someone, one must implicitly attribute several true beliefs to that same individual. Thus, it seems to follow, global skepticism is self-contradictory. 21.

25. 26.

Guthrie, The Sophists, 11.

Ibid.

CHAPTER

KEY TERMS

epistemic justification epistemology knowledge logical implication objective truth philosophical obstacle to critical thinking relativism about morality cultural alethic relativism cultural relativism

global alethic relativism

individual alethic relativism

INTERNET ON

THE

RESOURCES

SOPHISTS

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sophists.htm http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/netshots/sophists.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

ON

RELATIVISM

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cog-rel.htm http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism

ON SKEPTICISM http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism

5

RELATIVISM

individual moral relativism relativism about truth

religious alethic relativism

rhetoric

skepticism global skepticism religious skepticism social conformism

Sophist subjective truth

AND

SKEPTICISM

163

This page intentionally left blank

Unit 3 BUILD A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

IT IS TIME to connect the concept of knowledge with an active life of critical thinking. Socrates urged people to examine their beliefs by asking themselves questions like these: Are my assumptions on this matter really true? Or am I deluded? How do I know that my beliefs are true? How can I separate the true from the false, the known from the unknown? Asking such questions, and seeking answers, is part of living an examined life. Why care whether your beliefs are true? Critical thinkers want their beliefs to be true because they want to be in touch with reality. If the preponderance of a person’s beliefs is false, that person is living in a dream world. Some people actually like the idea of living in a dream world that doesn’t correspond to reality. If it makes you happy, they ask, what’s wrong with it? These people need to study history more closely. We lack the space here to list all the atrocities that have been committed by delusional people living in a dream world (the Holocaust, the mass murders of Stalin and Mao, the Killing Fields, Newtown, Jonestown, the list goes on and on almost ad infinitum). Critical thinkers also want truth because they are prudent thinkers. They know that plans based on dream-world assumptions may sometimes go right by sheer luck but are far more likely to go awry. Critical thinkers want their beliefs to correspond to reality, and they rely on rational standards to bring their beliefs as much as possible into correspondence with it. All good reasons to value knowledge.

165

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6 Reason and the Senses

AS WE SAW in the last chapter, and as Socrates argued, a belief only rises to the level

of knowledge when it is adequately supported or justified. However, not every kind of justification will do. As we saw, the type of support must be appropriate for knowledge. The justification required for knowledge, called “epistemic justification,” is justification related to the goal of the cognitive enterprise in general, which is the attainment of truth. This is why, on the traditional view, epistemic justification requires “the presence ofa reason or justification ofa sort that is truth-conducive: one that increases or enhances ... to the appropriate degree . . . the likelihood that the belief is true.”’ Put another way, a statement or belief is epistemically justified if we have adequate reason to believe it is true—a reason solidly connecting the belief or statement to reality. The question of the level of support or justification required in the case of genuine knowledge is examined and debated in depth in the branch of philosophy known as episte-

mology. From this point on, by justification let us mean “epistemic justification.” It is this desire to know (rather than merely opine) that leads critical thinkers to examine the reasons or evidence supporting their own beliefs. Ifa completely unjustified

belief is identified, a critical thinker may investigate the issue further, but he or she will eventually give the belief the boot, even if it is a cherished one, if it turns out to be based on nothing but prejudice, cognitive bias, misinformation, or anything else not con-

nected to truth. Critical thinkers also look closely at the reasons supporting claims made by others before accepting those claims as true. If a claim presented by another

person appears to lack an adequate epistemic basis, a critical thinker will ask the Socratic question: What is your evidence? The lack of all possible doubt is not required for a belief to rise to the level of knowledge; however, it is also true that the better the justification for accepting a claim, or belief, the more likely the claim is true. If we carefully screen our beliefs, and the claims proposed by others, and only accept those which are properly justified, we greatly increase the likelihood that our beliefs as a whole are true. This is why a critical thinker ought to doubt, or reject, a claim if it lacks adequate justification, even if he or she wants to believe it. Such a claim is not “belief-worthy.” This is also why a critical thinker ought to accept a claim as true if it is supported by good reasons—even when he or she does not want to believe it. In intermediate cases, when a claim has some evidence in its favor but fails to rise to the level of knowledge, a critical thinker proportions the strength of his or her belief to the evidence, believing it strongly, or weakly, as the case may be. 167

168

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

These considerations may all be summed up in a frequently cited admonition of critical thinking: proportion the strength of your belief to the evidence. To return to the Socratic questions with which we began this section, How do we go

about examining our own beliefs? We have so many! How do we separate truth from falsity, knowledge from opinion, beliefs worthy of acceptance from those not worth

their salt? Where does one begin? A good place to begin is by looking at the way our beliefs are related to each other. THE EDIFICE OF BELIEF Some beliefs are justified on the basis of other beliefs. One belief A is justified on the basis of another belief B when B is the reason or supporting evidence for supposing that A is true. For example, I believe that Mount Rainier (near Seattle, Washington) is an active but currently dormant volcano. Why do I believe this? That is, what reason or evidence do I have for supposing that my belief is true? In this case, my belief is supported by information I was taught in geology class. But why do I believe that information? What is my basis or reason for believing what I was taught in geology class? If I had to give my reasons, I would have to go deeper. I would reply that I believe the following: that my teacher was an acknowledged expert on the subject, that the textbook was published by a reputable company, and that the textbook presented a lot of solid evidence. In this way, I would give reasons to support my claim that what I learned in geology class is true. Thus, one belief can be justified on the basis of other beliefs, which in turn may be supported by other beliefs, which in turn are based on still deeper beliefs, and so on. Some beliefs are very basic in the sense that they provide epistemic support for many other beliefs. The belief that objects normally fall when dropped is an example of a very basic belief that supports many other beliefs. However, it is not sufficient for knowledge that one beliefis supported by another belief. For in some cases, one belief is justified in terms of another belief, but the other belief is false. Certainly a false belief confers no justification on a belief it supports. For example: Belief 1: The surface of the Earth is completely flat. Belief 2: There are no mountains on the surface of the Earth. Belief 1 supports belief 2, in the sense that it is a reason to believe that belief 2 is true. However, since belief 1 is false, belief 2 is certainly not justified. As we have seen, epis-

temic justification requires the presence of a truth-conducive reason solidly connecting the belief to reality. It follows that for one belief to be adequately supported by another

belief, the supporting belief needs to be more than mere opinion: it needs to be justified. Which raises an interesting question: How far back does the process go, of one belief justified on the basis of other beliefs that support it, which are justified as the basis of still

other supporting beliefs, and so forth? Does the process eventually reach rock bottom

CHAPTER6

REASON

AND

THE

(a foundation for belief)? Or does it go down forever (in an infinite regression)? Or, does it instead circle back on itself in some way? Foundationalism According to one school of epistemology, foundationalism, all of our beliefs are ultimately justified on the basis of certain foundational beliefs called basic beliefs. When we reach our foundational beliefs, we have reached rock bottom. Our basic beliefs are themselves justified (otherwise they would not confer justification on less basic beliefs). However, they are not justified on the basis of other beliefs, since they are rock bottom. How, then, are basic beliefs justified? Foundationalists argue that our foundational beliefs are self-evident. That is, they can be seen to be true in themselves, without being derived from, and justified in terms of, other beliefs. Put another way, our rock-bottom beliefs are justified in themselves, in terms of their intrinsic natures, rather than by deduction from other beliefs. Basic beliefs carry their epistemic justification on their backs, or inside themselves, so to speak. Do basic beliefs exist? Are there beliefs that are basic and yet self-evident, as foundationalists claim? Examples given by advocates of foundationalism include mathematical truths such as “Ifx is greater than y, and y is greater than z, then xis greater than z,” logical theorems such as “If P implies Q and P is true, then Q must be true,” and conceptual truths such as “Nothing is red all over and green all over at the same time” and “The whole is greater than the part.” Some foundationalists also offer perceptual claims as examples of basic but justified beliefs, such as, “I am experiencing the taste of lemon” and “I see something red in my visual field.” On the foundationalist view, our beliefs form a multi-leveled edifice called a noetic structure (from the Greek noetikos for “intellectual”). Our noetic structure, foundationalists argue, is like a tall building. Notice that the top floor of an office tower is held up by the floor underneath it, which is held up by the floor underneath it, and so on down until you reach the building’s foundation. The foundation holds up all the floors above it, but it is not itself held up by a floor of the building beneath it. When you reach the foundation, you are at rock bottom—the level that stays in place while supporting every level above it. Advocates of foundationalism suggest that, just as the foundation of a building supports all the floors above it without being supported by floors built in underneath it, our basic beliefs support all our other beliefs, without being justified in turn by other beliefs. However, since a belief A cannot justify another belief B unless it is already justified, our basic beliefs must be justified in terms of themselves; that is, they must be self-evident—if we have any knowledge at all.

The Infinite Regression Theory Advocates of the infinite regression theory disagree. They argue that the very notion of a basic, self-evident belief is incoherent. According to the infinite regression theory, one beliefis justified in terms ofa more basic belief, which is justified in terms ofa belief

SENSES

169

170

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

more basic still, and so on to infinity. The process never bottoms out. The epistemolo-

gist Laurence BonJour states two problems with any theory claiming that epistemic justification takes the form of an infinite regression: But though the actual infinite regress alternative is interesting to think about, it

still seems clear that it could not play a role in an account of how beliefs are actually justified. One reason is that it is difficult or impossible to see how this picture

could be applied to most actual cases of apparently justified belief, where no plau-

sible infinite chain of this sort seems to be forthcoming. A deeper reason is that it is clear on reflection that merely having an infinite chain of beliefs related in the right way is not in fact sufficient for justification. Suppose that instead of believing that there are no armadillos on my desk, Iam

crazy enough to have the infinite set of beliefs to the effect that for each natural

number n, there are at least n armadillos on my desk. ... then I could construct an

infinite justificatory chain: that there are at least two armadillos is a conclusive

reason for believing that there is at least one, that there are at least three is a conclusive reason for believing that there are at least two, and so on. But it still seems

clear that none of these beliefs would really be justified. The reason is that in such a justificatory chain, the justification conferred at each step is only provisional,

dependent on whether the beliefs further along in the chain are justified. But then

ifthe regression continues infinitely, all of the alleged justification remains merely

provisional: we can never say more than that the beliefs up to a particular stage would be justified if all of the others that come further back in the sequence are justified. And if this is all that we can ever say in such a case, and if all chains of inferential justification were infinite in this way, and if there were no other account of how beliefs are justified that does not rely on inference from other beliefs, then we again would have the unpalatable skeptical result that no belief is

ever genuinely justified.”

Coherentism The coherentist school of epistemology sees things quite differently. According to coherentism, our noetic structure is more like a large web than a tall office tower, and “the sole basis for epistemic justification is relations among beliefs.”* Beliefs are not justified on the basis of a foundation; rather, “what justifies beliefs is the way they fit together: the fact that they cohere with each other.” The process, according to coherentism, works from two directions—from the specific to the general and from the general

to the specific. By making specific observations of specific things using our senses (of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell), we come to believe, with justification, that a particular lemon tastes sour, that a rose in front of us appears to be red, that a specific clump of snow at our feet appears to be white, and so on. We also formulate general theories or principles to explain our specific observations and then adopt those theories that best explain our specific observations. This gives us general beliefs or principles.

CHAPTER

6

REASON

AND

However, at any time we may adjust one end or the other—particular observations or general principles—in light of further experiences of the world. In this way, by reasoning from specific to general and from general to specific, we arrive at justified true beliefs. For example, after experiencing white snow many times, and after tasting many lemons, we come to believe that all snow is white, that all lemons are sour, and so forth. These general beliefs earn their keep by explaining or making sense of our specific observations. We often arrive at general beliefs in this way in everyday life: begin with facts in need of explanation, think about what would best explain these facts, conclude that this explanation—the “best” explanation given the evidence—is probably true. (This common pattern of reasoning is examined in chapters 10 and 11.) However, we sometimes discover exceptions to our general beliefs, and when we do, we modify our general beliefs to account for the exceptions. For instance, one sees yellow snow. On other occasions, a particular observation based on the senses may conflict with, and logically undermine, a general belief, causing us to abandon the general belief altogether. For example, Ed has long believed that Italians are all violent criminals. One day, after joining the local Italian club and getting to know many different Italians, Ed realizes his belief is ridiculous. Just as particular observations can affect (and alter) our general beliefs and theories,

THE

our general beliefs may also affect our specific observations. Sometimes the pull of a strongly held general theory leads us to reject a specific observation as an error or

hallucination. For instance, believing strongly that UFOs do not exist, Joe sees what looks very much like a flying saucer hovering in the sky. However, upon reflection, he

sides with his general theory and decides that his eyes must have been playing tricks on

him. Thus, argue coherentists, some of our specific observations are “theory laden” or

colored by the general theories we hold. A strongly held general theory or principle may

affect the way we interpret our experiences and observations; it may also affect the way we structure or filter them. As coherentists see it, then, the acquisition and justification of knowledge is a backand-forth process rather than a strict linear one. We go back and forth between our particular sense observations and our general principles or theories, modifying a par-

ticular claim in light of a general principle, and modifying a general principle in light ofa particular claim, until a good fit is achieved and no further adjustments seem ratio-

nally called for—and justified true belief is reached.

If we think of particular observations of specific things as “bottom level,” and abstract general theories and beliefs as “top level,” the coherentist picture can be put another

way. The justification of beliefs is both “bottom up” and “top down.” On the one hand,

general principles are formulated to explain particular observations made through our

senses, and these general principles are corroborated or undermined by further obser-

vations. Sometimes a general claim is modified after it conflicts with observations. Other times a general claim arrived at by careful reasoning is modified or rejected in the

light of further thought occasioned by particular observations. This is part of bottom-up

justification. On the other hand, general theories sometimes color our observations

SENSES

171

172

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

and enter into the way we interpret them. General theories may also exert selective pressure on specific observations, helping us filter our observations as we seek the

truth. This justification is top down. On the coherentist theory, bottom-up and topdown reasoning work together like the two blades of a scissors to yield epistemic justification in the end. Which of the three views on the architecture of our noetic structure is correct? Foundationalism, the infinite regression theory, or coherentism? Or is there an alterna-

tive view? We will not resolve this issue here; this is not an epistemology textbook. But no matter what the outcome of this technical debate, one thing is evident: some beliefs

are supported by other beliefs, which are supported by other beliefs. Since you acquire

new beliefs and drop old ones every day, as you learn about the world, your belief system is not a static structure—it is a system with many moving parts. The Socratic task is to

examine your beliefs in order to decide which are worth keeping and which need to be reconsidered or dropped. Like any task, examining your noetic structure, however it is arranged, is easier said than done. (In chapter 13 we will apply all of these ideas to mo-

rality, when we critically examine the way we justify moral beliefs.) TWO

SOURCES

OF KNOWLEDGE

Philosophers since at least the days of Socrates have distinguished two different start-

ing points for epistemic justification: one is the physical senses; another is the intellect or reason acting without reliance on, or “prior to,” the senses. Most epistemologists argue that some beliefs are justified on the basis of input from the physical senses and other beliefs are justified on the basis of reasoning or thinking alone, without reliance

on the senses. Coherentists hold that beliefs are justified in both ways, through a bottom-

up and a top-down process, one that goes from the senses to reason and from reason to the senses, and perhaps back again, as we shall see.

Knowledge Justified on the Basis of Sense Experience Consider the following claims: 1. Maple trees change color in the fall. 2. Mount Everest is over 29,000 feet in height. 3. Birds sing and chirp.

All true. But how do we know these claims are true? The justification of beliefs like these ultimately rests on information we received or experienced through our physical senses. In other words, we know that these statements are true on the basis of seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, and hearing. Put yet another way, we know these statements are true

on the basis of what we have experienced through our physical senses. Philosophers call knowledge that is justified through sense experience a posteriori knowledge (from the Latin for “after experience”). It is also called “empirical knowledge” (from the Latin empiricus, which stems from the Greek empiricos for “experience”) or simply “experiential knowledge.” Justification on the basis of sense experience is the first

CHAPTER6

REASON

AND

THE

of the two major ways that very basic beliefs are known. Here are examples of how

typical empirical justifications might start: Pat: Bob: Pat: Pat: Bob: Pat:

That milk is sour. How do you know? I just tasted it. Mount Rainier has snow on it. How do you know? I saw it with my own eyes.

Since these knowledge claims are justified on the basis of sense experience, they are examples of experiential, a posteriori, or empirical, knowledge.* EXPERIENTIAL

KNOWLEDGE

AS A TOUCHSTONE

A touchstone is a “test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a

thing” (Merriam-Webster). A touchstone in our belief system is something we know that can be used to determine the truth or falsity of other beliefs we hold. Many of our beliefs can be justified on the basis of fundamental experiential (empirical) knowledge, and many can be shown false on the basis of such knowledge as well. The examples are too obvious. Jane claims that there is coffee in the cupboard. Joe claims there is not. After both take a look, Jane is proved right, and Joe is proved wrong. Certainly much of what we know can be justified on the basis of very basic a posteriori knowledge. Beliefs justified empirically are among the many useful touchstones of our system of belief. SENSE

EXPERIENCE

IS NOT INFALLIBLE

However, we all know that our physical senses can sometimes deceive us: sense experience is not infallible. For example, while driving in the desert, I see what appears to be water on the road in the distance. It looks exactly like water. But there is no water; it is an optical illusion. Or, in the dim light, the car appears brown. It is actually purple. A stick poking out of a pond appears to be bent. However, the stick is straight. Our senses can also at times be impaired. Drugs, stress, fatigue, injury, and illness can all interfere with the workings of our sense organs and cause them to mis-

lead us. Certainly this is one reason driving while under the influence often leads to automobile accidents. In addition, the general physical environment can hamper our senses and make them less accurate. In dim light, the figure approaching looks like Joe. However, when the person gets closer, I realize it is someone else. These are among

the reasons

attorneys

closely question

eyewitnesses

in court,

sometimes

asking about minute details. The testimony of the witnesses could put the defendant away for life; but if it turns out that the seeing conditions were not good, or if the witnesses were impaired at the time, their testimonies may be called into question,

and rightly so. Scientific experiments conducted by psychologists have shown that perception can also be distorted by strong expectations. In carefully designed experiments,

SENSES

173

174

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

subjects who were led to expect the occurrence of certain events came to believe that the expected events had occurred, when they actually had not. For instance, subjects told to walk down a long hall and stop when they saw flashing lights actu-

ally stopped and reported the lights—even though no lights had flashed. Subjects told to signal when they detected a certain smell reported the smell, even when no smell was present. The “power of expectancy” is one of many factors that can alter and shape our perception; in some cases it can even cause us to “see” or “smell” something that is not really there.®

Then Why Trust Our Senses? Although our physical senses cannot always be taken at face value, if we were to never trust anything our senses tell us, we would know nothing about the world around us. Which raises the question: When are we justified in trusting our senses, and when are we not? When can we legitimately suppose they give us the truth about the world, and when should we withhold our assent? Weare going to stick with common sense here. It is commonsensically reasonable to

trust our sense perceptions unless we have good reasons to doubt them. For example, suppose I look out the window one winter day and see snow coming down. Suppose I am

not drunk. My eyes were recently tested and found to be in good working order, Iam in

a clear state of mind, and I am focused. I thus have no good reason to believe that my senses are impaired or that my mind is playing tricks on me. In the absence of any good reason to doubt my senses, common sense says I am justified in believing that it is snow-

ing outside. On the basis of my present sense experience, I am thus justified in saying that I know it is snowing. Without this commonsense principle, or one very much like it, no knowledge of the world could be justified at all.’ On the other hand, suppose I look at the wall one night and see rattlesnakes crawling all over it. However, I also know that I have been drinking heavily all evening. I am

drunk, my vision is blurry, and my head is spinning. I also recall that snakes appeared

on the wall the last time I was in this condition and were nowhere to be seen the next

morning after I had sobered up. I now have a good reason to doubt what my senses seem

to be telling me. In this case, I do not know there are snakes on the wall. The best explanation is that I am hallucinating. It is well known that sense perception can be impaired. Nevertheless, lest one lapse into the rationally untenable position of global skepticism, it is important to keep in mind the commonsense principle that if we clearly seem to be perceiving something, and no known distorting factors or conditions (such as drugs, illness, injury, or stress) are present, and we have no good reason to believe that our senses are impaired, then we have a good reason to trust them. Trusting our senses, in other words, is a default

position that is only overridden when we have good reason to believe they are not func-

tioning properly. Critical thinkers base many of their beliefs on their sense perceptions, although they are also aware of, and always on the lookout for, the many ways their perceptions can be distorted and thrown off track.

CHAPTER6

REASON

AND

Exercise 6.1

We usually do not understand a new idea very well until we can explain it in our own

ee

SyoPnnrrRwner

words. In your own words, explain the following ideas.

What is sense experience?

What is empirical knowledge? What do we mean when we say that one belief is “based on” a second belief? What is a noetic structure? What is a touchstone?

What must be added to true belief to get real knowledge? What is epistemic justification? How does it differ from other kinds of justification? What does a posteriori mean? What is a posteriori, or empirical, knowledge?

List two things you know whose justification starts with a posteriori knowledge.

How would you justify each belief if pressed to do so?

11. Is sense experience infallible? 12. Why can’t our senses always be taken at face value? 13. Under what conditions does it become likely our senses are impaired? 14.

State two ways our senses can mislead us.

1S. Explain the commonsense principle used in this chapter to justify knowledge based on the senses.

KNOWLEDGE JUSTIFIED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SENSES Think carefully about the following statement: nothing is both red all over and green all over at the same time. Is it true? Or is it false? It is clearly true, isn’t it? But how do you

know? To know thatit is true, all you have to do is think about the meaning of the statement. After you understand the statement, you can “see” directly that it is true, through

an intellectual kind of seeing, without any intermediary steps. You do not have to first go around the world locating things that are colored, examining each one, looking

closely each time to see whether the item is (or is not) both red all over and green all over at the same time. (Besides, wouldn't it take more than a lifetime to do this for every

colored object in the universe?) You can simply see that the statement is true, without empirical investigation, just by thinking or reasoning about it inside your mind. It seems that this belief, that nothing is red all over and green all over at the same time, is justified through thinking or reasoning alone—through a kind of intellectual insight— without reliance on empirical data or sense experience of the world at all.*

THE

SENSES

175

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Many beliefs appear to be justified this way, through pure thought or reason alone, without reliance on the physical senses. Consider these further examples: The whole is greater than the part. Every triangle has three sides. The number 2 is even. There are an infinite number of positive integers.

A Priori Knowledge Knowledge arrived at in this way, through a cognitive thought process or reasoning alone, without reliance on sense experience, is called a priori knowledge (from the Latin for “prior to experience”). Many beliefs certainly seem to rest on a priori knowledge, making this a basic form of knowledge indeed. Four kinds of a priori knowledge can be distinguished: mathematical, logical, conceptual, and moral. The following are examples of mathematical truths that clearly seem to be known a priori:

ee PS

There are an infinite number of rational numbers. The square root of 2 is an irrational number. Every square has four sides. For any numbers x, y, and z, ifx is greater than y and y is greater than z, then x is greater than z. Two angles equal to a third angle must be equal to each other. The number 13 is prime. 7. No prime number exists between 24 and 28.

a vt

3.

Principles of logic also clearly seem to be known a priori. For instance:

Pe h =

UNIT

If P logically implies Q, and P is true, then Q must be true. IfP and Q are inconsistent, then at least one must be false. If either P or Qis true, and P is not true, then Q must be true. IfP and Qare not both true, and P is true, then Q must be false.

In addition, a priori knowledge surely includes conceptual truths, such as these: oes =

176

All bachelors are unmarried. If A is taller than B, and B is taller than C, then Ais taller than C. If something is a material object, then it occupies a volume of space. If event A happens after event B, and event B happens after event C, then A happens after C.

CHAPTER

6

REASON

AND

The realm of a priori knowledge is also frequently thought to include conceptual truths about morality, for example: 1. Ifanact Ais morally right for person P in situation S, thenA is morally right for any

other similarly situated person. 2. Ifitis morally wrong to treat one person in a certain way ina certain situation, then it is morally wrong to treat any other person in a similar situation in that way.

Some of the most basic things you know—beliefs that form the foundation for many other things you know—are known a priori. Thus, a great deal of what you believe is based on beliefs that have been justified a priori, that is, on the basis of thought or reasoning alone, without reliance on sense experience. Let’s consider one more example. Think about the proposition that all bachelors

are unmarried. Once you understand the meaning of the proposition, is any sense

experience needed in order to be justified in believing that the proposition is true? The epistemologist Dan O’Brien gives the standard answer in his field: “The answer is No. You do not have to ask your bachelor friends whether they are married; you are justified

in believing they're not, simply in virtue of possessing the relevant concepts.”?

AN OBJECTION

A question naturally arises: a priori justification is said to be a type of justification that does not appeal to, or rely in any way on, sense experience. However, before we can know something, don’t we first have to use our senses to learn a language and then learn the meaning of the proposition that is said to be known? Don’t we use our senses to acquire the concepts involved in understanding a proposition? The answer to both questions would seem to be yes. It would therefore seem to follow, contrary to what has been claimed, that all knowledge, including so-called a priori knowledge, depends in

some way on sense experience.

This is an intelligent question and a thoughtful argument. To answer it, epistemologists, such as BonJour, draw a distinction between (a) understanding the meaning ofa statement, and (b) the epistemic justification of the statement. It is one thing to understand the meaning of a statement; the epistemic justification of the statement, connecting the state-

ment to reality and showing that the statement is true, is another thing entirely. One can understand a statement but at the same time not know whether it is true or false. The senses

may be needed to acquire concepts and understand meanings, but in some cases reason alone seems needed to see that a belief or statement, once understood, is true. For example, I understand the meaning of the sentence “Abraham Lincoln had six cousins on his mother’s side.” However, from the meaning of the sentence alone, I cannot

tell whether the statement is true or false. To verify or disprove the statement, I would have to do empirical research (using my senses). Thus, understanding a proposition is one thing; the justification of the proposition seems to be another thing entirely.

THE

SENSES

177

178

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

In a case of pure, a priori justification, one directly or intuitively sees or grasps the truth of the proposition in question once it has been understood. Experience plays a role in acquiring the concepts needed to understand the statement; but once the statement has been understood, the justification will be another matter—one that does not rely on sense experience. The

seeing, in a case of a priori justification, is a type of

intellectual, nonsensual seeing. BonJour calls it “intellectual insight”; he also calls it “rational insight.” Socrates, as he is presented in Plato’s dialogues, clearly holds that a priori justification exists and that it is based on reason operating without reliance on the senses.’° Since the days of Plato, this has been the traditional account of the nature of a priori knowledge." ARE

A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE

CLAIMS INFALLIBLE?

It seems clear that a claim to a priori knowledge can be mistaken in at least two different ways: (a) you claim to know a priori that a statement P is true, but it later turns out that you made an error in your thought process, or reasoning, and P is not really true; or (b) you claim to know that P is true a priori, but you later discover that your thinking

was clouded—you were not clear on some underlying concept used in the process— and P is not really true. A priori knowledge claims do not seem to be infallible.

For example, suppose I believe that the number 12 is prime. I am certain it is prime.

I claim to know this to be true a priori. One day, someone shows me that 12 is divisible by 2. Quoting the dictionary, this person reminds me that a prime number is “an integer that is not divisible without remainder by any other integers except + 1 and + the integer itself.” After thinking about the argument logically for a moment, I realize my a priori thinking was mistaken: the number 12 is not prime. Or imagine I claim that the following is an item ofa priori knowledge: past time cannot possibly be infinite. I offer a complicated philosophical argument in support of my claim and feel quite satisfied with my “proof.” Then one day someone comes along and shows me that my reasoning is flawed. I see the mistake in my argument and drop my claim to a priori knowledge. One way to learn that my claim to a priori knowledge is mistaken is by checking the steps of my logic against the standards or criteria of correct reasoning. (These are the subject of Unit Four of this book.) When people make erroneous claims to a priori knowledge, we may be able to show them their error by reviewing their steps and then showing them a standard of correct reasoning violated by their reasoning. A claim to a priori knowledge can be mistaken in the second way if the reasoning process was thrown off track by a lack of conceptual clarity. Recall Euthyphro’s attempts at a definition of piety. An account of piety will be a priori true if it is true, for it is a con-

ceptual truth about morality. But each time Euthyphro offers a definition, Socrates

argues that the proposed definition is inadequate. The problem, as Socrates saw it, was not

in Euthyphro’s reasoning process. The problem was that Euthyphro did not have a clear conception of what piety really is. Euthyphro’s claim to a priori truth was mistaken because it was based on conceptual confusion—a lack of clarity—on the subject at hand. Socrates worked hard to help Euthyphro realize his own confusion on the nature of piety.

CHAPTER 6

When people disagree on an a

REASON

AND

priori claim, there are other ways the disagree-

ment might be resolved. BonJour suggests that sometimes such an agreement might

be reached “by appeal to an argument whose premises and inferential steps are

certified by shared rational [a priori] insights.” Another possibility is “that the in-

dividuals in question have failed to adequately understand the claim or claims in question and that there is some way of clarifying or refining the contents of the

insight or insights that will remove the appearance of disparity or conflict.” The parties might clarify the meaning of the concepts involved by eliminating ambigu-

ity and vagueness as far as possible.

Another possible means of resolution, when two parties disagree on an a priori

claim, is something BonJour calls “talking around an issue.” This involves “attempting

through rephrasing, examples, analogues, contrasting cases, and similar devices to display the alleged insight or insights more insight.”!” In the end, there is no guarantee disagreement regarding an a priori claim to if people will reason together, the truth will

fully or present problems for a competing that a resolution will be reached on every know. It was Socrates’s hope, however, that ultimately be found.

A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE AS A TOUCHSTONE

Many of our beliefs can be justified on the basis of a priori knowledge, and many can be shown false on the basis of such knowledge as well. Knowledge proved directly and immediately through an act of pure thought alone is therefore basic indeed. Your basic a priori knowledge is one of many useful touchstones in your system of belief.

eve

Exercise 6.2 In your own words, explain the following ideas:

What does a priori mean? What is a priori knowledge?

How does a posteriori knowledge differ from a priori knowledge? List two things you know whose justification stems from a priori knowledge. How

ay

would you justify each belief if pressed to do so?

Is an a priori claim to knowledge infallible? What is ratiocinative knowledge? (See note 11.)

7. Explain two ways a claim to a priori knowledge, according to the text, may be mistaken.

THE

SENSES

179

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

“BOTH AND” It seems that much of what we count as purely empirical knowledge is actually justified on the basis of both sense experience and logical principles known a priori. Without at least some a priori knowledge, much of our a posteriori, or empirical, knowledge simply could not be justified. For example, think about the way we justify a typical empirical claim, such as the claim that many roses are red. Part of the justification surely involves input from the physical senses. However, careful analysis reveals that part of a complete justification would also include the claims that our memory is reliable and that the best explanation of our sense observations is likely true. But both of these claims would seem to be justified a priori if they are justified at all. Neither, it would seem, can be justified solely on the basis of sense experience alone. Coherentists argue that the process of justification goes back and forth between the two poles of reason and the senses.

CONCLUSION You can learna lot, about yourself, and about what you believe, by examining your basic beliefs. Socrates believed that noetic “housekeeping” begins here, with one’s deepest assumptions on an issue. Many things you believe, if you trace the justification back as far as you can, will be found to be justified . However, some things you think you know

may not survive after being checked against more basic things already known.

The next step in this examination of our noetic structure will be a look at beliefs that

are less basic: beliefs justified through a broader category, called “personal experience,” through the testimony of others, and through expert testimony.

Exercise 6.3 Would the justification be a priori or a posteriori? Or both? Soap tastes bitter.

SOoPnanyrR YY

3

a

UNIT

He e

180

1+7=8

Professional basketball players tend to be tall. The Moon is not out every night.

If A is the father of B, then A

is older than B.

Nothing can be both red all over and green all over at the same time.

Lemons are usually yellow. All triangles have three angles. A circle is a locus of points all equidistant from a central point. No square is circular.

. The Earth is round.

CHAPTER 6

REASON

AND

Exercise 6.4

Ree

eee

Seo

Pnananrerwnd

ee

True or false?

. . .

.

Your belief system is sometimes called your “noetic structure.” One beliefA cannot justify a beliefB if it is not itself already justified. Foundationalism argues that each person holds an infinite number of beliefs. Coherentism is the same as the infinite regression view. Coherentists argue for the “both and” view. According to the text, a priori reasoning is infallible. According to the text, beliefs supported by a posteriori information are infallible. Rationalism is the claim that everyone has the faculty of reason. Empirical justification is also called “a posteriori justification.” The word empirical stems from the word for experience. The words a priori mean “prior to reason.” The words a posteriori mean “after the senses.” The standard view is that mathematical truths are justified a priori. The fact that some roses are red would be justified at least in part a posteriori. According to the infinite regression view, the justification of a belief goes on infinitely.

Exercise 6.5 Multiple choice. Choose the best answer.

1. Which of the following are not known solely on the basis of a priori reasoning? a. Some roses are red. b. Mount Rainier has snow on its summit.

c.

New Yorkisa

city.

moaorp

so

d. The Moon has craters. e. Allofthe above. 2. Which of the following is known on the basis of a priori reasoning? a. Some flowers are blue. b. Mount Everest has snow on its summit. c. Seattle isa city. d. The Sun is composed of hot gas. All triangles have three sides. hich of the following is known on the basis of a posteriori reasoning? 3. Some flowers are blue. Mount Everest has snow on its summit. Seattle is a city.

The Sun is composed of hot gas. All of the above. None of the above.

THE

SENSES

181

182

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

4. A priori reasoning, according to the text, is a. b.

fallible infallible

d.

our best route to truth

c.

the main logic of science

5. A posteriori reasoning, according to the text, is a. infallible b. fallible c. the best reasoning we have d. the least trustworthy reasoning 6. Ana priori truth is one whose truth

a. b.

c. d. 7. Ana a. b. c.

is known on the basis of the senses is known on the basis of reason operating independently of the senses

is of first importance is basic to all other truth posteriori truth is one whose truth is known with certainty is required for everything else we know is implied by everything else we know

d. is known on the basis of information provided by the senses 8. Sense experience includes a. b. c.

hearing, tasting, smelling, seeing, and flying hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, and touching seeing, walking, tasting, smelling, and envisioning

a.

drugs

d.

loud noise

f.

poor environmental conditions

9. Which of the following is not usually a distorting influence on sense experience? b. lack of sleep c. food e.

fast-paced events

10. Which of the following is not justified a posteriori? a.

Sugar tastes sweet.

b. Mount Everest is 29,000 feet high. c. Alltriangles have three sides. d. Some people are bald. Exercise 6.6 Which of the Socratic arguments against the various forms of relativism and skepti-

cism, in chapter 5, employ bottom-up reasoning? Which employ top-down reasoning?

Explain your reasoning.

CHAPTER

6

REASON

AND

NOTES L Laurence i

BonJour, Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses, 2nd ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010), 35. BonJour, Epistemology, 180.

Ibid., 187.

Ibid. The notion of coherence can be defined in terms of various logical and explanatory relations. A set of beliefs is coherent if certain logical and explanatory relations obtain between those beliefs. Since this is not an epistemology textbook, we shall leave the matter to more specialized works. The text by BonJour is a good place to begin. Epistemologists call the states of mind produced directly by our physical senses, and experienced immediately in the mind, “sense data.” In the field of epistemology, philosophers examine the logical steps that take us from sense data to knowledge of the world. The issues turn out to be complex and are beyond the scope of this book. See BonJour, Epistemology, chapter 7, for more on this topic. ‘These experiments are reported in Lewis Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 137. Global skepticism about the existence of the external world—the world beyond or outside our minds—is not a tenable position. We considered and rejected global skepticism in chapter S. . Thinkabout the following question: How could this statement possibly be proved via sense experience alone? The statement makes a claim about every colored object. Even if you lived a thousand lifetimes, you would never have enough time to examine every colored object in the universe to verify that it occupies a volume of space. Dan O’Brien, An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (Cambridge, UK: 25-26. 10.

11. 12.

Polity Press, 2006),

Knowledge arrived at specifically by reason alone (without dependence on the senses) is called “ratiocinative knowledge” (from the Latin ratio for reason). On the traditional account of a priori knowledge, a priori knowledge is ratiocinative knowledge. In a case ofa priori knowledge, according to the traditional account, you just see, through an act of pure reasoning, that the whole must be greater than the part, that all colored things occupy space, that 1 + 1 = 2, and so forth. Ona broader account ofa priori knowledge, it is simply knowledge arrived at through thought alone, without reliance on the senses. See BonJour, Epistemology, 74, for elaboration.

Ibid., 139.

KEY TERMS

a posteriori knowledge a priori knowledge coherentism foundationalism

infinite regression theory noetic structure touchstone

THE

SENSES

183

Chapter 7 Personal Experience, Testimony,

and Expert Authority

THE TOUCHSTONE OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE A tour through your belief system would find many levels of belief in addition to the basic beliefs discussed in the last chapter (those justified through reasoning and those justified through individual sense experiences such as the smell of a rose or the taste of tea). Although not as basic, beliefs justified on the basis of personal experience constitute another category of fundamental elements within your belief system. Personal experience is not the same thing as the sense experience discussed in the preceding chapter. A two-week tour of the nation’s capital is an example ofa personal experience; the momentary scent of a rose would be an example of a sense experience. A personal experience is an amalgam composed of many interrelated sense experiences. For example, I know that the trail up to the peak of Mount Pilchuck is not as demanding as the trail up to Minotaur and Theseus Lakes (all in the Cascade Mountains of Washington). I know this on the basis of personal experience: I have hiked both trails. Notice that a hike may last several days and involve hundreds of thousands of elementary sense experiences, while a sense experience may last only an instant. Other examples of personal experience would be attending a party, watching a football game, and conversing with an old friend. Beliefs justified through personal experiences are important parts of our noetic structures. Personal experience is the third touchstone supporting much of what we know.

Is Personal Experience Infallible? Personal experience, like sense perception and a priori reasoning, is clearly fallible.

Our personal experiences can be distorted in many ways. This is why attorneys cross-

examine witnesses during trials. The mere fact that a witness claims to have personally watched the defendant rob the bank does not, by itself, prove that the defendant is guilty. Even sincere people sometimes misinterpret and thus fail to understand a

situation they find themselves in and, as a result, later provide an account that simply does not fit the facts. We have space to consider only a few of the most important influences that can distort personal experiences, beginning with distortions due to the cognitive biases.

184

CHAPTER7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

Cognitive Bias and Personal Experience Each one of the cognitive biases that we examined in chapter 4 can distort personal experience. Imagine that Joe strongly believes all stamp collectors are boring people. His belief has no basis in fact, but it is his strong belief nonetheless. Now Joe finds himself on a river-rafting trip with Sam, who happens to be a stamp collector. Joe is on the lookout for anything Sam does that seems boring and confirms his preexisting belief. At the same time, the interesting things Sam says—that go against Joe’s preexisting belief—fail to register or are downplayed. When Sam tells an exciting story about finding a rare 1854 stamp, Joe thinks to himself, “Beginners luck.” Back at home, he tells his wife, “That stamp collector guy was the most boring person

on the whole raft.” Others on the trip saw it differently: they voted Sam the trip’s “most interesting person.” Because of confirmation bias, Joe missed half of what was going on. The less biased (less blinded) members of the expedition saw Sam more as he really is. While some people distort their experience of events by looking harder for confirming evidence than for disconfirming evidence, others miss the boat by resisting contrary evidence even when it is staring them in the face. We saw examples of this tendency in chapter 4. Convinced that cockroaches cannot be trained, Joe doesn’t even see the roaches jumping through hoops as he walks into the National Cockroach Museum. He leaves as convinced as when he entered: cockroaches cannot be trained. When his wife asks him how he liked the roach circus, he says, “What roach circus?”

Some people interpret experiences through a stereotype, unconsciously fitting their perceptions into a preexisting mold that is not indicative of reality. Perceptions that don’t fit the mold or stereotype are dismissed or downplayed, resulting in a truncated impression of events. As we have seen, strongly held stereotypes function like filters, letting some perceptions in, keeping some out, and causing people to miss aspects ofa

situation that others clearly see. Group and peer pressures can also distort our personal experiences, causing us to misinterpret events happening right before our eyes. As a proud member of group X, Joe identifies closely with the beliefs and values of his group. Unfortunately, one of the group’s beliefs is the idea that people in group Y are lazy and irresponsible—a belief Joe has internalized. The belief persists among members of group X despite evidence to the contrary. Yesterday Joe had to work on a community effort with members of group Y. His friends were not surprised when he later described his experiences this way: “Those people from group Y were constantly screwing up; they are so

lazy and irresponsible.” Because of his bias, Joe saw everything through a groupthink filter that let in only part of what was happening. The full story would include the fact that the project was an extremely difficult one, and project members from group X screwed up just as often.

Without realizing it, people whose thinking is egocentric can also miss much of what is going on ina situation, including how their actions are affecting other people. As a

result, the personal experiences of an egocentric individual may not be as accurate as

185

186

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

the experiences of a more balanced individual, who takes in more of what is happening. Ed recalls that last night he was the life of the party. What he doesn’t recall is that after about ten minutes of Ed, nobody was laughing anymore and people were leaving. People whose perceptions are biased or skewed have tunnel vision. We sometimes describe them as “narrow-minded.”

Cognitive biases can distort our personal experiences in many other ways. When asked why he doesn’t like Italians, Joe thinks about it and replies, “Because they are all in the Mafia.” Joe’s negative view of Italians is understandable, given his database, which is composed exclusively of characters in movies and novels about the Mafia (the availability bias). Wish Fulfillment If we want an outcome badly enough, even if our want is not realistic, our desire can influence our experience of an event. At the annual school talent show, a proud mother wants her daughter to win. She wants this so strongly she can’t see straight. Although the daughter turned in a mediocre performance of “Hot Cross Buns,” the mother argues with the judge and insists that it was the best instrumental of the evening. Biases, expectations, desires, and the like can all distort our perception of the events we are experiencing—sometimes to the point of causing us to see things that are not even there.

Physical Conditions and Bias Physical conditions such as illness, injury, stress, fatigue, and drugs can also affect the way we interpret our personal experiences and lead us to misinterpret a situation or to

miss half of what is going on. Someone suffering from sleep deprivation, for example,

may miss a key part of the conversation. Ed jerks awake just as movie buff Joe quotes a line from Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds. Believing the Martians have finally landed, Ed runs for his car shouting, “Get your guns! It’s the war of the worlds!” Other examples are as obvious. Driving while under the influence of drugs may cause you not to see the man crossing the street in front of you or the truck to the right running a red light. Under enough stress, your faculties may be so impaired that you miss crucial aspects of a situation, including the robber shouting, “Your money or your life!”! Distraction can also affect personal experience. A person whose attention is suffi-

ciently distracted by the presence of strong emotions, such as anger or sorrow, for ex-

ample, may misinterpret a scenario entirely. Joe was so angry over his car overheating

and breaking down that he didn’t notice the repair shop across the street with the large flashing sign that read, “We Fix Overheated Vehicles.”” If all of this is not bad enough, environmental factors such as poor lighting, loud noise, and the speed of events can also cause us to get things wrong. An eyewitness in a courtroom swears he saw Joe Doakes at the scene of the crime. However, upon crossexamination, it turns out that the identification was made after dusk, the lighting was very poor, and the witness did not get a good look at the individual in question.

CHAPTER

7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

All of the above explain why beliefs based on personal experiences do not always rise to the level of genuine knowledge. Because personal experience is fallible, it must be critically examined before it can become the basis for real knowledge.

Memory Memory certainly plays a large role in the way we process our personal experiences. Often two people will remember the same episode in radically different ways. Actress Jill insists that everyone was happy with the play, while actor Jack says that everyone was bored. We all know that memory, which is a form of perception, cannot always be trusted. Many times our memories are selective—we remember details we want to remember and forget things we don’t want to recall. (Is this sometimes due to wishful thinking?) Ed remembers that he told some very funny jokes at the company party last week. Everyone was laughing. What he doesn’t remember is that he insulted six different people and in the end made a fool of himself. His memory of the event is not completely accurate. Our memories can be impaired by the same factors that sometimes impair perception: cognitive bias, stereotypes, wish fulfillment, stress, fatigue, illness, and so forth. Memory, like perception, can also sometimes be constructive: Ann swears she saw Sue at the annual company BBQ last year; she even recalls what Sue was wearing. In reality Sue was out of town at the time and could not have been there. Scientific experiments conducted by Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist at the University of Washington, seem to show that memories can easily be altered by events that happen after a remembered event. In the “lost in the mall” experiments, for example, subjects who had never been lost in a mall as a small child discussed the experience of being a small child lost in a mall. Afterward, one-fourth of the subjects claimed to have recovered a “memory” of having been lost in a mall when young. When memory claims seem to conflict with other things we know, they need to be tested against independent evidence before being accepted as veridical (truthful). Memories can be tested by checking them against witnesses who were present, against physical records of the event, and against other memories.

Guard against Bias We have seen that many factors, separately or in combination, can blind us to important aspects of a situation and cause us to misinterpret an experience or to miss a good deal

of what is going on. This is why personal experience is not an infallible indicator of truth—and why it must be critically examined before it can serve as a touchstone for genuine claims to knowledge. How can we control for biased or distorted perception? The first step is to become aware of the biases we are most subject to. Once biases are exposed to the light of day, they lose much of their power over us. Once we are aware of our biases, we can counteract their effect in several ways: we can (a) exert conscious control over our biases once we see them for what they are; (b) make an effort to take in and understand all aspects

187

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

ofa situation; and (c) reason critically, based on as much of the available information as possible. In this way, we can avoid drawing a conclusion based on a limited subset of the available information. Like a priori and a posteriori knowledge, personal experiences and memories are important touchstones for less basic knowledge. However, these are not the only touchstones playing an important role in one’s noetic structure. The next on our list is not as

basic, but it is every bit as useful.

THE TOUCHSTONE

OF BACKGROUND

INEORMATION

Background information serves as a touchstone for much of what we know. Our background information consists of all the noncontroversial beliefs about the world

and how it works that (a) are well supported by evidence, and that (b) we use every day to guide our life. Most of us would agree that the following constitute part of our shared background information:

AYPYN

188

Thunder is usually followed by rain. Objects tend to fall when dropped. Water tends to flow downhill. The downtown freeway in a major city is usually crowded during rush hour. The Earth is round. The ocean is salty.

An important use of background information is in the assessment of new claims to knowledge presented by others. If someone presents a controversial claim, and the claim conflicts with our background information, then we have a good reason to im-

mediately doubt the claim. If the claim has some merit, we may defer judgment until we

have looked at the evidence. For an extreme example, if someone on the street tries to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for one hundred dollars, you know immediately that he is

trying to con you, because part of your background information is that municipal

bridges are not owned by individuals. You also know that nobody in his or her right mind would be selling something that big for such a small sum. No need in this case to look for further evidence. Your background information alone is a sufficient filter. If this sounds commonsensical, that is because it is. For another example, suppose someone offers to sell you the design for a perpetual

motion machine. You are a fool if you take the bait, for it is a well-established fact of physics that perpetual motion machines are physically impossible. (A perpetual

motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics.) This fact is, or should be, part of the background information of educated people. We have all received an e-mail offering us millions of dollars if we will just send an anonymous party our banking information to help him complete a large, overseas transaction. Common sense says that people don’t offer complete strangers millions of dollars in exchange for doing five minutes’ worth of work.

CHAPTER7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

Elenchus We reject questionable claims all the time on the basis of our background information alone. When we do so, our reasoning, whether we realize it or not, is the method of the Socratic elenchus:

1. Claim A is logically inconsistent with claim B. 2. But claim B is part of our background information, which is well-confirmed and reliable, while claim A is of questionable veracity. 3. Therefore, claim A is doubtful and I won't accept it.

Background Information and Fallibility However, it is important to keep in mind that our background information is not infallible.

Our background information today includes many beliefs that were not considered back-

ground information a century ago; for instance, our belief that the physical universe is expanding. In addition, many beliefs that were considered background information a century ago are no longer considered true; for instance, the belief that the continents are

immobile. Our background information is continually being revised and updated.

THE TOUCHSTONE OF TESTIMONY A great deal of what we know is justified on the basis of the information received from other people. This is testimony, yet another touchstone for knowledge. Testimony in this context is not a legal notion; it includes the information we receive from others through e-mails, in conversations, via personal reports of events, and so forth. Testimony also includes things we learn from newspapers, magazines, books, TV programs, and even the Internet. Testimony, in short, is simply information received from other people. For example, I know that there is a scientific research station on the South Pole, although I have never been there and have never seen it with my own eyes. I know that protons weigh about 1,845 times what electrons weigh, although I can’t prove it in a laboratory and have never worked in a physics lab. I also know that hidden armed guards stand watch around the White House twenty-four hours a day, although I have never seen one there and have no direct knowledge of what is going on at the White House right now. My knowledge in all of these cases is based on the testimony of other people, transmitted through newspapers, magazines, T'V programs, textbooks, conversations, and so forth. A great deal of what we know about the world, perhaps most of what we know, beyond our own personal experience, is known on the basis of testimony. Two kinds of testimony can be distinguished: nonexpert testimony and expert testimony. Nonexpert Testimony Nonexpert testimony is information received from a nonexpert. What principle or principles should we follow when evaluating nonexpert testimony? For the mere fact that a claim is based on testimony does not in itself show that the claim is true. The person supplying the information may be lying, misinformed, or biased. When should

189

190

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

we trust nonexpert testimony, and when should we doubt it? When does nonexpert testimony give us knowledge, and when does it only give us grounds for doubt? As we did with perception, we will go with ordinary common sense. It is commonsensically reasonable to accept a nonexpert’s testimony as veridical unless we have good

reason to doubt it. This principle was first stated and defended by the Scottish philoso-

pher Thomas Reid (1710-1796), known as the “commonsense philosopher.” Reid argued that when it comes to ordinary testimony, the default position is trust, and the default is only overridden when we have good reason to suspect that someone’s testimony or report is false. In defense of the principle, known as the principle of testimony, Reid argued that in ordinary situations people have a natural “propensity to speak truth” and that lying “is doing violence to our nature.” Something worth pondering is the fact that we do follow Reid’s principle in everyday life; moreover, if we did not follow it, we would know very little about the world around us (and probably could not even function in it). However, nonexpert testimony is not infallible. Here are some reasons we might have for doubting a piece of testimony: The The The The The The

person supplying the testimony has a record of lying. person has a record of providing incorrect information. person has a motive to be less than truthful. person is known to have biases that might have distorted his perceptions. person is known to have been impaired at the time. testimony conflicts with solidly established background information.

The testimony conflicts with more reliable testimony of others who were present. The best explanation of all the facts is that the person giving the testimony is lying or deluded.

When we are unsure of an item of testimony and want to test it, we can do the following: « Check the person’s reliability by looking at his or her past testimony. ¢ Try to corroborate the testimony with the testimony of others whose testimony is more reliable. « Investigate the person’s cognitive condition at the time: Were the person’s faculties working properly? Is there any evidence the person’s perception was impaired by bias, prejudice, wishful thinking, and so forth? + Investigate the person’s motives. + Investigate the person’s situation. Was there anything in the person’s environment that might have impeded his or her observation? But when no good reason exists to doubt someone's testimony, the commonsense default is to accept the report as true. While I am driving in a storm, a man waves me down and tells me that the bridge is out one mile ahead. He appears sincere. I have no reason

CHAPTER

7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

to doubt his testimony. I can think of no motive he might have to lie. Nothing in the situation suggests a hoax. I turn back. The testimony of others, received in the form of conversations, e-mails, books, newspaper articles, TV programs, and so forth, is an important touchstone supporting much of what we know. Without it, we would know little about the world around us.

The Touchstone of Expert Testimony Expert testimony—information

received from

an expert—is

yet another

important

touchstone supporting much of what we know about the world. An expert is someone who has a great deal of knowledge in a particular area. For example, someone with a PhD in nuclear physics from a reputable institution qualifies as an expert in nuclear physics; a person who has worked successfully as a journeyman plumber for many years qualifies as an expert in plumbing, and so on. How do we determine if a person is an expert in an area? Someone’s status as an expert is normally based on (a) education and training in the subject or area, (b) professional accomplishments, (c) reputation among peers in the field, and (d) a history of reliable judgment. For example, Richard Feynman (19181988) was widely considered an expert on quantum mechanics (a branch of physics that studies the motions of subatomic particles), and rightly so. On his graduate school entrance exam, he earned a perfect score in mathematics and physics—something nobody had ever before accomplished. He earned a PhD in physics from Princeton University in 1942, taught at leading universities, and won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum electrodynamics. The theories he developed were confirmed on the basis of the precise predictions they yielded—predictions that were found to be amazingly accurate. (We will examine the logic of science in chapter 11.) In a worldwide poll of physicists in 1999, he was ranked one of the ten greatest physicists of all time. Feynman’s opinion on matters having to do with physics carried great weight, and for good reason. As a quantum physicist, he seemed to have it all: not only was he educated at a respected institution, but he had a proven track record of reliable judgments and accomplishments in his field as well as a solid reputation among his peers.* CAVEATS

Experts are fallible human beings; their testimony should not always be accepted without question. A number of caveats are in order. First, expert opinion carries more weight than

the opinion of a nonexpert only when a qualified expert is rendering an opinion in his or her area of expertise. A nuclear physicist’s opinion on politics or religion, for example, does

not qualify as expert opinion, any more than does a politician’s opinion on nuclear physics. An expert is only an expert in his or her area of expertise. Imagine a nuclear physicist testifying in support of a health-care bill before Congress. The scientist may have expertise in physics, but this does not mean that she is a reliable expert in health-care law.

Second, ifan expert makes a claim, but many qualified experts disagree on the point at issue, that is grounds for doubt on the matter. In such a case, it may be reasonable to withhold judgment and investigate the matter further before reaching a conclusion.

191

192

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Third, if an expert provides data that doesn’t seem to square with our shared background information, it may be reasonable to withhold assent and cross-check the infor-

mation by looking at similar data from other experts in the field before accepting it as accurate. Have other experts found the same data or detected similar results? If not, the data is suspect. Fourth, if an expert is an “interested party” in a matter, that is, if he or she stands to personally gain if his or her testimony is believed, that testimony may be called into question. For example, imagine that an expert on cures for the common cold testifies in favor ofa particular cold remedy. Suppose it is revealed that the expert owns a lot of stock in the company that makes the remedy. This information suggests the expert might not

be objective. Further evidence is needed before taking his testimony at face value.

In evaluating expert testimony, the expert’s reputation obviously also counts. However, the only reputation that counts is the expert’s reputation in his or her field. A reputation outside an expert's field provides little evidentiary value. For example, imagine that

Jan is a scientist who has built a strong reputation working as an advisor on health-care

regulation. If she next writes a book arguing for a religious claim, the reputation she has

rightly earned in the health-care field does not carry over to support her new argument.

Also, ifan expert’s opinion appears to be biased, it is reasonable to question his or her opinion and investigate further before reaching a conclusion. We have reason to sus-

pect bias if we have evidence the person is motivated by something other than the pure

pursuit of objective truth. For example, when an expert stands to gain if his testimony is accepted, that fact is a red flag. Ifan expert considers only one side of a contested issue and ignores information coming from an alternative side, that is also a red flag, raising the possibility of bias and distortion.

A final reason to doubt the testimony of an expert hardly needs saying. If the expert

appears to be violating the canons of critical thinking, Experts are human and they can, like all of us, make grounds for doubt if an expert, no matter how famous, of a conclusion, does not treat opposing views with dicts himself, or appears ignorant of opposing views.

that in itselfis grounds for doubt. mistakes. For example, you have gives weak arguments in support the respect they deserve, contra-

Argument from Authority When we use expert testimony to back up a claim, our argument is called an argument

from authority, or an “appeal to authority.” Our reasoning in this case can be placed into the following logical form: 1. Person X claims such and such. 2. X is an expert on the matter. 3. Therefore, such and such (our claim) is probably true. Obviously, the more knowledgeable and reliable the expert, the stronger the argument.

We owe much of what we know about the world to expert testimony; consequently,

CHAPTER

7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

much of what we know is justified in terms of arguments from authority. For example, we all believe that e = mc’ (mass equals energy times the speed of light squared). However, few people have performed the experiments needed to prove this truth of physics. We believe it is true, and our belief is justified, but it is justified on the basis of experts (physicists) who can vouch for its truth. Much of what we know in science and mathematics is justified on the basis of arguments from authority.

The Fallacious Appeal to Authority It is important, however, to beware of the fallacy (logical error) known as the fallacious appeal to authority. This occurs when someone states an argument from authority, but the person cited as an authority is not truly an expert on the matter at issue. The person may be an expert in some field, but not in the one under consideration. For example: 1. Herman Snodgrass, the famous Hollywood actor, says that nuclear power is dangerous. 2. Therefore, nuclear power is dangerous.

This type of argument provides little good evidence in support of its conclusion and should be rejected for being the fallacy that it is. Some people have a tendency to suppose that because someone is an expert in one area, for instance, acting, that his or her opinion in a completely different area can be taken for certain knowledge as well. This is a mistake. We will examine this error, and many other logical fallacies, in the next chapter. Sources When you write an academic essay on some subject, chances are you will not be basing your argument on your own personal experience. You weren't there when Wellington

defeated Napoleon at Waterloo; the team of physicists at CERN (a gigantic physics lab in Europe) that reported the discovery of the Higgs boson (the “God particle”) did not include you, and so forth. You will therefore need to support your case by citing credible testimony, and you will need to cite your sources so that others can verify your information. Your essay or report will be credible only if your sources are credible. Sources are a form of testimony. Whether your sources are books, encyclopedia articles, newspaper reports, magazine articles, recorded interviews, or scholarly studies, they will be

evaluated the same way we evaluate any other testimony.

Assuming you are citing a written source, the first question to ask is, Was the source

written by an expert? [fit was, then all the standard questions asked about experts come into play: What is the person’s educational background? What are his or her qualifications and professional accomplishments? Does the authority have a track record of reliable judgment? How is the expert rated by his or her peers? Remember that an authority is only credible in his or her area of expertise.

193

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Further questions can be asked. Does the source offer evidence in support of the claims it is making? Is the source impartial? Does the author consider all the relevant evidence, or only part of it, before reaching a conclusion? Does the author make an effort to take into account all the important sides on controversial issues? Is the author independent, or is the author an interested party beholden to special interests? If two expert sources contradict each other on some matter, then further research

is needed before either source can be accepted as credible. In such a case, one way to

proceed is to consult additional sources and see whose information is corroborated. If a piece of the puzzle seems to be missing, check alternative sources and try to fill in the

gap. Most of this is common sense, of course.

Exercise 7.1 We understand an idea better after we have explained it in our own words. Answer the

following questions in your own words.

mee = SOPNnAYR YY

194

What is personal experience? Give an example of a personal experience. What is a touchstone? State two ways in which personal experience can be biased. Is memory infallible? What is background information? State two examples. Under what conditions is personal experience trustworthy? Under what conditions is personal experience not trustworthy? What is testimony? Give an example. What makes someone an expert?

When is testimony trustworthy? When is it not trustworthy?

. What, according to Thomas Reid, is the commonsense principle governing

testimony received from ordinary people?

12. How do we evaluate expert testimony? 13. How do we evaluate nonexpert testimony? 14. What is the logical structure of an argument from authority? 1S. What is a fallacious argument from authority? 16. How do we evaluate arguments from authority?

Exercise 7.2 Questions for class or group discussion, short essays, or self-reflection. 1. Is Reid’s principle of testimony reasonable? Make your case. 2. Is personal experience ever infallible? Argue for your position.

CHAPTER

7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

. How much would we know about the world if we rejected testimony as a source of knowledge?

. Describe a time in your life when you asserted a claim on the basis of personal experience, but others who had been present argued that your claim was mistaken.

On the basis of their argument, you changed your mind and decided that you had misunderstood the situation. . Describe a time in your life when you asserted a claim based on a “false memory” that you later corrected due either to (a) the testimony of others who had been present, or (b) cross-checking it against real memories, or (c) independent evidence that caused you to reject the alleged memory claim. . Describe a scene in a movie in which a character changes his or her mind on an important issue on the basis of personal experience.

7

Can you recall a time when your experience was affected by a cognitive bias?

Can you recall a time when your experience was affected by drugs, stress, or illness?

Choose a personal experience you have had, such as a disagreement with a friend over some matter. Discuss several different ways to interpret your experience.

a

Se

yh

Exercise 7.3 True or false?

.

10. ll. 12.

Background information never changes. Background information is infallibly true—cannot possibly be mistaken.

According to the text, expert testimony should always be trusted. According to the text, true experts cannot be mistaken.

The principle of testimony states that testimony should be accepted unless we have

good reason to doubt it. Thomas Reid advocated the principle of testimony. Sense experience, such as the smell of a rose, and personal experience are one and the same thing. Personal experience can never be mistaken. When experts disagree on a matter, that shows they both must be wrong. According to the text, experts are generally trustworthy in every area of thought, including areas outside their area of expertise. Expert testimony is always infallible. Only a tiny fraction of what we know about the world is learned on the basis of testimony.

13. The text argues that testimony can never be trusted because people often lie. 14. To qualify as an expert, one must have solid academic credentials. 1S. Expectation can cause us to see or hear something that is not really there. 16. Memory is infallible. 17. The text argues for the principle that testimony ought to be accepted unless there is a good reason to believe it is mistaken.

195

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

18. One way an expert’s testimony can be called into question is by showing that the expert is an interested party.

19. An interested party is someone who is interested in a subject. 20. An interested party is a gathering of friends that is interesting. 21. The cognitive biases have no effect on the way one interprets

personal

experiences.

22.

The text argues that expert testimony is never to be questioned.

23. An expert in one area is usually a good source of knowledge in any other area as well. Exercise 7.4

Multiple choice. 1. Which of the following does not contribute to one’s being an expert on a subject? a. aproven track record on a subject b. academic credentials from a reputable institution c. the respect of one’s peers d. fame 2. Which of the following is more likely a sense experience rather than a personal experience?

oP

UNIT

cao

196

going for a ride on the subway going for a swim in the ocean

enjoying a cup of coffee

watching a movie tasting chocolate

3. Which of the following is not necessarily an indicator of reliability in an expert? a. b.

c. d.

a good reputation in one’s field of expertise. aproven track record.

not being an interested party. fame.

4. Which of the following is an example of personal experience? a. skiing all day on Mount Whistler b. driving across the country c. reading a book d. playing ball at the park e. allofthe above 5. Which of the following do most of us know by testimony alone? a. The dark side of the moon contains craters. b. The sun rises in the morning. c. The moon has phases. d. Rain is wet.

CHAPTER

7

PERSONAL

EXPERIENCE,

TESTIMONY,

AND

EXPERT

AUTHORITY

Exercise 7.5 Rate the credibility of the observer in each case.

oe

YP

1. After a UFC fight, the father of the losing fighter is giving an emotional, blow-byblow description of the match. After a UFC fight, an official from the UFC is describing the match. The owner ofa car for sale is describing the car. The mechanic who just tested a used car for sale is describing the car. A man who describes himself as “the biggest Starbucks fan ever” rates the coffee

and service he received at Joe’s Coffee Hut.

Exercise 7.6 Using only your background incredible.

information, rate the following claims as credible or

. Leonardo da Vinci slept for only twenty minutes at a time. The great artist would take a short catnap, then work twenty minutes, then catnap, then work, all day and all night long. This was how “The Master” accomplished his works of genius. (Claim made by Kosmo Kramer, the Seinfeld show.) . Aman knownas the “Breatharian” travels the country claiming to live on fresh air and sunshine alone, with no need for food or water.

. Someone claims to have seen Elvis Presley working incognito in a hamburger stand in the Midwest twenty years after he was supposed to have died.

Paul McCartney died in 1967 and was replaced by a double. n

. Aliens from another galaxy secretly landed in the United States and replaced all

the top government officials with robotically controlled doubles. They now control the federal government. Exercise 7.7

For class or group discussion, essay assignments, or self-reflection: 1. Choose a public expert on some subject and critically evaluate his or her expertise

on the basis of the principles explained in this chapter. . State an item of information that you know on the basis of personal (nonexpert) testimony alone. State an argument that supports your claim to know.

. State an item of information that you know on the basis of expert testimony alone. State an argument that supports your claim to know. Exercise 7.8 For each of the following claims, explain how you would respond asa

critical thinker

to the person making the claim. What questions would you ask? How would you investigate?

197

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

mee = SeOPFNnANYP YY

198

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

I believe that mediums can contact the dead in séances. I believe in ESP.

Near death experiences prove that there is life after death. Ihave the power to cast spells on others. I believe that witches exist. I believe that crystals have healing power.

I believe that UFOs are spacecraft from another galaxy.

I believe that the Moon landing was a hoax. I believe that dowsing really works. Iam clairvoyant. . I believe in fairies because one night after a party, I saw these bright, twinkling

lights hovering over my bed, and I had only consumed a couple of drinks, so I think they were fairies. Plus, it’s a nice idea.

NOTES L A psychologist

at Ohio State University did research showing that people rate themselves more

highly for looks, intelligence, and cleverness after drinking. See The Seattle Times, 14 September

2.

2013, A3. The professor won an Ig Noble Prize for his work. It is surprising how little it can take to distract us. For instance, there is the phenomenon of “jnattentional blindness.” See www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html.

3.

Quoted by Dan O’Brien, An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press,

2006), 56.

4. See James Gleick, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (New York: Vintage, 1993).

KEY TERMS

argument from authority background information fallacious appeal to authority

personal experience principle of testimony testimony

Chapter 8 Watch Out for Logical Fallacies

A FALLACY is an error in reasoning that nevertheless may appear at first glance to be correct reasoning. Fallacies are thus deceptive. (The word fallacy actually stems from the Latin verb fallere, which means “to deceive.”) Logicians distinguish two general types of fallacies. A formal fallacy is an error in reasoning that can be defined in terms of its form or bare logical structure alone, without reference to its content or what it is about. The flaw lies in the abstract logical form rather than in the specific

content. In contrast, an informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that is not simply due to the pure form of the argument (hence it is “informal”). In the case of an informal fallacy, one must examine the actual content of the reasoning to find the error because the problem is not a matter of pure form alone.

FORMAL FALLACIES The following argument may look like good reasoning at first glance, but upon closer inspection, it clearly is not.

1. If Maria is at work, then the lights in her house are out. 2. The lights in her house are out. 3. Therefore, Maria must be at work. This argument claims that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. However, this claim is not correct, for it is at least possible the conclusion is false even though the premises all are true: perhaps Maria is home from work, sick in bed, with all the lights out. That is, even if we suppose the premises are true, the conclusion might nevertheless be false, contrary to the argument’s claim (that the conclusion must be true if the premises all are true). This argument is fallacious. The abstract form that this argument follows may be expressed in terms of variables. Letting P and Qstand for declarative sentences, the logical form of this argument is

1. If P then Q. 2. Q. 3.

Therefore, P must be true.

199

200

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

It can be shown that any argument that exactly follows this form is logically fallacious. It can also be shown that the argument about Maria is fallacious due to its abstract form, not to its content (or subject matter). This formal fallacy is so common that it has been given a name: the fallacy of affirming the consequent. (The name comes from the fact that the Q part ofa conditional “If P then Q” sentence is called the “consequent.”) Be careful not to confuse the fallacy of affirming the consequent with an altogether different form of argument that looks deceptively similar: 1. If P then Q. 2.

P.

3. Therefore, Q must be true. It can be shown that any argument that fits this form is correct reasoning and thus is not fallacious. This pattern of reasoning, known in logic as “modus ponens,” will be examined in detail in chapter 10. Here is an argument that fits the modus ponens form: 1.

If Maria is at work, then the lights in her house are out.

2. Maria is at work. 3. Therefore, the lights in her house must be out. The following argument may also look like correct reasoning at first glance, although it is not:

1. If Maria is at work, then the lights in her house are out. 2. It is not the case that Maria is at work. 3. Therefore, necessarily it is not the case that the lights in her house are out. This argument also claims that if its premises all are true then its conclusion must be true. However, the claim is again not correct. Can you think of a possible situation in which the premises of this argument would be true and the conclusion would be false? The conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. The abstract form of this argument is

1. If P then Q.

2. It is not the case that P. 3. Therefore, necessarily it is not the case that Q.

It can be shown that any argument that exactly fits this form is logically fallacious. This fallacy is committed so often it has also been given a name: the fallacy of denying the antecedent. (The name comes from the fact that the P part of a conditional sentence is

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

called the “antecedent.”) However, be careful not to confuse the fallacy of denying the antecedent with the following argument form that looks similar: 1. If P then Q. 2. It is not the case that Q. 3. Therefore, it must not be the case that P. Here is an argument that fits this form:

1. If it is noon, then it is light outside. 2. It is not light outside. 3. Therefore, it must not be noon.

It can be shown that any argument that fits this form is correct reasoning and is not fallacious. We will examine this pattern of reasoning, known in logic as “modus tollens,”

in chapter 10. Formal logical fallacies can mislead us if we are not paying close attention to their abstract logical structure. INFORMAL

FALLACIES

Aristotle, the founder of logic, was the first to write a systematic study of informal logical fallacies. “That some reasonings are genuine,” he wrote, “while others seem to be so

but are not, is evident.” Aristotle catalogued a large number of different types of infor-

mal fallacies; since his day, logicians have catalogued even more. In the remainder of this chapter, we will examine some of the most often-committed informal fallacies. Once you understand the nature of these errors in reasoning, you will begin to spot them being committed all over the place—by candidates for political office, in adver-

tisements, and by intellectual tricksters trying to get their point across without doing the hard work of backing it up with evidence and good reasoning.

You will notice that many of the fallacies have Latin names. During the Middle Ages,

when logic was one of the core subjects taught in the universities of Europe, Latin was the universal language of scholars and many of the fallacies were assigned Latin names that remain in use.

Argument against the Person (Argumentum Ad Hominem) In many cases, informal fallacies are the result of lazy or sloppy thinking. Other times, they are the result of malicious thinking, as illustrated by the first informal fallacy that

we shall consider. An ad hominem fallacy (Latin: “against the man”) occurs when some-

one attacks a person’s character or circumstances or associates, rather than the person’s reasoned argument, and then concludes on this basis alone that the person’s argument has been refuted. This happens all the time in politics. For instance, a political figure gives an argument for some controversial bill, and then opponents attack the person’s

FALLACIES

201

202

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

character, associates, or circumstances, rather than his or her actual reasoning in favor of the bill. This type of behavior is a fallacy because personal matters such as these, by themselves, are irrelevant to the validity or strength of the person’s argument. They are

also logically irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the conclusion the person being attacked may be supporting.

The reason such personal matters are logically irrelevant is that a bad person can still give a good argument, and someone in a bad circumstance or someone who has some bad friends might still be right about some things. The mere fact that someone has been bad or has bad friends does not entail that his or her argument must be bad! When someone gives an argument for a claim, an honest concern for truth requires that the argument be judged on its logical merits, apart from the arguer’s character, circumstances, associates, and other logically irrelevant matters.

If you attack a person’s argument by attacking his or her character, you commit what

logicians call an “abusive ad hominem.” If you attack a person’s argument by attacking his

or her circumstances, you commit a circumstantial ad hominem. If you attack an argu-

ment by attacking the arguer’s associates, that is a guilt by association ad hominem. In each of these cases, the fallacious arguer may think he has defeated the person’s argument, but all he has done is attack the person (or the person’s circumstances or associates). Not good reasoning.

There are many ways to attack a person’s character and thus to commit an abusive ad hominem fallacy; one is especially worth mentioning. The tu quoque (Latin: “you too” or “you're another”) is a variant of the abusive ad hominem. Suppose a mother is lecturing

her teenage son on the dangers of drugs, and the son says, “Why should I listen to you?

You took drugs when you were my age.” In other words, “You, too.” The implication is that the mother’s reasoning is bad because she doesn’t (or didn’t at one time) live up to the advice she is giving. This reasoning is fallacious because the fact that the mother once took drugs has nothing to do with the logical soundness of the argument the mother is

giving. Indeed, the fact that the mother once took drugs may indicate that she knows

what she is talking about through personal experience, which in turn may make her argument stronger, not weaker!

Essentially, the tu quoque attempts to discredit a person’s argument by charging the person with hypocrisy. “Look who’s talking” is another way to express a tu quoque. “Your momma’ is another. The tu quoque is a fallacy because what a person does with

his or her personal life is logically irrelevant to the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion of the person’s argument. A hypocrite can still give a good argument. An inconsistent person might still reason well, at least on some matters. A doctor who smokes, for example, can still present a good argument against smoking. Of course, although the fact that someone does not practice what he or she preaches is logically irrelevant to the value of the person’s argument, it can nevertheless be psychologically persuasive.

Here is an example of the guilt by association fallacy. Professor Jones is giving a

lecture on the Constitution, and someone says, “Her argument is a bunch of nonsense.

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

Did you know she associates with right-wing extremists?” By attacking the professor’s associates, the speaker hopes the audience will reject the professor's argument. This

fallacy owes some of its psychological power to our tendency sometimes to judge people

by the friends they make. However, even someone who has associates we do not like might give a good argument. Again, the argument a person is giving ought to be judged on its logical merits, on the evidence offered, and not on such logically irrelevant mat-

ters as the company he or she keeps.

Suppose Jane Doe, a wealthy businesswoman, gives an argument in favor of lower taxes. In response, someone says, “Her argument is nonsense, for she stands to gain if

tax rates are lowered.” This is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. The fact that she will

gain if tax rates are lowered has nothing to do with the evidential connection between the premises and the conclusion of her argument. Her reasoning needs to be judged in

terms of its logical merits—not in terms of her personal circumstances. Just because

someone stands to gain from a measure does not in itself prove that his or her argument is a bad argument. A person who stands to gain if the conclusion of his argument is accepted might still be giving a good argument. For example, Martin Luther King stood to gain (and many others as well, of course) if some of his arguments were accepted, but that does not prove that his arguments were illogical! EXCEPTIONS

TO THE RULE

The key feature of an ad hominem is that the arguer is attempting to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking the arguer rather than the person’s argument. This cannot be emphasized too many times: an argument needs to be considered on its own logical merits, apart from the personal characteristics, associates, or circumstances of the arguer. Having said that, there are exceptions to the rule. For example, in a court of law, if the credibility of a witness is at issue, then the witness’s character, associates, and circumstances might all be logically relevant. For example, if a witness is a known liar, has a strong motive to lie, or is being coerced by someone, the jury will have good reason to doubt the person’s testimony. The attack, in a court of law, on a witness’s character, associates, or circumstances might, in some cases, not be fallacious at all.

The Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) As Socrates once observed, people sometimes think differently when they are ina crowd. When alone or with a few friends, they might be very rational, but in a crowd they give in to irrational urges. The appeal to the people fallacy attempts to use the irrational emotions generated by a crowd, rather than reason, to nudge people toward a conclusion. For example, a television ad shows a group of attractive people all wearing telescoping sunglasses. The intended, but unstated, argument here is this: because this attractive group is wearing them, you ought to join in and wear them too. The ad populum argument, also known as the “bandwagon argument,” in effect presents a bandwagon full of people and

asks the listener to jump on and join the party—without bothering to rationally consider the evidence.

FALLACIES

203

204

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

The many versions of the ad populum fallacy share a common structure: you should accept my conclusion because the group or the crowd accepts it. This is a fallacy because the mere fact that a group favors something does not, by itself, show that what the group favors is right or is true. Groups are sometimes way off track, and their beliefs are sometimes wildly mistaken.

“To fly from logic is to be a true fugitive.’

Marcus Aurelius, second-century Roman Emperor!

Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam) The appeal to pity fallacy attempts to evoke the emotion of pity from the audience and then to use that pity alone, rather than reason and evidence, to move the audience to a

desired conclusion. Attorneys have been known to use this strategy. For instance, an attorney whose client is charged with armed robbery might play up his client’s unfortunate childhood in hopes that the jurors will feel so sorry for the defendant that they will be lenient. This is an appeal to pity. The ad misericordiam is a fallacy because it treats pity as the only relevant factor to take into account in reaching the conclusion, ignoring relevant logical considerations. Of course, we do sometimes take pity into account, but

only along with other logically relevant factors. This fallacy belongs to a category that can be called “appeal to emotion fallacies.” Any attempt to lead someone to a conclusion by appealing solely to emotion is fallacious, for the emotions alone, without rational considerations, are no guarantee of truth

or sound judgment.

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)

In the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, someone puts forward premises in support of a stated conclusion under discussion, but the premises actually support a different conclusion, although the presenter does not realize it. For instance, suppose the senate is debating a bill that would place laptop computers in every public school classroom. Senator Smith is supposed to present an argument for the bill. “Our children are our most precious investment,” the senator begins. “The public schools help prepare the next generation for responsible

adulthood. Only a scrooge would oppose children. Therefore, we must pass this bill.”

The senator thinks he is arguing in favor of a bill that would place laptops in schools,

but his premises are actually directed at a completely different conclusion, namely, the generally accepted conclusion that public schools are a good thing. His premises do nothing to show that schools will actually do a better job if classrooms have laptops. The senator is “arguing beside the point.” This is an ignoratio elenchi. Politicians commit this fallacy all the time. Sometimes, an ignoratio elenchi is simply the lazy way out. For instance, suppose

Representative Jones is scheduled to argue in favor of a bill that would increase federal funding for public housing. However, Jones hasn't done his homework and doesn’t have

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

any facts at hand. What does he do? He talks about the general human need for decent housing and tells an emotional story about his own poverty-stricken childhood in a house with no indoor plumbing. This is an ignoratio elenchi, for it completely ignores

the key issue: Will this particular bill actually provide decent housing? Is there a better way to help the poor, or is this the most effective use of scarce resources? Presumably,

everyone agrees that decent housing is needed and that it is a good thing—but that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is whether or not this particular bill is justified. The congressman’s speech is supposed to prove one thing (that this particular bill is needed) but is instead directed at a different thing (that decent housing is a good thing). His argument sounds good but misses the point.

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) Someone commits the fallacy of begging the question when presenting an argument by

arguing in a way that employs the conclusion the person is trying to support as a premise in support of itself. Here is a glaring example: Joe: God exists. Fred: Why believe that? Joe: Because God exists.

Because Joe has not given Fred an independent reason to believe in God, he is in effect “begging” Fred to accept the conclusion as a favor. Joe hasn’t done the hard work of producing a solid logical argument, but he wants the same result. He wants something for nothing.

Of course, few people are so dense that they will simply place the conclusion wordfor-word into the premises in this way. Usually, an arguer (unconsciously) rephrases the conclusion and then uses the rephrased conclusion as a premise in support of itself without realizing it. Because it has been worded differently, it is not obvious that the conclusion is being used in support of itself. Here are some examples: + Free trade is a good thing, for the unimpeded flow of products between nations is a good thing. + Liberty is good, for freedom is a good thing. « Nobody has free will, for free will doesn’t exist. An interesting form of this fallacy occurs when someone gives an argument containing a premise that logically presupposes the conclusion. Consider the following argument for God’s existence:

Ye

The Bible The Bible Anything 4. Therefore,

says God exists. is inspired by God. inspired by God is true. God exists.

FALLACIES

205

206

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Notice that the second premise cannot be true unless God exists. To grant the truth of this premise is already to suppose God

exists. The premises therefore presuppose the

conclusion. This argument begs the question. Because nobody would accept the premises unless the person already accepted the conclusion, the argument begs us to take for granted what it is supposed to prove. An argument that begs the question is also called a circular argument. The following argument begs the question by arguing in a circle:

Ed: Why do you believe Pat is trustworthy? Ned: Because Sue is trustworthy, and Sue told me Pat is trustworthy. Ed: But why do you believe what Sue says? Ned: Because Rita is trustworthy, and she told me that Sue is trustworthy. Ed: But why do you believe what Rita says? Ned: Because Fred is trustworthy, and Fred says that Rita is trustworthy. Ed: But why do you believe what Fred says? Ned: Because Pat is trustworthy, and Pat says that Fred is trustworthy. The premises form a chain that circles back on itself and ends where it began. This argument begs the point at issue: Why believe Pat is trustworthy? In the end, we are asked to believe Pat is trustworthy because ... Pat is trustworthy. Of course, if the circle is long enough, the listener (and the arguer) might not notice that the argument is circular, or that the question has been begged.

“Those who establish argument by noise and command show that their logic is weak.”—Michel de Montaigne, sixteenth-century French philosopher”

Red Herring

Ared herring fallacy occurs when an arguer diverts attention from the point at hand by introducing an irrelevant issue into the discussion, thus throwing the argument off track. For instance, suppose an American company has been accused of selling products made by slave labor in the country of Ruritania. In the middle of the heated press conference on the issue, the company CEO says, “Our firm is a large donor to Amnesty International. Why, last year we gave $25,000.” The CEO has changed the subject, and the argument is now completely off track. By switching the subject to the donations, he has introduced a “red herring” into the argument. The fallacy might have gotten its name from a tactic used to train hunting dogs. When the dogs are running down a trail attempting to track a rabbit, drag a strong-scented red herring across the trail to throw them off track. Most of the dogs will follow the

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

herring’s scent and lose the rabbit; only the best dogs will stay with the original scent. In the context of an argument, a red herring throws us off the scent by throwing the

argument off track. Why would someone throw a red herring into an argument? Perhaps because the person knows he or she is losing the argument and wants to change the subject. Of course, an arguer might innocently interject a red herring into an argument, thinking (mistakenly) that it is a pertinent point. However, in most cases, the herring is presented in an attempt, conscious or unconscious, to avoid a conclusion.

The Genetic Fallacy When we explain the origin (the “genesis”) of a thing, we have given a genetic explanation. The genetic fallacy is committed when someone attacks a viewpoint by disparaging the view’s origin rather than by examining and responding to the argument offered for the view. In short, the origin of the view is attacked rather than the logical evidence for the view, and then this alone is offered as a reason to reject the view. For example, some have argued against the truth of religious belief by claiming that (a) religious beliefs originate in a fear of the unknown, and (b) this fear produces a desire for some higher power that would protect us from unknown forces. It is argued

that if this psychological condition is the source of religious belief, then the claim that God exists is refuted. This argument commits the genetic fallacy. The premises of the argument are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for even if religious belief does usually originate in a fear of the unknown, this fact alone would not show at all that religious belief is false. There are serious philosophical arguments for the existence of God, developed by such philosophers as Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Kant, and others, and in contemporary times, by such logicians and philosophers as Kurt Gédel, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, and Robert Adams. A reasonable person should critically consider these arguments on their own merits,

including the criticisms that have been made of them, before concluding with logical justi-

fication that God does not exist.

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantium) In the appeal to ignorance fallacy, someone argues that a proposition is true simply on the grounds that it has not been shown to be false. For example, suppose a believer in

UFOs argues, “It is reasonable to believe in UFOs because nobody has proved there aren’t any.” Or, “I believe in astrology; after all, it has not been disproved.” One common

exception must be noted. In some cases, if some statement P were to

be true, evidence of its truth would exist and would be obvious. In such a case, the

absence of evidence for P is indeed evidence of P’s falsity. For instance, the lack of evi-

dence that an elephant is in the living room is evidence that an elephant is not in the room, for ifan elephant were in the room, we would surely see it. This reasoning is not a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

FALLACIES

207

208

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Courts of law present another exception. In a court of law, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. In the absence of evidence of the defendant’s guilt, he

or she is indeed considered not guilty. This inference, that the defendant is not guilty because he has not been proven guilty, is not a fallacious argument—assuming the legal

principle that a person is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Straw Man Sometimes,

when person A criticizes person B’s argument, person A first summa-

rizes B’s argument because B’s argument is too long to present in full. After summarizing the argument, A then criticizes the summarized version of B’s argument, rather than B’s original argument, and then concludes that B’s original argument has been refuted. The straw man fallacy is committed when (a) A’s summary of B’s argument is not a fair representation but instead is a weakened, exaggerated, or distorted version of B’s original argument (a “straw man”); (b) A attacks only this unfairly summarized version of B’s argument (instead of B’s original argument); and (c) A concludes that B’s original argument has been refuted. Not a fair fight. A has knocked down an easily defeated “straw man’ version of his own creation, rather than B’s original argument. When summarizing an opponent’s argument, it is better to follow the principles of charity and faithfulness from chapter 3: Present the opposing argument in its best light, as accurately and fairly as possible. Don’t assume your opponent is an idiot, and don’t try to make your opponent look silly or stupid.

Fallacious Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) We met this fallacy in chapter 7. A fallacious appeal to authority occurs when we base a conclusion on the testimony of an alleged expert on some subject, but the alleged authority is either not a credible expert on the subject, is not trustworthy, or is biased. Advertising sometimes involves an ad verecundiam fallacy. For example: « Ashley Greene says I should buy brand X bread; therefore, brand X it is.

¢ Kobe Bryant says brand X cereal is healthy. So, Iam going to buy it.

These are ad verecundiams, for the famous personalities just mentioned are not experts

or authorities on food. However, the following two arguments avoid this fallacy because Ashley Greene does know a lot about acting and Kobe Bryant knows a lot about basketballs:

« Ashley Greene endorses the Ace School of Acting. So that is a good reason to attend the school. ¢ Kobe Bryant says Wilson makes good basketballs. So, their basketballs are probably pretty good.

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

FALLACIES

Hasty Generalization Archie Bunker: You can’t trust any of them type of people.

Michael (Meathead): How do you know, Archie?

Archie Bunker: When I was a kid, a family of them lived down the street and they was all no good. In this imaginary script, Archie has jumped to a conclusion a little too quickly. This is

an example of hasty generalization.

Fallacies are a lazy way of supporting your conclusion. They dodge the hard work of backing up your point with good reasons connected to the truth of the matter.

False Cause False cause fallacies are grouped into two important types, both known by their Latin names. In a post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) fallacy, someone concludes that A caused B simply on the grounds that A happened before B. For example, suppose that every time Joe plays pickleball, he eats an apple before the game. Most of the time, his team wins. He concludes that eating the apple magically helps his team win. This is a post hoc fallacy, because the mere fact that B happened afterA does not prove thatA caused B. Ina non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”) fallacy, someone claims that Ais the cause of B, when in fact (a) A is not the cause of B, but (b) the mistake is not

based merely on the fact that B comes after A. One version of this fallacy is the fallacy of accidental correlation. Someone concludes that A is the cause of B simply on the

grounds that A and B are correlated. For example, at ocean beaches and lakes there is a statistical correlation between ice cream sales and boating accidents. When ice cream sales are up, so are boating accidents, and when they are down, so are boating accidents. Suppose someone argues, on the basis of this correlation alone, without any additional evidence, that ice cream sales cause boating accidents. This would be the fallacy of accidental correlation. We should not conclude, from the correlation alone, that ice cream sales cause accidents (nor that accidents cause ice cream sales). Common sense says that there is a third factor at work, a factor behind both ice cream sales and accidents, an underlying factor causing both ends of the correlation: the presence of sunshine. Sunshine encourages people to go boating, and it also encourages people to eat ice cream.

Thus, the fact thatA and B are correlated over time does not alone show thatA caused B or that B caused A. It might be that one is the cause of the other, or it might be that a

third factor (as yet unidentified) is the cause of both.

209

210

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

In other cases, the non causa pro causa fallacy might involve an oversimplified claim of causation. Usually this happens when someone selects and focuses on one cause out of many causal factors and then treats this as the sole cause, ignoring other relevant causal factors. For example, a riot occurs on a college campus and several fraternity members are involved. The police chief ignores all other factors and focuses

blame only on the fraternity brothers. This would be a fallacy if other factors and individuals were ignored in a rush to judgment. A theory that assigns all blame to one

factor is sometimes called a “silver bullet theory.” It might also be called a “magic bullet

theory.”

Slippery Slope In the slippery slope fallacy, also known as the “domino argument,” someone objects to a position P on the grounds that P will set off a chain reaction leading to a bad result; however, no good reason is given for supposing the chain reaction leading to the bad result will occur. Metaphorically, the idea is that if we adopt a certain position, we will start sliding down a slippery slope and we won't be able to stop until we slide all the way to the bottom (where the bad result lies in wait). Thus, it is argued, better not take the first step. A popular form of this reasoning is expressed in the adage, “Give ‘em an inch and they'll take a mile.” For example, at a meeting of the social sciences division of Harmony Community College, the classified staff asks if classified employees can have their own coffee-break room. But the economics professor, Professor McScrooge, argues, “If we give them their own room, the next thing you know, they'll be asking for their own exercise room, then they'll want a sauna, then a hot tub, and a tanning salon, then a day spa, and before you knowit, they will be working about two hours per day.” This is an unwarranted slippery slope.

False Dilemma In the fallacy of false dilemma, someone assumes that only two alternatives exist with respect to some matter, rules out one of the two, and then concludes in favor of the other alternative, when in fact more alternatives exist but they haven’t been considered. Here are some examples:

You either hate America or you love her. You obviously don’t love America, so you hate America. Either we see the movie or we stay home. You obviously don’t want to stay home. So, let’s see the movie. Everyone is either an agent or a victim. You are not an agent, so you must be a victim.

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

FALLACIES

The Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence When an arguer leaves out evidence that would count heavily against the conclusion of his or her argument, the fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed. For example: « Car salesman: This car was driven by a little old lady who only drove it to church on Sundays. It’s a great buy! (The rest of the story: Her car was stolen and totaled twice in the past year.) + Politician: I voted for bill X. (Unstated fact: He voted against it on ten previous votes and only voted for it this time because of the polls and the upcoming election.)

“The best defense against logic is ignorance.’ —Blaise Pascal, seventeenth-century French logician*

Special Pleading In the fallacy of special pleading, an arguer applies a principle to someone else’s case but makes an unjustified special exception for his or her own case. For example, an official of political party X argues, “The other party takes special-interest money, so join our

party instead.” What the official doesn’t mention is that her party also takes special-

interest money. Or a communist activist argues against a right-wing dictator, saying of the dictator, “He jails and tortures his political opponents and outlaws political dissent.” What he does not mention is that communist dictators he supports do the very same thing.

The Fallacy of Accident Most general principles or rules are not meant to be applied in literally every case; there are usually intended exceptions. This fallacy is committed when a general rule or principle is applied in a particular situation, but the rule was not intended for the situation; the situation is a recognized exception to the general rule. For example, we all know that it is wrong to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The reason is that someone could get trampled to death. However, in the following situa-

tion, Joe is definitely taking the rule too far. Jefferson High is putting on its annual

play, Don’t Shout “Fire” in a Crowded Theater. The purpose of the play is to explain to the students the dangers of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. It is the final night of

the play, everyone is in a festive mood, and the theater is crowded. The climactic

moment occurs when one of the characters in the play, Rita Schmuck, stands in the middle of the stage and shouts “Fire!” It is all part of the plot, but her shining moment

in high school play history is ruined when Joe Blow immediately stands up and yells, “Hey, you are not allowed to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater!” Joe has committed the fallacy of accident. The rule was not meant to be applied in such a case; the play is an accepted exception!

211

212

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Equivocation The fallacy of equivocation occurs when an arguer uses a particular word or phrase with one meaning at one place in an argument and then uses the same word or phrase with another meaning later in the argument, in such a way that the premises are true on one interpretation of the word but not on the other, while the conclusion

follows only based on the other meaning. We do not normally allow the meaning of a word or phrase to shift within an argument. However, if the listener fails to notice the shift in meaning, she might unwittingly accept the conclusion when she logically should not. For example, the following (silly) argument commits the fallacy of equivocation:

1. A person has a moral obligation to always do what is right. 2. I have a moral right to eat greasy fast foods. 3. So, I have a moral obligation to always eat greasy fast foods. The shift in meaning occurs with the word right. If the word right is given a constant meaning throughout the argument, the argument is faulty. Someone would consider the conclusion proven only if she did not notice that the meaning has shifted. Having noted the meaning shift, she would also note that the premise and the conclusion are really talking about two different things. If the meaning of right is not allowed to shift during the argument, either the argument has a false premise or it is invalid. Of course, the two meanings must be closely related if the shift in meaning is to fool anyone. The

following arguments also commit this fallacy: 1. Only man is rational. 2. No woman is a man. 3. So, no women are rational.

1. The legislature has the power to revoke laws. 2. The law of gravity is a law. 3. So, the legislature has the power to revoke gravity, and when it does we'll all be able to float through the air. 1. You believe in the miracles of modern science. 2. So, you do believe in miracles. 3. You should therefore believe in the miracles reported in the Bible.

When someone gives an argument, we normally suppose the person’s words retain a constant meaning throughout. The fallacy of equivocation violates this important rule. The use of equivocation, however, may trick someone into accepting a conclusion—if

the listener is not paying close attention.

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

The Fallacy of Composition In the fallacy of composition, someone assumes, without justification, that what is true of the parts ofa whole must also be true of the whole. For example, after learning about the individual members of a string quartet, someone reasons: Each member of the quartet is a good musician, so, the quartet as a whole must be a good string quartet.

The problem is that although each individual member might be a good musician, the

quartet as a whole might not be very good. Perhaps they won't play well together.

Suppose A, B, and C are reporters who have never met each other. The news editor reasons as follows:

A is a happy person. B is a happy person. C is a happy person. So, if we put them all together on assignment overseas, they will make a happy team.

The problem is that each person might individually be happy, but when combined ina group, the individuals might not be happy at all. Similarly, someone might argue the following: Each of these basketball players is an excellent athlete; so, the team must be an excellent team.

Each player might indeed be excellent, but they might function poorly together. Advertisers sometimes encourage people to commit the fallacy of composition when they divide a large price into many small monthly payments and then focus only on the size (not the number) of the monthly payments. For instance, after watching an ad on TV, Pat thinks, “That huge exercise set is only $19.95 per month. That’s not very much for such a big piece of equipment. Maybe we'd better buy it.” (Advertising will be examined critically in the next chapter.) The Fallacy of Division The fallacy of division is the logical reverse of the composition fallacy. In this fallacy, someone assumes, without justification, that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. Here are some examples.

« Wilbur is on vacation and sees the biggest hotel he has ever seen in his life. “Wow! The hotel is huge, so the rooms must be big rooms.” « Fonebone buys an expensive new car. When the door handle breaks, he reasons, “This car is expensive, so each part must be expensive.” « The average household has 1.6 cars. So, the Jones household must have 1.6 cars. + Self-identified liberals earn 6 percent more than self-identified conservatives. Joe is an outspoken conservative and Jan is a proud liberal, so Jan must make 6 percent more than Joe.

FALLACIES

213

214

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

In these cases, someone is assuming that because the whole has a particular property,

each part must have that property as well. This is the fallacy of division.

Exercise 8.1

Identify the fallacy in each of the following: 1. Most Americans own their own homes. How do I know? Everyone I know owns their home.

. Taking drugs can impair your thinking. Joe is on drugs, because he takes aspirin every day and aspirin is a drug. So, Joe probably has impaired thinking. . People who are high are usually not at their sharpest. If you are not at your sharpest,

you shouldn't be climbing mountains. When people climb mountains, they get to a very high altitude. If you are at a high altitude, then by definition you are high. So nobody should climb mountains. Driver to officer: You should let me go without a ticket, because my pet cockroach just died and he was my best friend and I am devastated. . Either the economy should be completely free and unregulated, or we should have central planning and government control over every aspect of the economy. But the latter would be intolerable. So, the economy should be free and unregulated. . Each individual part of my car weighs less than twenty pounds. So, my car weighs less than twenty pounds. Teenagers earn less, on average, then people in their thirties. Rita is nineteen, Joe

is thirty-five. Therefore, Joe earns more than Rita.

Rita is a meter maid. Rita is lovely. Probably all meter maids are lovely. In 1965, the average age of the members of the Beatles was twenty-three. Therefore, the Beatles was formed in 1942. 10. Senator Jones says that the threat of terrorism has diminished. But how can you believe what he says? He’s been divorced five times. Sheesh. ll. I just read that Americans drink 50 million gallons of soda pop per year. Joe is an American. So Joe must drink $0 million gallons of pop per year. 12. That book was written by a radical, atheist, communist sympathizer. So, don’t

buy it.

13. A scientist who works at the Tobacco Institute, an industry-funded research think tank, argues that cigarettes are actually good for you. A critic counters, “That’s a bunch of baloney. Do you know where he works? The Tobacco Institute. Look who is paying his salary.” 14. Joe says, “Nitrogen doesn’t burn. That’s why the tires of jetliners are filled with nitrogen.” Pete replies, “I don’t believe you. I think it burns. Give me an argument.” Joe responds, “Okay. Nitrogen is not combustible; therefore, it doesn’t burn.”

CHAPTER

1S.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

The world is good because it was made by a good God. How, you ask, do we know God is good? Look at this world! It is such a good place that the God who made it must be good. If you are a true-blue, loyal American, you will support this candidate. IfI don’t earn at least a B in this class, my parents won't pay for school and I'll be kicked out of the house. I thinkI should be allowed to do extra credit. You should read the new novel, Love on Main Street. It’s a bestseller, and everyone will be talking about it at lunch next week. Nobody has ever proved UFOs don’t exist, so we must suppose the sightings are legitimate. You say your bird can sing, but no bird can sing. So, your bird doesn’t sing. Dr. Smith says smoking is bad, but he chain-smokes, so his arguments are no good. Nobody has ever proved that there is no such thing as ESP. So, ESP is a real phenomenon.

Exercise 8.2

Ka

> YY

True or false?

The red herring fallacy involves calling someone a “red herring.” Tu quoque means “you're another.” The tu quo que is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy occurs when you allow the meaning of a word to slip or change during the course of an argument. The red herring fallacy occurs when someone interjects an irrelevant point into a discussion and throws the argument off track.

oP

ND

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that may, nevertheless, appear logical to some people. The straw man fallacy is an example of a formal fallacy. Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy. Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy. 10. The fallacy of division is a formal fallacy. ll.

The fallacy of special pleading involves pleading with someone to accept the conclusion.

12.

Begging

the

question

occurs

when

you

offer

someone

money

to

accept

the

conclusion. 13. 14. 1S. 16. 17.

The fallacy of false dilemma occurs when you sternly present someone with this dilemma: either accept my argument or face the consequences. The fallacy of division is an error in arithmetic. The fallacy of composition is committed only by artists. The following commits a fallacy: If Nubia swims, then Nathan swims. Nubia swims. So, Nathan swims. The following commits one of the fallacies identified in the text: Ghosts exist. Therefore, ghosts exist.

FALLACIES

215

216

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

18 . The ad hominem fallacy attacks all human beings—it is antihuman. 19. . The basic logical flaw with the ad hominem fallacy is that a bad person may make a

good argument—the fact that a person is bad does not imply that the person’s ar-

20.

gument contains bad reasoning. The basic problem with the appeal to the people fallacy is that “the people” are not

always right about everything.

21. Anad hominem fallacy is any argument that tries to show that “people are no damn good.” 22. The following argument commits a fallacy identified in this chapter: Either the Republicans have it right, or the Democrats have it right. The Republicans do not have it right. So, the Democrats must have it right. 23. The following argument commits a fallacy identified in this chapter: If Ann swims

today, then Bob swims today. Bob swims today. So, certainly Ann swims today. 24. The following argument commits a fallacy identified in this chapter: If Ann swims, 25.

then Bob swims. Ann swims. So, surely Bob swims. The following argument commits a fallacy identified in this chapter: If Ann swims

today, then Bob swims today. Ann won't swim today. So, surely Bob won't swim today. 26. The following argument commits a fallacy identified in this chapter: If Ann swims today, then Bob swims today. Bob won't swim today. So, certainly Ann won't swim today. Exercise 8.3 Choose the best answer.

1 . Which fallacy is illustrated by the following argument? If Ann swims today, then

Bob swims today. Bob swims today. So, certainly Ann swims today. a. b.

affirming the antecedent denying the antecedent

Cc. affirming the consequent

d. denying the consequent 2 . Which fallacy is illustrated by the following argument? If Ann swims today, then Bob swims today. Ann won't swim today. So, certainly Bob won't swim today. a. affirming the antecedent b. denying the antecedent Cc. affirming the consequent

d. denying the consequent 3 . Which fallacy is illustrated by the following argument? If Ann swims today, then Bob swims today. Ann swims today. So, certainly Bob swims today. a. affirming the antecedent b. denying the antecedent Cc. affirming the consequent

d.

no fallacy is committed at all.

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

. Which fallacy is illustrated by the following argument? If Ann swims today, then

Bob swims today. Bob does not swim today. So, certainly Ann does not swim today. a. affirming the antecedent. b. denying the antecedent. c.

affirming the consequent.

d.

no fallacy is committed at all.

. Which fallacy is illustrated by the following argument? It rained yesterday, so, it will probably rain today. a. false cause b. ad hominem

c. d.

hasty generalization slippery slope

Exercise 8.4

Identify the fallacy in each of the following: 1. Professor McOrnery: I do not allow any questions in class. If] allow one student to ask a question, someone else will have a question; if someone else asks a question, another will, and pretty soon I'll be doing nothing but answering questions.

Actor Joe Blow says nuclear power is dangerous. So, it is dangerous.

. Drinking water cures the flu. Every time I have the flu, I drink water and my con-

dition improves within a day or two.

America. Love it or leave it. You don’t love it. So, move to Cuba. . We have to buy a car. We'll buy either an expensive one or a cheap one. We can’t afford to buy an expensive one; so, we'll buy that cheap one for $500. . The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Therefore, it was okay that we walked into the lecture hall and began screaming obscenities at the speaker. I'll never go to another doctor. I’ve been to two, and they didn’t help me at all. . It’s against the law to cut someone with a sharp instrument. Dr. Verrier, the heart

surgeon, cuts people every day. He should be arrested.

10. ll. 12.

13.

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. Our religion, which is a revival of the Aztec religion that practices mass human sacrifice, should therefore be protected by law. Late your soup at noon, and I got sick at three; so, your soup made me sick. Four local teenagers were arrested for selling drugs. Teenagers are nothing but a bunch of drug-crazed criminals. Animal-rights activists say dogs and cats have rights. But if we grant them that premise, the next thing they'll argue is that birds, trees, fleas, and mosquitoes have rights, and mosquito spray will become an illegal substance. We therefore must not agree to grant rights to animals. The larger the city, the more churches. The larger the city, the more drug use. So, churches cause drug use.

FALLACIES

217

BUILD A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

14.

The Economic Policy Institute just released a scholarly study showing that the

1S.

middle class is shrinking. But that group is left-wing and ideological, so 1am sure their study is flawed. I am not even going to read it. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech; so, I was within my rights telling

this little old lady I would sell her the Brooklyn Bridge for $1,000.

Exercise 8.5

Name the fallacy in each of the following:

1. Social justice means everyone gets his or her just deserts. This means each gets an

equal piece of the pie. But if everyone gets an equal piece of the pie, then everyone

will be eating nothing but pie all the time, and many will get diabetes, because too much pie causes diabetes. So, social justice is not a desirable thing to attain—it will cause diabetes.

AAYPWD

UNIT3.

Modern societies have conflicts. So, every modern person must have conflicts. Our team is strong. Pat is on This house must have a huge The company has performed Captain Spaulding, the most

explorers must be funny.

N

218

our team. So, Pat must be strong. kitchen, for look how big the house is! inefficiently. So, the employees must all be inefficient. famous of all African explorers, is funny. So all African

The Bullitt Foundation is generous. So, the people working there are generous.

The party was wild. Joe was at the party. So, Joe was wild.

10.

The consumer price index rose last month. So, that car you are going to buy has gone up in price over the past month. College grads earn 30 percent more than high school grads. So, Pat must earn

30 percent more than Jan, for Pat went to college and Jan only went through high school. ll. Each person in that mob is a decent person who normally wouldn't hurt anyone. So, that mob won't hurt anyone. 12. Encouraging people to take the bus won’t cut down on energy use, for a bus uses more energy than a car. 13. Because salt is not poisonous, the constituents of salt, sodium and chlorine, are not poisonous.

14.

Father to son: “It’s wrong to steal.” Son: “But Dad, you watch baseball and they steal bases.”

1S.

If we really believed in liberty, we would tear down all the prisons, for prisoners

don’t have liberty. 16. It is morally right to give food to starving families. Our family is always starving by the time we sit down at the table. Therefore, people should give our family food. 17. Every item of clothing she is wearing is in style. Therefore, her outfit is in style.

CHAPTER

8

WATCH

OUT

FOR

LOGICAL

18. America is a wealthy nation. So, Jim, who is an American, must be wealthy. 19. Every member of the Young Democrats Club is under twenty. So, the club was

founded less than twenty years ago.

20.

Each brick in that house weighs less than ten pounds. So, the house weighs less

21.

than ten pounds. The average family has 2.3 children. So, the Smith family must have 2.3 kids.

Exercise 8.6 Instructions in context.

1. Locate the letters to the editor section of a newspaper or magazine and select a letter containing what you believe is a logical fallacy. Critically evaluate the author’s argument. 2. Find a newspaper editorial or an op-ed piece that you believe commits a logical

fallacy. Critically evaluate the author’s argument. 3. Listen to a talk radio show or a TV pundit and evaluate one or more of the argu-

ments being given. Did you spot a logical fallacy or a weak argument? Explain one of the arguments you heard and critically evaluate it. 4. Describe a scene in a movie in which a character gives an argument that is a logical fallacy. Exercise 8.7 Instructions in context.

1. Does the following argument commit a fallacy? If you believe that it does commit a fallacy, identify the fallacy. Argue for your position.Each part of the universe has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause (which would be God). 2. Does the following argument commit a fallacy? If you believe that it does, identify the fallacy. Argue for your position: The universe was either intentionally designed, or it is a random accident. But if it is a random accident, then it is not

orderly. It is orderly. So, it was intentionally designed. 3. Can either of the arguments above be improved or strengthened? Argue for your answer.

Exercise 8.8

Choose a fallacy explained in this chapter, and write a Socratic dialogue in which someone commits the fallacy and Socrates then cross-examines him or her.

FALLACIES

219

220

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

NOTES 1.

David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu

Enterprises, 2013), 11.

2. Ibid., 42. 3. Ibid, 48.

KEY TERMS

equivocation fallacy

INTERNET STEPHEN

formal fallacy informal fallacy

RESOURCES

DOWNE’S

GUIDE TO THE FALLACIES:

www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy

RICHARD

PAUL AND

LINDA ELDER’S

THINKING: www.criticalthinking.org /files/Fallacies2006-DC.pdf

GARY

CURTIS’S SITE:

www.fallacyfiles.org OTHERS:

www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/fallacy-list.html www.nizkor.org /features/fallacies

www.logicalfallacies.info www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy

GUIDE TO CRITICAL

Interlude Critical Thinking and Freedom

IN TOWARD THE LIGHT of Liberty: The Struggles for Freedom and Rights That Made the Modern Western World, the noted British philosopher A. C. Grayling observes that at the beginning of the sixteenth century, education, wealth, the freedom and means to travel, opportunity, participation in political processes, and many other things we take for granted today, were reserved for a few people at the top of society. Today, he notes, the average person in a Western democracy has more freedom, opportunity, and mate-

rial wealth than the aristocrats and elites of five hundred years ago. In particular, he argues, the average citizen today enjoys freedoms of speech, of the press, of expression, and rights to due process, to vote, and to representative government to a degree un-

dreamed of by anyone five hundred years ago.

This is moral progress. However, Grayling notes, achieving the degree of freedom we

enjoy today was not easy; it involved a gigantic struggle against entrenched interests. Many individuals gave their lives in the struggle which began in Europe in the sixteenth century and later spread around the world. The historical first step, Grayling argues, wasa hard-fought struggle for freedom of religion, conscience, thought, and expression— the freedoms of the mind.

THE STRUGGLE

FOR FREEDOM

OF RELIGION

Five hundred years ago, most Europeans were not free to choose their religion, nor were

they free to decide whether to belong to a religion. The decision was generally made at the top and imposed on everyone below by force. Independent thinkers were burned at the stake when their views contradicted the established authorities. During the preceding century, for example, “entire towns were burned to the ground and their Jewish populations slaughtered” because the inhabitants did not belong to the official religion.’ The struggle for religious liberty began when the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536) argued for religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. “The sum of our religion,” wrote Erasmus, “is peace and unanimity, and these can hardly stand unless

we define as little as possible and in many things leave each person free to follow his own

judgment.””

The next major step occurred after Servetus (c. 1511-1553) was burned at the stake for advancing theological views considered by authorities to be heretical. In response, Sebastian Castellio, a professor at the University of Basel, wrote an influential argu-

ment for liberty of conscience and religious freedom (Concerning Heretics: Whether 221

222

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

They Are to Be Persecuted). Slowly, the idea began to gain ground around Europe that people should have the freedom to choose their religion on the basis of their own consciences. Grayling observes that “ideas and attitudes, once they penetrate into the minds of more than a coterie, acquire a life of their own....”3 The next two champions of the cause of religious liberty, John Milton

Figure 8-1. The English poet John Milton (1608-1674). Engraving from the 1850s.

(1608-1674) and John Locke (1632-1704), both argued powerfully for freedom of conscience and religion as part of a broader movement aimed at freeing the mind of the individual from external compulsion. Their arguments even today are considered models of critical thinking. Today we take freedom of religion for granted; however, the religious freedom that we enjoy today did not always exist. Freedom of religion is the fruit ofa centuries-long struggle that had to be won one intellectual battle at atime. The idea of religious liberty was a major critical-thinking step toward the increasing freedom of the individual.

OPPOSITION TO ROYAL ABSOLUTISM Five hundred years ago, everyone in Europe, and in societies all over the world for that matter, lived under unelected kings or rulers who held absolute power.* This system, called “royal absolutism,” was often defended on the basis of the theory of the divine right of kings. According to this theory, kings or rulers receive the right to rule directly from God himself. On this view, power flows from God down to the king, and from the king down to the people, who have no say in the government that rules over them. In other words, the king answers only to God, not to the people. In 1679, Locke authored a devastating refutation of the doctrine and his argument carried the day. Almost single-handedly, on the basis of careful critical thinking, Locke killed the theory undergirding royal absolutism. In its place, he proposed the theory of the social contract. To greatly simplify, on this theory, the state receives its power from the people, rather than from God, and exists solely to protect the rights of the people as specified in an implied contract or agreement between the people and the state. In short, the state serves the people; the people do not serve the state. Moreover, if the government fails to honor the social contract, argued Locke, the people have a right to revolt. Locke’s theory was the philosophical beginning of the modern idea of representative government—of a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The idea of the social contract was a second major critical-thinking step toward the increasing freedom of the individual.

Figure 8-2. John

Locke

(1632-1704). Illustration published in 1851.

THE ANTISLAVERY CAUSE Amere three hundred years ago, slavery was practiced and accepted on every . . . : . continent and in nearly every society on Earth. Slave owners often justified slavery by arguing that the enslaved were morally and intellectually inferior

INTERLUDE

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

FREEDOM

and deserved to be in chains. In the 1750s, Anthony Benezet, a teacher at a Quaker school in Germantown, Pennsylvania, began instructing the children of slaves at night, after completing his regular teaching duties. He also started a school for girls. Benezet wrote, “I have found amongst

the negroes as great a variety of talents as amongst a like number of whites, and I am bold to assert, that the notion entertained by some, that the blacks are inferior in their capacities, is a vulgar prejudice, founded

on the pride of ignorance of their lordly masters, who have kept their slaves at such a distance, as to be unable to form a right judgment of them.”s In short, the claim of racial inferiority does not stand up to serious critical thinking.

Benezet was one of the first in America to campaign against slavery and

to write tracts describing the horrors of the slave trade. One of his books was read by an Englishman named Thomas Clarkson, the “second most significant figure in the cause of antislavery.”° After reading Benezet’s book, and thinking critically about it, Clarkson joined the Committee for

Figure 8-3. Frederick Douglass (1818-1895). American social reformer, orator, writer and

statesman. Illustration published in 1882.

Abolition of the Slave Trade and campaigned tirelessly for abolition. In

England, the actions of individuals such as Clarkson and the English politician and philanthropist William Wilberforce caused Britain to outlaw the slave trade and to send its Navy around the globe, stamping out the trade by force. The idea that slavery is morally wrong was now spreading around the world. Grayling notes, “The first article Tom Paine wrote, when newly arrived in America in 1774, was an attack on slavery.””

The opponents of slavery employed philosophical arguments like this:

there is no morally relevant difference between Africans and Europeans

that would justify enslaving them. If Englishmen have the right to be free, then people of African descent have the same right. It is logically inconsistent (and hypocritical) to advocate liberty for Europeans and not for Africans. Slavery is an immoral institution.

In 1775, the first American antislavery society was established in

Philadelphia. Its president? One of America’s Founding Fathers: Ben

Franklin. The cause of antislavery is one case of many in which serious critical thinking literally changed the world.

Figure 8-4. William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Portrait engraved by E. Scriven in 1845.

THE LYCEUM MOVEMENT In Millbury, Massachusetts, in 1826, a local teacher named Josiah Holbrook founded a lecture series and debate forum to promote adult education and lifelong learning. He named his organization after the university founded by Aristotle in Athens in the fourth century BCE (the Lyceum). Local speakers were invited to town to lecture and answer questions on their area of expertise, and debates were held on timely matters. Holbrook’s Lyceum was the first organization in America to promote public critical thinking. His idea spread like wildfire. Within ten years, thousands of lyceums had been formed

223

224

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

in towns and cities across New England, and some of the most famous

public intellectuals of the day were speaking on the “Lyceum circuit,” including Frederick Douglass, Daniel Webster, Susan B. Anthony, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau. Imagine for a moment: farmers, blacksmiths, carpenters, mothers, and curious teens listening to serious lectures and debates on the issues of the day, thinking

critically among

themselves.

Socrates would have loved the idea. The

lyceum movement helped inspire the Chautauqua adult education move-

ment that began in New York. Both movements in turn helped pave the way for universal public education in America. Figure 8-5. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882). Undated engraving by John Angel James Wilcox (1835-1908), published in an 1883 biography of Emerson. Digital restoration by Steven Wynn Photography.

A. C. GRAYLING

ON THE HISTORY

OF FREEDOM

Let us conclude this interlude with some of Grayling’s observations on the long struggle for the freedom of the individual. Grayling writes:

The average citizen today has rights that 500 years ago were reserved for a very few. Grant the negatives and the shadows: it remains true that today’s ordinary Western citizen is, in sixteenth century terms, a lord: a possessor of rights ... and resources that only an aristocrat of that earlier period could hope for. This is the result of a singular process: the diffusion of what one might call enfranchisement. [This] consists in the increasing liberty of the individual, the growth of the idea that individuals have rights and claims, and that they can assert them even

against the constituted authority of the land.*

Even when individual rights are not fully realized, Grayling observes, history shows that they can serve as “defining aspirations,” pointing the way toward increasing liberty.” However, freedom has never been free: Yet getting to the position where these ideas are taken as commonplace was far from easy. When one thinks of what had to happen in order for the ordinary twenty-first century Western citizen to attain the position he enjoys in these respects, the litany of achievements is impressive.'® For

all the efforts towards securing the rights and freedoms we enjoy today (still enjoy, almost, although they are beginning to fray and diminish) cost blood, and took centuries. It dishonors those who fought for them to forget that fact now, and it does us no credit to be careless of what was thus won.!!

INTERLUDE

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

Grayling draws a lesson about the role of ideas in history that is especially relevant to this book. The history of freedom, he argues, is a tale “about the way profoundly philosophical ideas drive history.”'? There are certain philosophical ideas in particular,

argues Grayling,

whose place in the unfolding of the human story is so central and—even in their evolution—so persistent that it becomes a matter as much of fascination as of importance for the philosopher to trace their concrete realization in the lives of people and societies. The ideas in question are those of liberty and rights.’

The history of freedom, as Grayling presents it, shows that critical thinking flourishes best in an environment of freedom, while an environment of freedom requires critical thinking on the part of those who are free. A critical examination of history thus shows that the movement for the increasing liberty of the individual has been fueled by ideas—by critical thinking—and has encouraged critical thinking in turn. It is a self-

sustaining process.'*

NOTES CP PNANAARYDY

a

. A.C. Grayling, Toward the Light of Liberty (New York: Walker Publishing, Inc., 2007), 28.

Ibid., 20. Ibid., 60.

Political power is said to be “absolute” ifit cannot be challenged. Grayling, Toward the Light of Liberty, 164.

Ibid, 166.

Ibid., 169.

Bee ee Pwned

Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., . Ibid., . Ibid., . Ibid.,

2. 3. 6. 8. 9.

On the history of freedom, see Donald Treadgold, Freedom: A History (New York: New York University Press, 1990) and Orlando Patterson, Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (New York: Basic Books, 1992).

FREEDOM

225

Chapter 9 The Internet, News Media, and Advertising

MANY PEOPLE BASE a good deal of what they believe about the world on what they read on the Internet and on what is reported by the news media. In addition, many

people are influenced by advertising, not only with regard to their preferences as consumers but also with regard to their attitudes, values, and behavior in none of these three sources is a true oracle, information received from critically examined and tested against reliable touchstones of knowledge to know can be justified. We begin with the most pervasive of the three,

general. Since them must be before a claim the Internet.

CRITICAL THINKING AND THE INTERNET Complete freedom of speech exists on the Internet: anyone can say anything about anything. The Internet has no “truth” filter. In addition, a good deal of misinformation can be found on the Internet. For example, you can find sites defending the “hollow Earth” theory—the claim that the Earth is a hollow sphere with secret openings at the poles. In addition, everyone knows that some people make money by peddling false claims in the online world. For these reasons, a critical thinker approaches the Web with a degree of initial wariness. How do we separate the trustworthy from the questionable, the true from the false, when considering whether or not to trust a web source? The first step is to identify the author or organization behind the website. Ask, Who created the site? Who wrote the page or the item under consideration? If an author created the website, the next step is to evaluate the author’s credibility.

What justifies placing trust in his or her claims? Begin by asking, What are the author's credentials? Can they be checked? (Are they real?) Are the credentials issued by a respected institution, one with a track record of accomplishment? For example, suppose

a scientist named Joe Doakes makes a controversial claim on his website about some issue in physics. His claim is more likely to be true if his PhD is from Oxford University in England than if it is from the Joe Doakes Institute of Theoretical Physics (headquartered in his basement). Oxford University has a long record of accomplishment in theoretical physics. Credentials from a trusted institution are not always required. However, in the absence of credentials, we should ask, What justifies trusting this author as a source of information? We can pursue this question by asking, What is the author’s background? Is the author a recognized expert in the subject area? What relevant experience does the 226

CHAPTER9

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

author have? Does the author have a proven track record on the subject? If so, that obviously counts heavily in favor of the information being presented. Of course, the mere fact that the author is an expert does not automatically guarantee the information presented. In a case of expert opinion, we can ask all the questions raised in chapter 7. When an author is not an expert, his or her material may still be trustworthy, but we should ask questions like these: What evidence does the author provide? Does the author have some sort of proven track record in the area? For example, if the author is making a claim about hostage negotiation, how long has he or she worked as a hostage negotiator? Of course, if enough evidence backs up the author’s claim, that will trump

a lack ofa track record, and may justify accepting the claim in question.

When an organization has produced a website, similar questions ought to be asked before wholeheartedly accepting the information. What is the organization behind the website? What sort of reputation does it have in the area? What are its qualifications on the matter? Is it a recognized authority in the subject area? If so, then the usual

checks on expert evidence may be performed.

We can also ask, Does the organization have a proven track record? Is it known for reliable, proven information? Or does it have a track record of misinformation? Is its information up to date? Or outmoded? Does it back up its claims with solid evidence? Does it cite its sources? Or does it assert things without any backing or documentation? If it does provide documentation, is the backing publicly checkable? Can interested people look it up and verify it? It must be remembered that organizations are created by fallible human beings. Does the organization stand to gain if the information it distributes is accepted? If so, then it is an interested party, and caution is advised. Is the organization biased in some

way? For example, is it funded by political or special interests that stand to gain if the information it distributes is widely accepted? Is the organization closely associated

with a particular political party or political or ideological movement? Political and ideological movements have an agenda to promote and are interested parties in a matter. Does the organization devote more time, space, and energy to one side of a controversial issue? These facts alone, if verified, do not show that the organization’s claims are false, but they do raise a red flag, and call for further investigation. When evaluating a web resource, we can also ask, What is the purpose of the web page? Is its primary purpose advertising? Does it exist mainly to sell a product? If so, its

veracity is called into question, since promoting sales rather than the truth may be a primary motive (and it is part of our background information that the two do not always coincide). Is the primary purpose advocacy and opinion? If so, then the veracity of the source is again called into question. If advocacy is the goal, the source may be inflamed

by the passion and bias of zealotry, emotions that do not always lead to the truth. The

material will have to be checked for balance and accuracy in this case. Is the primary purpose entertainment? If so, the veracity of the source is again called into question, since having fun rather than reaching the truth may be a primary goal, and as we all know, fun and truth do not always coincide.

227

228

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

We can also ask, How current is the web page? Is the information outdated or up to

date? In fast moving areas where the situation changes frequently, information that is a year old may already be inaccurate. For example, a web resource on global politics will

probably be inaccurate if it has not been updated during the past year. Finally, does the website have a bibliography? Does it cite well-known and reputable sources? Does it cite sources that can be independently checked?

Web Truth-Checkers If you read a story online and have doubts about its credibility, you can sometimes determine if the story is true by going to one of the following websites. Each specializes in exposing a type of false information often found on the Internet. * www.snopes.com claims to be “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.” * www.truthorfiction.com claims to provide “the truth about rumors, inspirational stories, virus warnings, hoaxes, scams, humorous tales, pleas for help, urban legends, prayer requests, calls to action, and other forwarded emails.”

« www.factcheck.org claims to monitor “the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases.”

Wikipedia Wikipedia, founded by Jimmy Wales in 2001, is one of the most widely used resources on the Internet. This free, online encyclopedia is a wonderful resource, pro-

viding a wealth of information covering almost any subject. It provides a public

service and deserves a great deal of respect. However, although articles posted to Wikipedia are at some point reviewed by editors, they are not all peer-reviewed by content experts. People can post or edit an article on Wikipedia, regardless of whether

they have expertise in the specific field. Editors may flag certain articles as questionable or incomplete but in many cases might not give further guidance as to untruths

and omissions. When an alternative web source is available, it is a good idea to use that as well. In addition, as many have observed, the articles in this online encyclopedia are

not all of the same quality. Some contain serious scholarship and are accurate; others are biased and present only one side of an issue or lean heavily toward one side. Relying exclusively on biased articles, without filling in the gaps and taking

into account the missing information, can only have one effect: it will leave you, or your report, biased.

Lastly, newer articles in this resource have not yet run the gantlet of serious academic criticism. When an article is first written, it usually leaves things out and may not

strike the proper balance. As criticism is received, and as suggestions are made, the article will be improved, and it may become more accurate. Newer articles, in short, are

not as trustworthy because they have not passed the test of time.

CHAPTER9Q

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

Academic Websites Consulting an academic website associated with a respected institution of higher learning is generally a good way to research an issue. Such websites exist on nearly every subject. The information they provide is usually reliable as it will have been written by recognized content experts and in addition will have undergone rigorous criticism by other experts before being posted online. In the field of philosophy, the Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (www.plato.stanford.edu) is an example ofa highly respected and very reliable source of information on all areas of the discipline. A second much

respected resource on philosophy is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: www .iep.utm.edu. If you are searching without success for a reliable academic website on a particular subject, consider consulting a professor who teaches the subject.

First published in 1768, the Encyclopedia Britannica is the oldest and most respected

encyclopedia in the world. Although not associated with an academic institution, its articles are almost all written by academic scholars who are experts in the areas of their contribution. The encyclopedia’s website (www.britannica.com), or a hard copy edi-

tion of the encyclopedia, is an excellent place to begin virtually any research project.

Exercise 9.1 Applications. Instructions in context.

1. Visita web checker and document an interesting online myth not discussed in this book.

2. Choose a website that interests you, and critically evaluate it for accuracy and reli3.

ability on the basis of the principles discussed in this chapter. Critically evaluate one of the following websites for accuracy and trustworthiness on the basis of the principles presented here. Some of these websites are more mainstream than others.

Flat Earth:

theflatearthsociety.org/cms

Conspiracy Theory:

www.realityzone.com

Bigfoot: Media Bias:

www.is-bigfoot-real.com/bigfoot-found mediamatters.org www.aim.org

UFO: Philosophy: Economic Data: Paranormal Claims:

www.ufoclearinghouse.com plato.stanford.edu www.nber.org paranormal.about.com/od/weirdcreaturesmonsters/u/ creatures-and-more.htm#s1 paranormal.about.com/od/ghostsandhauntings/u/ghosts.htm paranormal.about.com/od/dowsing/a/All-About-Dowsing.htm paranormal.about.com/od/psychicphenomena/u/psychicphenomena.htm#s1

229

UNIT

3.

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Exercise 9.2 Questions for class or group discussion, short essays, or self-reflection. 1. Should the Internet be regulated by the state? Should its content be regulated the way TV content is regulated? What regulations, if any, should apply to the Internet? Argue your case.

2.

Should the Internet be regulated by a worldwide governmental body? Argue your case. 3. Do employers have the right to limit personal use of the Internet by employees on company time?

4. Do employers have the right to snoop on employee use of the Internet during PNINDNM

230

working hours? Discuss the positive and negative ways the Internet has affected our lives. Is the Internet socially beneficial? Argue for your position. Is the computer making us less empathetic? According to a classic tale, when General Motors introduced the new Chevrolet Nova into Spanish-speaking countries in the 1970s, sales were far below expected levels. The company finally discovered the reason: no va means “Doesn't go” in

Spanish. Spanish speakers avoided the model in droves because they believed it

would not run. Sales picked up once GM renamed the car for its Spanish-speaking markets. Using one of the Web truth-checkers, show that this famous tale is a total myth. Exercise 9.3 Rate one of the following websites for fairness and objectivity. The Economic Policy Foundation:

www.fairness.com/resources/relation?

relation_id=7220 New Economics Foundation:

www.neweconomics.org

The Cato Institute:

www.cato.org

The Heritage Foundation: The Independent Women’s Forum: International Women’s Forum: David Horowitz Freedom Center: SourceWatch:

www.heritage.org iwf.org iwforum.org www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Source Watch

CHAPTER9

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

CRITICAL THINKING AND THE NEWS MEDIA Much can be learned from the news media, but a critical thinker takes little or nothing at face value. Most information presented by a news organization, at least when the issue is a matter of controversy, must be examined critically before it is reasonable to accept it as true. The reasons for a healthy skepticism when gathering information from the media are many. To begin with, it is important to remember that news organizations, most of which are corporate entities, are in business to make a profit. In order to make a profit, they must have advertisers and they must hold an audience. As a result, reporters and editors may edit their stories so as not to offend corporate owners, advertisers, and audiences. News organizations also need sources. In some cases, an organi-

zation may cover only part of a story to avoid offending established sources. As a result of these pressures, any given story may not present the whole truth. Another source of misinformation can arise when a reporter passively accepts information at face value without looking deeper. The problem is that reporters are often fed

information by individuals and organizations during news conferences, by PR people,

and so forth. However, such packaged information may not always be accurate. It may reflect the individual’s or the organization’s self-interest rather than the plain facts. In

some cases, slanted information may be all that is presented to the public—ifa reporter is lazy or too busy and doesn’t dig deeper.

An opposite problem occurs when an overzealous reporter slips his or her opinion into a news story as if it were part of the facts. In both kinds of cases, the result may be a report that does not present the whole story.' Acritical thinker should also be aware that news organizations, in addition to being selective regarding which aspects of stories will be covered, are selective as to which stories they cover. With so many events happening every day, news editors have no choice but to be selective. However, not all selection is based on a relentless pursuit of the truth. In some cases, a story is not aired or published because it might offend or run contrary to the interests of advertisers, the viewing audience, or the corporate owners

themselves. In other cases, a story may not be covered because an editor feels that it is not important information. In some cases, certain events will receive more space than

others simply because the organization believes the public is more interested in those events. As a result, some issues will be played up, and others will be played down. However, the mere fact that more people are interested in event A than in event B, or

that an editor believes A is more important than B, does not by itself prove that event

Ais more important or newsworthy. The result in such cases can be an inaccurate pic-

ture of what is really going on. News organizations are also competing with each other. This means that audiences need to be hooked, and they need to be held. News teams therefore tend to cover events that will interest lots of people and to pass over events few would be interested in. It may

be national news if a famous movie star has cancer; it will not be if Uncle Jed was just diagnosed with leukemia. In some cases, stories may be crafted to serve both an entertainment value and an informative value.

231

232

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Furthermore, news organizations tend to cover events that can be presented and

analyzed in a very short space of time. Complicated stories involving large amounts of information and requiring in-depth analysis are simply not suitable for most news for-

mats because too many viewers will simply switch channels. Such stories might be suitable, however, for an hour-long documentary on an educational channel. If a nightly news program devoted a full hour to a scholarly debate on health-care policy held at a university, the program’s ratings would plummet.

Checking for Accuracy When we evaluate an important news story for accuracy, we can begin by the story conflict with well-confirmed background knowledge? If we have energy, we can go further by asking, Does it conflict with expert opinion? reliable? Is it backed by independent information? If we are unsure, we can

asking, Does the time and Is the source compare the

information in the report with information on the story provided by other news organiza-

tions. Are other equally reliable news sources giving different information? Or does the information provided by other organizations agree with the information presented? In addition, using our background knowledge of the way the world works as a guide, we can look for missing parts of a news story, perhaps an angle that seems to have been left out. We can also examine a story by looking for unfair emphasis or bias. Is the story’s source credible and objective? Or is the source biased? Is the reporter slanting the coverage, perhaps by giving some facts more attention than they deserve, while ignoring or

downplaying other facts that deserve a closer look? Would a more balanced look at the evidence lead to a different conclusion? As human beings, reporters can make mistakes.

They can also be influenced by cognitive biases that lead them to ignore relevant aspects of a story, or to play down some aspects and play up other aspects, when a more balanced look would have a different emphasis. Finally, ifwe suspect that information presented in a news report is inaccurate, we can

go to competing news organizations and see if they uncovered missing elements of the story or more reliable information. Merging reports from different news organizations

might result in a more complete picture.

Exercise 9.4 Questions for class or small group discussion, essay assignments, or self-reflection. 1. Some have argued that the medium of television is not suitable for presenting complicated stories involving large quantities of information and requiring in-depth

analysis. Argue for or against this thesis. 2. Is Fox News “fair and balanced”? Argue for your answer. 3. Define freedom of the press. Does a free press benefit society? Make your case.

CHAPTER9

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

4. Are societies better served by state-run news agencies, as in many of the nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East? Argue your case. Exercise 9.5 Research projects:

1. Is the media biased? Research your answer by reading the online arguments at Media Matters, a liberal advocacy group, and at Accuracy in Media, a conservative advocacy group. 2. Which group makes the better case: Media Matters or Accuracy in Media? Argue for your conclusion. 3. Select a controversial news story presented on a news program. Explain the way

the story was presented, and then critically evaluate the way the news organization handled the information.

4. Select a current issue and compare the way it is covered on two competing news outlets over a one-week period of time. 5. Does the media have a liberal bias? Research the claim by reading two opposing

scholarly books on the issue: (a) Tim Groseclose, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2012), and (b) Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News (New York:

Basic Books, 2003).

CRITICAL THINKING AND ADVERTISING Most of us take advertisements with a grain of salt: we do not accept everything we hear (in an ad) at face value. We all know that selling us something is the primary purpose of an ad. However, it is important to keep in mind that not all advertising is false or untrustworthy. True, advertisers are trying to sell you their product. They are also biased in favor of their product and stand to gain if you buy it. All advertisers, in other words, are interested parties making claims. It is also true that most advertisements appeal to your emotions and desires rather than to your reason and intellect. Special caution is indeed advised whenever someone is targeting your emotions and desires, if for no other reason than that you are vulnerable to manipulation when the pitch is aimed at your emotions. However,

in most

cases,

advertisers

also want you

to become

a repeat

customer.

(Most businesses would not survive without repeat customers.) Advertisers know that you will be testing the product after you buy it and that you will not become a repeat customer unless the product lives up to its claims. Most advertisers therefore have a financial incentive to deliver what they promise. Nevertheless, when viewing an ad, it is good advice to be cautious and to keep in mind that most ads aim at your emotions and desires, rather than at your reason.

233

234

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

The philosopher Peter Kreeft observes that Socrates is such a terrible salesman that he cannot even “sell” the truth about himself and save his life. He is not “clever.” His speech before the jury is not “covered with ornaments.” He simply speaks the truth.”

Playing on Emotions and Desires Advertisements play on emotions and desires in many ways. Some use sexual images to get attention and then to interest people in their product. It is not a coincidence that goodlooking male models are usually seen in ads that target young women, while attractive female models are often featured in ads targeting men. A similar advertising technique is to associate the product with an attractive person, in the hope that people will buy the product as a way of vicariously identifying with that person. Likewise, some ads associate a product with elite or rich people, thus using snob appeal to hook consumers who will buy a product merely because the elite use it and using it will make them look “elite.” Other ads use the hook of associating their product with an appealing situation, such as happy people camping in the mountains or playing volleyball on a beautiful beach. Some advertisers try to gain customers through fear—by frightening people into buying their product. Ads for home alarm systems, for example, may feature scarylooking burglars and dramatic break-ins. Ads for flood insurance dramatize the worst-case scenario. Many of the informal fallacies that we examined in chapter 8 are used in advertisements. For example, political ads often sling mud at the opposing candidate (ad hominem). Many ads appeal to everyone’s desire to be in with the crowd (appeal to the people, or bandwagon fallacy). The Federal Trade Commission prohibits outright lying in ads, but appeals to the emotion and the use of informal fallacies are legal as long as they fall short of outright lying. The only known antidote to unwise shopping is a dose of critical thinking before making the purchase. The most basic critical-thinking questions to ask, when viewing an ad, are these: Does the ad provide a reason that justifies buying the product? Does it give me a good reason to believe that the product will meet my needs or desires? Socrates would probably urge us to consider another question. Recall the statement he once uttered while walking through the agora: “So many things I don’t need!” Socrates would probably advise us to ask ourselves, Do I really need that product? Or could I spend my money on something more important? Today we might add this question: Or could I use it to help someone in need? Trick Words

Advertisers often skirt reason and attempt to manipulate emotions using various types of trick words. A weasel word is a word or phrase whose meaning has been so watered down that it can mean almost anything. As a result, its use in an ad can be technically correct yet misleading. A weight-loss ad, for example, claims that in one month you can lose “up to” ten pounds. Eager to lose ten pounds before the dance at the end of the

CHAPTER9

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

month, Joe tries the product. By the end of the month, he has lost one ounce. Nevertheless, he has no legal grounds to complain, for the weasel ad technically only promised

the user would lose “up to” ten pounds. Joe’s one-ounce loss is well within the margin. If the ad had employed exact terminology, instead of a weaseler like up to, it would have said, “Ninety-nine percent lose under one pound a month; one in a thousand reported

losing ten pounds.” Obviously, the exact truth would not have sold any product.

Another ad says, “Ned’s hair loss pills have been recommended by doctors.” The ad is

telling the truth: both of Joe’s brothers are doctors, and after he paid them, they recommended despite circular out the

his product. The problem is that all three brothers are as bald as a billiard ball— taking the pills for years. (Also, their doctorates are in English literature.) Or the in the mail announces that you “could win” $10 million. All you have to do is fill card, return it to the company, and the big prize might be yours. The ad is techni-

cally correct. Even if your chance is one ina trillion, it is true that you “could win.” The meaning of a weaseler like could win is so elastic that it can cover almost any probability.

Weasel words allow an ad to sound great without really promising a thing. If the exact truth had been told, the announcement would have read, “There is one chance in a trillion that you won our grand prize!” Of course, that kind ofa claim won't sell anything.

A euphemism is a positive or agreeable expression substituted for one whose con-

notations are not as positive. Euphemisms can mislead by making something appear to be better than it is. After the term used cars began to carry too much baggage, used car lots started replacing the term with the better sounding preowned cars. An advertisement can use a euphemism to cover up the real nature of a product without technically making a false statement. Instead of stating that the rental house is a 400-square-foot moldy dump, the ad may refer to the unit as a “cozy little cottage reminiscent of an older era.” The examples are endless.

The opposite of euphemism is a dysphemism—a negative or disagreeable expression substituted for one whose connotations are positive or even neutral. Joe starts a local bank and tells his neighbors that if they invest in his new venture, they will avoid paying “usuri-

ous’ interest rates to New York “fat cat” bankers. This will win more investors than the plain truth. Dysphemisms can mislead by making something appear to be worse than it is.

Trick words such as euphemisms and dysphemisms are part of a larger category

called emotive words—expressions that conjure up positive or negative feelings. For example, the word fascist immediately suggests brutality, while the word love brings positive thoughts to mind. Our language includes many other kinds of words, besides

euphemisms and dysphemisms, that are emotive in nature and which may be used in

ads that play to the emotions. A common advertising technique, for instance, is to connect positive emotive words with a product or candidate. In 1971, the Coca-Cola com-

pany launched a huge ad campaign featuring a song sung by the Hillside Singers, “I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing (in perfect harmony).” The warm and fuzzy song became a pop hit—and sold a lot of product for the company.

Of course, emotionally negative words and images can also sell. A very common technique in political advertisement today is to connect negative words, and the images they

235

236

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

suggest, with the opposing candidate. One of the most devastating uses of this technique

in the history of political ads was the famous “daisy girl” commercial produced by Lyndon Johnson’s presidential campaign in the fall of 1964. As the ad opens, alittle girlin a beautiful sunlit field is sweetly counting the petals on a daisy, “One, two, three. ...” Suddenly, in the background, a voice begins the opposite countdown: “Ten, nine, eight...” The little girl looks up just as a mushroom cloud produced by an atom bomb rises in the background. The sound of the explosion and the iconic image of the atomic mushroom are chilling. Next comes the calm and reassuring voice of the candidate, President Lyndon

Johnson: “These are the stakes...” The voice-over concludes, “Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.” The unspoken innuendo, of course, is that if Senator Barry Goldwater (Johnson’s opponent) is elected president, he will use nuclear weapons in Vietnam and plunge the world into a nuclear war.* An innuendo is an expression that gets an idea across without saying it explicitly. In most cases, the intended message is derogatory. In Johnson’s famous ad (which was run only once because of the uproar that it caused), the announcer did not explicitly say that Goldwater would use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Listeners simply drew the intended conclusion for themselves. Here is an imaginary example of innuendo. In an ad for candidate Smith, the announcer tells the community that Smith’s rival, Jones, was audited

by the IRS the previous year. The ad does not say that Jones did anything illegal, but many voters will draw that conclusion. (Of course, the ad did not mention that it was Jones’s first audit in forty years.) An innuendo is sometimes called an “insinuation,” or an “intimation.” Smith’s campaign insinuated, or intimated, that Jones is a crook—

without explicitly saying so. The interesting thing is that an innuendo statement is technically true. This is why a claim that would be false or libelous if made by direct statement can sometimes be made indirectly (and legally) by innuendo. Hyperbole (exaggeration), downplaying (minimizing), and ridicule (mocking) are other trick words often found in political ads. In the Centerville mayoral race, candidate Jones runs an ad informing voters that Smith, his opponent, studied philosophy in college and once wrote a term paper defending an “atheistical” argument. “Don’t vote for a candidate who opposes religion,” the ad concludes. The truth is that Smith has no bias against religion (and the paper was written twenty years ago). Jones is hoping to score political points by exaggerating some small facet of his opponent.

After candidate Jones served a year in jail for money laundering, his new campaign

ad lists politicians who have served longer terms for more serious offenses, highlights

others who have been wrongly convicted, and then focuses on Jones’s forty-year career as a public servant. The goal is to downplay Jones’s time in the pokey and make it look like a small bump in the road. In the next Jones campaign ad, Smith is shown slipping on a banana peel and falling on his face in someone’s plate of macaroni and cheese as he gets up to deliver a speech at the Coordinated People of America convention. If you have no logical case against your opponent, making fun of him by showing him ina ridiculous light may win a few votes. Recall the ridicule that was directed at Socrates in ancient Athens when Aristophanes presented Socrates in an unflattering way.

CHAPTER9

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

Consumer Reports The claims made in advertisements are not always unverifiable; they can often be scientifically tested. Although most of us do not have the time or the knowledge to run elaborate scientific tests on products before we buy them, we can read the results of tests conducted by impartial experts. Since 1936, for example, Consumers Union has been publishing the results of scientific tests conducted by experts in its Consumer Reports magazine. Consumers Union has acquired a reputation for objectivity, honesty, and accuracy. It describes itself as an “expert, independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.”*

Criticisms of the Ad Industry Mark Twain defined advertising as “the art of getting people to buy things they don’t want and don’t need with money they don’t have.” Critics of advertising have argued that advertisers manipulate us by appealing to our emotions and desires rather than to our reason, causing us to make decisions that go against our better judgment.

Asecond criticism is that in many cases advertisers actually create desires within us (and then take our money by promising to satisfy those artificially created desires). This

charge raises deep questions that we cannot enter into here: Does advertising create desires in us? Or does it merely appeal to preexisting desires? Or does it sometimes awaken dormant desires? Both of these criticisms obviously have some degree of merit, although reasonable people debate the extent of the hold advertising has over us and the way it affects our desires. In any case, what is the appropriate response? One solution would be to pass federal laws requiring that advertisements appeal to reason alone. Evidence and logic would be the only legal content of any ad. One problem with this solution is that it would probably violate the First Amendment. The study of critical thinking suggests another solution. In a free society, the ultimate responsibility for evaluating the worth of an advertised product rests with the individual consumer. You, as a consumer, bear the responsibility for choosing which products to buy

and which to abstain from buying. Once you buy a product, you test it. Ifit meets your needs

or desires, ifit performs as advertised, you may become a repeat customer. Ifit does not, you try another product, and the company loses what might have been a repeat customer. However, although caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware” and “without a warranty

the buyer takes the risk”) may be acceptable advice in many cases, in some cases the bad effects of a product may not be evident on the first or even the second use. Some companies advertise useless products, or products that don’t perform as promised, and

make plenty of money before the market wakes up and turns on them. By the time their trickery becomes public knowledge, the company has already sold millions of units and

is ready to fold its tent and disappear into the night. Caveat emptor does not protect us from such fraudulent practices. Since one of the purposes of government is the prevention of fraud, some level of government regulation of advertising claims therefore seems reasonable for the common good.

237

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Exercise 9.6 Questions for class or small group discussion, short essays, or self-reflection. 1. Do some ads create artificial desires in us? Or do ads merely appeal to existing

desires? Or do they merely awaken dormant desires? If you believe that ads create desires within us, can you cite an example to prove your point?

How would you word a law requiring that ads appeal to reason alone?

mo

ao

op

. Cite and describe an ad that appeals to reason alone appeals to the emotions alone appeals to both reason and emotions

Fo

3

m

UNIT

uses weasel words

employs emotive words

appeals to the bandwagon appeals to existing desires you believe creates new desires you believe is deceptive.

j. employs the ad hominem fallacy k. attempts to exploit a cognitive bias Would a law requiring that ads appeal to reason alone violate the First Amendment? . Can an ad be entertaining and appeal to reason at the same time? Can you give an example? Should ads for political candidates be required to appeal to reason alone? Should a law be passed barring advertisers from making exaggerated claims? How would the law be written? . Was Socrates a good salesman? Was he a salesman of ideas?

Nn

238

Do many of us buy too much stuff? Should we take more seriously the Socratic ideal of simplicity? Should we take more seriously the ideas of the voluntary simplicity movement? Argue for your position.

10. ll.

Cite and describe an ad that you believe Socrates would approve of if he were alive. Not all new desires are bad. After all, educators seek to instill new desires in their students—desires for various kinds of knowledge. Moralists seek to instill new desires in their audiences— desires to do the right thing. Are some desires that are instilled, or awakened, by advertising good desires to have? Discuss critically.

Exercise 9.7

True or false? 1. If something is stated on a website, that is proof it is true. 2. Advertisers are primarily motivated by a desire to inform consumers.

Oo PNADMAEY

CHAPTER9

10. ll. 12. 13. 14.

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

A euphemism is a word that tries to make something look worse than it is. A dysphemism is a word that tries to make something look better than it is.

Weasel words in ads are actually illegal.

A weasel word is a word that makes something look worse than it is. It is against the law to post false information on the Internet.

One source of bias occurs when news reporters inject their opinions into a story.

One of the factors influencing traditional news organizations is the need to make a profit. One of the factors influencing traditional news organizations is the need to not alienate advertisers. It is against the law for a business to use advertising to manipulate the emotions of consumers. One source of manipulation occurs when political campaigns exploit the negativity bias. When evaluating a website for accuracy, one question to ask is, Who is the author?

The authors of websites can be evaluated by many of the same criteria we use when

we evaluate expert testimony.

1S.

It is against the law for a news organization to favor one side on a controversial issue.

Exercise 9.8

Multiple choice:

op

1. Which of the following is not a source of bias in the news media?

News organizations are usually supervised by corporate boards. News organizations compete and need to hold an audience.

News organizations are supported by advertisers.

Soa TP Rao Pro

The author cites sources and these can be independently checked. None of the above.

All of the above.

TP

euphemism is a

CAO

2.

None of the above. All of the above. hich of the following is not an indicator of reliability in a website? The author has a good reputation in his or her field. The author has a proven track record. The author is not an interested party.

a word that makes something sound better than it is

a new word that describes something more accurately a word that describes something in strictly neutral terms a nickname that is in common use a word that makes something sound worse than it really is

239

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

4. A dysphemism is a

cao s

a.

a a a a

word that new word word that nickname

makes something sound better than it is that describes something more accurately describes something in strictly neutral terms that is in common use

a word that makes something sound worse than it really is.

Which The The The The All

oP

Ss.

eo mo

3

of the following is not by itself a good reason to trust a website? author stands to gain if the information is accepted. website looks attractive. author is famous. website has a lot of traffic. of the above.

6. When evaluating a website for accuracy, one question to ask is

aoge

UNIT

me

240

Who How Who What What C, d,

designed the website’s layout? old is the site? is the author? evidence is offered for the claims being made? are the author's credentials? and e are all correct.

7. The value of the information on a website is certainly called into question if a. the author is unmarried b. the author likes country music the author has no college degree d. the author is an interested party 8. This is a source of misinformation in the news: a. Areporter passively accepts information without looking deeper. c.

b.

Areporter takes information from only one side of a contested issue.

c. d. e.

Areporter leaves information out to avoid embarrassing advertisers. Areporter leaves information out to avoid offending a segment of viewers. Allofthe above.

Exercise 9.9 Research projects:

1. Choose an ad. Explain how it works, and then critically evaluate it using the

principles explained in this chapter. Identify any tricky techniques employed in the ad, for instance, weasel words, euphemisms, misleading comparisons, and so forth.

2. Select an advertising campaign that affected you as a consumer and critically evaluate it.

3. Critically evaluate an ad campaign run by a politician.

CHAPTER 9

THE

INTERNET,

NEWS

MEDIA,

AND

ADVERTISING

Exercise 9.10

Oo PNDYN

Redr

Questions for discussion, essays, or self-reflection.

Should a free society allow advertising? Should advertising be more closely regulated? If so, how should this be done? Should advertisers be allowed to target children? Have you bought a product after seeing it advertised and concluded it was not worth the price? Explain.

Describe your favorite ad. What do you like about it? Describe an ad you cannot stand. What about it bothers you? Does advertising harm our freedom? Do advertisers manipulate us? Do businesses have a right to advertise? Do they need to?

Describe a favorite ad from your childhood. What made it special? Did it work?

10. Find an ad that provides zero support for its claims. Explain. 11. Find an ad that provides adequate support for its claims. Explain. 12. Does it matter whether the desires appealed to by advertising are artificial or pre-existent?

NOTES 1.

See www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.

2.

Peter Kreeft, Philosophy 101 by Socrates (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002), 22.

3.

The famous ad can be seen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbIfVEboAzg.

4.

See consumersunion.org.

KEY TERMS

dysphemism emotive word euphemism

innuendo weasel word

241

Interlude The Myth of the Cave

Set up: In this scene from Plato’s greatest dialogue, The Republic, Socrates is telling Glaucon, Plato’s brother, a story that he believes captures the human situation. The

following excerpt is from Book 7 of The Republic, as translated by Benjamin Jowett.

Socrates: And now, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened:—Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

Glaucon: I see.

Socrates: And do you see men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials,

which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent. Glaucon: You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Socrates: Like ourselves, and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of

one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? Glaucon: True; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads? Socrates: And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Glaucon: Yes.

Socrates: And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them? And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the

Figure 9-1. Group of spelunkers in Sumgan Cave, Russia.

other side,

would

they

not be sure to fancy,

when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow? 242

INTERLUDE

Glaucon: Socrates: images. Glaucon: Socrates:

THE

MYTH

No question. To them, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the That is certain. And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners

are released and disabused of their error. At first, when

any of them is liberated

and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was

an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision. What will be his reply? And you may further imagine that when his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him? Glaucon: Far truer. Socrates: And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than

the things which are now being shown to him? Glaucon: True. Socrates: And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities? Glaucon: Not all in a moment. Socrates: He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects

in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day? Glaucon: Certainly. Socrates: Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another;

and he will contemplate him as he is. Glaucon: Certainly. Socrates: He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian

of all that is in the visible world, and in a

certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

OF

THE

CAVE

243

244

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Glaucon: Clearly, he would first see the sun and then reason about it. Socrates: And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den

and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them? Glaucon: Certainly, he would. Socrates: And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them

went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who

were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that

he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, “Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?” Glaucon: Yes, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner. Socrates: Imagine once more, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

Glaucon: To be sure.

Socrates: And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death. Glaucon: No question. Socrates: This entire allegory, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed, whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason

and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed. Glaucon: I agree, as far as I am able to understand you. Socrates: Moreover, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.

INTERLUDE

THE

MYTH

Glaucon: Yes, very natural. Socrates: And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving

himself in a ridiculous manner; if,

while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conception of those who have never yet seen absolute justice? Glaucon: Anything but surprising. Socrates: Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the

light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind’s eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having

turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other... Glaucon: That, he said, is a very just distinction. Socrates: But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes. Glaucon: They undoubtedly say this. Socrates: Whereas our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good. Glaucon: Very true. Socrates: And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth? Glaucon: Yes, such an art may be presumed. Socrates: And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe

the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue, how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eye-sight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness? Glaucon: Very true.

OF

THE

CAVE

245

246

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

Socrates: But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which,

like leaden weights, were attached to them at their

birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below, if, I say, they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to now. Glaucon: Very likely. Socrates: Yes, and there is another thing which is likely, or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who educated

never make an end of their education, will be able

ministers of State; not the former, because they have no single aim of

duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter,

because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blest. Glaucon: Very true. Socrates: Then, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all, they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now. Glaucon: What do you mean? Socrates: I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not. Glaucon: But is not this unjust? Ought we to give them a worse life, when they might have a better? Socrates: You have again forgotten, my friend, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his

instruments in binding up the State. Glaucon: True, I had forgotten. Socrates: Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they

INTERLUDE

THE

MYTH

OF

have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. That is why each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.

Glaucon: Quite true.

Socrates: And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light? Glaucon: Impossible, for they are just men, and the commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State. Socrates: Yes, my friend, and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom,

which

are the true

blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the

rulers themselves and of the whole State.

Glaucon: Most true.

Socrates: And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?

Glaucon: Indeed, I do not.

Socrates: And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.

Glaucon: No question. Socrates: Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of the state. A BRIEF REFLECTION Chained to seats at the back of the cave, unable to look behind themselves, the prisoners see only the back wall of their cave. Having lived their entire lives in this position,

the flickering shadows on the wall—cast by objects they have never seen carried in

THE

CAVE

247

UNIT

3

BUILD

A SOLID

KNOWLEDGE

BASE

front ofa fire they have never seen—are the only reality they know. We know that shadows are two-dimensional images of three-dimensional objects. For example, we know that the shadow ofa cat is not as real as the cat that casts the shadow. But the prisoners

have no idea there is any reality higher than the shadows they see. Their world is a “shadowland”—a simulation of reality. The prisoners represent those who have yet to engage in serious critical thinking.

QUESTIONS For discussion, essay assignments, or self-reflection. RYN PE

248

Do people live in caves of their own making? Do we (asa society) live in a cave or shadowland?

Have you ever lived in a shadowland? Do you know someone who lives in a shadowland? Is the mass media actually the back wall of Plato’s Cave? Is the “wall” of images

presented by the mass media, advertising, and the Internet a modern-day version of the cave in Socrates's story? Can you describe a time when you lived in a cave of illusions? If so, who, or what, led you out of the darkness? If we are all in the cave, is there a public figure today who is trying to lead us out of the cave? Support your claim. . Should candidates for public office be required to meet certain minimum require-

ments of rationality? Of education? Of wisdom? Argue your case. Does someone in public life correspond to the prisoner who breaks free from the chains and climbs to the mouth of the cave? 10. Why do the other prisoners dislike the prisoner who breaks free? Why is his life in danger when he comes back to tell them that the shadows on the wall are not the real thing? ll. What lesson is Socrates trying to convey in this parable? 12. Is Plato’s Cave symbolic of our computer-based world? Is the world of computer simulations and virtual reality our modern version of Plato’s Cave? 13. Are there any similarities between Plato’s Cave and the Matrix in the movie The Matrix? 14. Is there someone in your life who helped you out of a Platonic cave? Describe your relationship? 1S. If you could enter Plato’s Cave and talk to some of the prisoners, what would you

say to them?

Unit 4 CRITERIA FOR CORRECT

REASONING

SOCRATES, as he is presented in Plato’s dialogues, believes that reasoning is a univer-

sal human activity and that the basic principles of reason can be understood and followed by anyone. Philosophers Nicholas Smith and Paul Woodruff call Socrates's belief in the human ability to reason his “tribute to the common wisdom of humankind.” The principles of correct reasoning are examined in the discipline the Greeks named “logic.” As an academic subject, logic may be defined as “the study of the standards (or criteria) of correct reasoning.” Put another way, logic is the study of the criteria that guide critical

(“criterial”) thinking. The study of logic and the study of critical thinking thus go hand

in hand. In this unit, we take a tour of some of the most useful principles of reasoning— criteria that can help us reason correctly no matter what the subject matter. The Greek philosopher Aristotle was the first person in history to make the princi-

ples of reasoning the object of academic study and to publish treatises of logical theory.

For this reason, he is considered the founder of logic as an academic subject. The birth of logic is closely connected to Socrates. Aristotle was Plato’s most famous student; Plato was, of course, Socrates’s most famous student. Thus, Socrates taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle likely got the seed idea for the subject of logic while sitting in philosophy

classes at Plato’s Academy, listening to his teacher present and critically analyze the complicated arguments of his teacher, Socrates, along with the arguments of the Greek

philosophers who came before him. Aristotle may very well have thought to himself, “It is fascinating to consider the different arguments regarding the big ideas of philosophy. But something more is needed: a subject whose object of study is more abstract. We need a ‘meta’ subject whose goal is to discover the criteria of good reasoning that

249

250

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

apply across all subjects.” These would be the standards any argument, about any subject matter, ought to satisfy. From some such idea, logic as an academic subject was born.

One of the values of studying the principles of logic is that the exercise can sharpen

your understanding of good reasoning and your ability to spot errors in reasoning,

which in turn can improve your ability to reason well. Certainly the ability to reason well is an important character trait of a critical thinker. Many catastrophes in history have been caused by people not thinking as logically as they could have been thinking.

NOTE

1. Nicholas Smith and Paul Woodruff, eds., Reason and Religion in Socratic Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 104.

Chapter 10 Deduction and Induction: A Closer Look

REASON isa tool of thought. We use any tool more effectively when we understand its nature and how it works. Studying the principles of logic—the criteria of correct reasoning—acquaints us with an important intellectual tool at our disposal and can help us use it more effectively. In previous chapters we examined many different principles of good reasoning. In this chapter we take a closer look at the principles that guide this valuable tool of thought. Recall (from chapter 3) that every argument, if clearly stated, can be categorized as either deductive or inductive. A deductive argument is advanced with the aim of proving its conclusion with complete certainty, in such a way that its conclusion must be true if its premises all are true. The author of a deductive argument (if sincere) intends to show conclusively, with complete certainty, that the conclusion must be true. An inductive argument, on the other hand, is offered with a quite different goal in mind: an inductive argument is intended to show that its conclusion is probably or likely true, though not certainly true, if its premises all are true. The author of an inductive argument (if sincere) only aims to establish the intended conclusion with a

high degree of probability—not with complete certainty. Let us now take a closer look at the logic of both kinds of arguments. EVALUATING

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

In previous chapters we used our natural reasoning ability to evaluate deductive argu-

ments as valid or invalid. After a short review, the process by which we evaluate deductive arguments will be made more systematic and exact. To review: a deductive argument

aims to show that its conclusion must be true if its premises all are true. If a deductive argument succeeds in this aim, it is a valid deductive argument (or a valid argument for short). Thus, every valid argument has this feature: if its premises all are true, then its conclusion must be true. Ifa deductive argument is not valid, then it is invalid. An invalid deductive argument therefore has this feature: it is not the case that its conclusion must be true if its premises all are true. In the field of symbolic logic, exact methods have been

discovered that allow us to test deductive arguments for validity with the precision of mathematics. However, without going that far, it is possible to specify an intuitive yet methodical test for validity. The process has two steps.

251

252

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The Intuitive Test for Validity Step 1. Ask the following: If (hypothetically) the premises were to be true, would it nevertheless be possible the conclusion is false? That is, are there any possible circumstances, no matter how unlikely, bizarre, or unusual, in which the premises would all be true

while the conclusion is false?”

Step 2. If the answer is no, then the argument is valid. If the answer is yes, then the argument is invalid. Let us apply this test for validity to the following argument:

1. Every member of the Tiny Tim fan club plays the ukulele. 2. Lorraine plays the ukulele. 3. Therefore, Lorraine must belong to the Tiny Tim fan club. If, hypothetically, the premises were all true, would it nevertheless be possible that the conclusion is false? (Answer this for yourself before moving on.) The answer is yes,

isn’t it? Isn’t it possible that, although every member of the Tiny Tim fan club plays the ukulele, and although Lorraine plays the ukulele, Lorraine is not a member of the club?

If you do not see this, consider the following: to claim that every member of the club plays the ukulele is not to claim that all who play the ukulele belong to the club. Isn’t it possible—given only the information content of the premises—that Lorraine is among those ukulele players who do not belong to the club? This somewhat easily conceivable

possibility shows that the argument is invalid. It is important to notice something very important here: we decided that this argu-

ment is invalid without knowing whether its premises are actually true or not. For we do not know whether the premises actually are true. We proceeded without this information simply by considering hypothetical possibilities. Thus, two questions were kept separate:

1. Are the premises true?

2.

Is the argument valid?

We answered the second question without having answered the first question. It is

very important that you understand this point before you continue. Now consider the following argument: 1. Frasier is taller than Niles. 2. Niles is taller than Mr. Crane. 3. So, Frasier must be taller than Mr. Crane.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

This argument is clearly deductive because of the presence of the word must. Is it valid? First ask, Is it possible the premises are true but the conclusion is false? Is there any pos-

sibility of this, no matter how unlikely or remote? (Think about this question and answer it on your own before continuing.) The answer is clearly no, isn’t it? If the prem-

ises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. The argument is therefore valid. Next, are the premises true? That’s a completely separate issue! We do not know whether the premises are true. To determine whether the premises are, or are not, true, we would have to measure the heights of the members of the TV show (Frasier). In other words, we would have to conduct an empirical investigation.

Showing That an Argument Is Invalid:The Method of Counterexample The method of counterexample is an intuitive yet methodical procedure for showing that an argument is invalid. Suppose a friend presents a deductive argument and in-

sists it is valid, although the argument is actually invalid. Your friend is totally deluded. How can you show your friend that his or her argument is invalid? Recall that a deductive argument claims that if its premises are true, then its conclusion must be

true. A counterexample to a deductive argument is a description of a possible situation or circumstance in which the premises of the argument would all be true while the argument’s conclusion would be false. When you present a counterexample to someone’s deductive argument, you help the person see one way in which the premises of the argument could be true, although the conclusion is false, which shows that the argument is invalid. Showing that an argument is invalid by presenting a counterexample in

this way is called the method of counterexample.

For instance, suppose someone proposes the following deductive argument and claims it is valid: 1. Ann is Jane’s biological mother. 2. Ann is married to Tom. 3. Therefore, Tom must be Jane’s biological father. The presence of the word must makes this a deductive argument. However, the following counterexample shows that this argument is invalid. Assuming the premises

are true, is it nevertheless possible that Ann gave birth to Jane before having even

met Tom? The mere possibility shows that it is at least possible the premises of the argument are true while the conclusion is false, which shows that the argument is invalid. Look back at the previous argument involving Frasier, Niles, and Mr. Crane. Can

you describe a counterexample to that argument? Try to describe a possible situation in

which the premises of that argument would be true while its conclusion is false. You cannot, for the argument is valid. There is no such thing as a counterexample to a

deductively valid argument!

LOOK

253

254

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Exercise 10.1 Which of the following deductive arguments are valid and which are invalid? Decide using the intuitive test for validity. If an argument is invalid, specify a counterexample that shows the argument is invalid.

1. Since some Hondas are purple and some Hondas are that Honda makes at least some purple trucks. No cat is a reptile. No reptile is a splurp. So, no cat is . IfElaine places her order incorrectly, the Soup Nazi to serve her, she won't bring home any mulligatawny

trucks, it necessarily follows a splurp. won't serve her. If he refuses soup. Therefore, necessarily,

if Elaine places her order incorrectly, she won't bring home any mulligatawny soup. The United States House of Representatives has more members than there are calendar days in a leap year. Therefore, at least two members of the House must have the same birthday.

. Father Flanagan’s Boys Town is located in Nebraska. Nebraska is located in the

United States. So, Boys Town must be located in the United States. . Every member of the Progressive Labor Party has studied the writings of Chairman Mao. Bob studied the writings of Chairman Mao. So, Bob must be a member of the Progressive Labor Party.

7. Listening to loud music always ruins your hearing. Joe is hard of hearing. Therefore, Joe must have been listening to loud music. 8. The Monterey Pop Festival (1967) featured some of the greatest bands of the 1960s.

The Beatles did not perform at Monterey. So, the Beatles must not have been among the greatest bands of the 1960s. 9. The Monterey Pop Festival featured some of the greatest bands of the 1960s. Big

Brother and the Holding Company performed at Monterey. So, Big Brother and the Holding Company must have been one of the greatest bands of the 1960s.

10.

Only Hells Angels live in the Brentwood Apartments. Hank belongs to the Hells Angels. Therefore, Hank must live in the Brentwood Apartments. ll. Figure A has four equal sides. Therefore, figure A must be a square. 12. All the members of the Ohio Southpaw Club are left-handed. Joe is left-handed.

So, Joe must be a member of the Ohio Southpaw Club. 13. Every member of Tacoma’s legendary Little Bill and the Bluenotes has been elected to the Northwest Blues Hall of Fame. Dick Curtis is a member of Little Bill’s group. Therefore, Dick Curtis must have been elected to the Northwest Blues Hall of Fame. 14. Every member of Little Bill and the Bluenotes has been elected to the Northwest Blues Hall of Fame. Legendary guitarist Billy Stapleton has been elected to the Northwest Blues Hall of Fame. Therefore, Billy must be a member of Little Bill’s group. 1S. Terry Lauber is a legendary Northwest composer, singer, and guitarist. Therefore, Lauber must be a member of the Seattle musician’s union.

CHAPTER

10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

16. Every member of the Seattle rock band The Daily Flash is a terrific musician. Steve Lawlor is a terrific musician. Therefore, Steve Lawlor must be a member of The Daily Flash.

17. All the members of the Ohio Southpaw Club are left-handed. Joe is a member of the Ohio Southpaw Club. So, Joe must be left-handed.

18. When a nonmetallic element forms more than one oxide, the oxide containing the most oxygen gives the strongest acid. Sulfur is a nonmetallic element and forms two oxides: sulfuric and sulfurous acid. Sulfuric acid contains more oxygen than sulfurous acid. Therefore, sulfuric acid is certainly stronger than sulfurous acid.

Common Forms of Valid Reasoning CATEGORICAL

ARGUMENTS

Let the letters A, B, and C stand for categories of things, such as cats, dogs, mammals, pennies, and roses. It is a law of logic that any argument that conforms to the following abstract pattern of reasoning, called an argument form, will always be valid:

1. ALLA are B. 2. All B are C. 3. Therefore, certainly all A are C. For instance, if we substitute “cats” for A, “mammals” for B, and “animals” for C, we get the following substitution instance of this argument form, or pattern of reasoning: 1. All cats are mammals. 2. All mammals are animals. 3. Therefore, certainly all cats are animals. Using the methods of chapter 12, it can be shown, with mathematical precision, that every example or substitution instance of this argument form will be a valid argument. Definitions will help make this more precise. An argument form is an abstract pattern of reasoning that many different arguments, about many different subjects, can follow. A specific argument is a substitution instance of an argument form ifit can be produced by replacing the variables in the form with the content of the argument. An argument form is a valid argument form if every substitution instance of it is a valid argument. Here is a different substitution instance of the same form:

1. All students are human beings. 2. All human beings are mammals. 3. Therefore, certainly all students are mammals.

LOOK

255

256

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

In this instance, we replaced the variables A with “students,” B with “human beings,” and C with “mammals.” Do you see that both arguments follow the same logical pattern? Both are substitution instances of the same argument form.

It is also a law of logic that any argument that conforms exactly to the following

abstract pattern of reasoning will always be valid: 1. No Bare C. 2. ALLA are B. 3. Therefore, certainly no A are C. For instance, if we substitute “cats” for A, “mammals” for B, and “insects” for C, we get the following substitution instance: 1. No mammals are insects. 2. All cats are mammals. 3. Therefore, certainly no cats are insects. Here is a different substitution instance of the same form:

1. No cold-blooded creatures are mammals. 2. All reptiles are cold-blooded creatures. 3. Therefore, certainly no reptiles are mammals. In this instance, we replaced the variables A with “reptiles,” B with “cold-blooded creatures,” and C with “mammals.” Do you see that both arguments follow the same logical pattern or argument form? Does this form appear to be valid?

“Logic is the science of the forms of thinking that are valid and of the forms that are invalid.” —Avicenna (Ibn Sina), eleventh-century Muslim logician*

CATEGORICAL

LOGIC

The sentences composing these arguments are called categorical sentences because each sentence relates one category of things to a second category of things. Arguments composed of categorical sentences, like these, are called categorical arguments. We often reason by drawing relationships between categories of things. Categorical arguments are extremely common in science, law, mathematics, and in everyday life. They can be tested for validity with the precision of mathematics, in the branch of logic called categorical logic. Chapter 12 introduces some of the basic principles of this branch of logical theory and will give your brain a logical workout for sure.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

“Logical principles are so fundamental to our thinking that without presupposing them we could not think at all.’—L. Susan Stebbing, twentieth-century British logician®

FORM

VERSUS

CONTENT

The validity of a categorical argument is determined not by what the argument is about (cats, mammals, etc.) but by the purely formal or abstract structure of the argument. The validity of a categorical argument is thus a matter of the argument’s form (structure) rather than of its content (what it is about). Validity, in short, is a matter of form rather than of the content that fills in that form. In categorical logic, an argument’s form

can be specified using variables and equations, making this branch of logic extremely exact, as you will see in chapter 12.

Exercise 10.2 Below are four additional valid forms of categorical reasoning, each with the Latin

name assigned by logicians during the Middle Ages. Any argument that is a substitu-

tion instance of any one of these forms is guaranteed to be valid. For each form, create

an original substitution instance that has all true premises. Next, create an original substitution instance that has all false premises. What does this reveal about validity? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Darii: Ferio: Festino Baroco

1. All M are P. 1. No M are P. 1.NoPareM. 1.AllLPareM.

2. Some S are M. 2. Some S are M. 2.SareM. 2. Some S are not M.

3. 3. 3. 3.

So, So, So, So,

some some some some

S are S are S are S are

P. not P. not P. not P.

Exercise 10.3 Use the intuitive test for validity to decide whether the following categorical arguments are valid or invalid. If an argument is invalid, specify a counterexample.

1. All cats are mammals. 2. No mammals are birds. 3. So, no cats are birds.

1. Some dogs are pets. 2. Some pets are cats. 3. So, some dogs are cats.

LOOK

257

258

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

1. Some birds are caged creatures. 2. All caged creatures are unfree creatures. 3. Thus, some birds are unfree creatures. 1. All rats are pests. 2. Some rats are adorable creatures. 3. So, some adorable creatures are pests. 1. All cats are mammals. 2. No birds are mammals. 3. So, no cats are birds. 1. All cats are mammals. 2. No birds are mammals. 3. So, no birds are cats.

1. Some pets are dogs. 2. Some pets are cats. 3. So, some cats are dogs. 1. All rats are pests. 2. Some pests are adorable creatures. 3. So, some adorable creatures are rats.

Sentential Arguments MODUS

PONENS

Let the variables P and Qstand for whole sentences. (Notice that these variables stand for sentences rather than for categories or groups of things.) It is an established law of logic that any argument that conforms to the following pattern or form of reasoning, known since the Middle Ages by its Latin name, modus ponens (“mode of affirmation”), will always be a valid argument: 1. If P then Q. 2. P is true. 3. Therefore, Q must be true.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

Substituting the sentence “Marta swims” for P and the sentence “Gabriella swims” for Q produces the following substitution instance of the modus ponens form: 1. If Marta swims, then Gabriella swims. 2. Marta swims. 3. Therefore, certainly Gabriella swims.

Does this argument seem valid to you? Here is a different substitution instance of the

modus ponens form:

1. If Nookie lives in Boston, then Nookie is a Bostonian. 2. Nookie lives in Boston. 3. Therefore, certainly Nookie is a Bostonian. In this substitution instance, the variable P was replaced by “Nookie lives in Boston,” and

the variable Q was replaced by “Nookie is a Bostonian.” Since every substitution instance of modus ponens is a valid argument, modus ponens is a valid form of reasoning. CAUTION:

MODUS

PONENS

DIFFERS

FROM

THIS FALLACIOUS

FORM!

It is very important that you not confuse the modus ponens pattern of reasoning, which is valid, with another pattern of reasoning that looks deceptively similar to it but is not valid.

1. If P then Q. 2. Q. 3.

Therefore, P.

The following argument is a substitution instance of this invalid form:

1. If Stilpo is sick, then logic class is canceled. 2. Logic class is canceled. 3. Therefore, Stilpo must be sick. The pattern of reasoning here is not the same as modus ponens. Do you see the difference? This argument is clearly invalid, for it is possible the premises are true and the conclusion is false. (Can you state a counterexample to this argument?) We met this

invalid form of reasoning in chapter 8. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. MODUS

TOLLENS

It is also a well-established law of logic that any argument that conforms to the following pattern of reasoning, known by the Latin name it was assigned in the Middle Ages, modus tollens (“mode of denial”), will be a valid argument:

1. If P then Q. 2. Qis false. 3. Therefore, P is certainly false.

LOOK

259

260

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Substituting the sentence “It is noon” for P and the sentence “It is light outside” for Q. produces the following substitution instance of the modus tollens form: 1. If it is noon, then it is light outside. 2. It is not light outside. 3. Therefore, it is surely not noon. CAUTION:

MODUS

TOLLENS

DIFFERS

FROM

THIS FALLACIOUS

FORM!

It is important that you not confuse the modus tollens, which is a valid form of reasoning,

with another pattern of reasoning that looks eerily similar but is not valid: 1. If P then Q. 2. P is false. 3. Therefore, Q is false. Consider this substitution instance:

1. If Gabriella is swimming, then Maria is swimming. 2. It is false that Gabriella is swimming. 3. Therefore, it is false that Maria is swimming. Can you think of a counterexample to this argument? We also met this fallacy in

chapter 8. This is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. DISJUNCTIVE

SYLLOGISM

Any argument that conforms to the following argument pattern, known by its traditional name, disjunctive syllogism, is obviously going to be valid: 1. PorQ. 2. It is false that P. 3. Therefore, certainly Q. For instance:

1. We will drive to Portland, or we will drive to Yakima.

2. We will not drive to Portland. 3. So, certainly we will drive to Yakima. Disjunctive syllogism has been known as a valid form of reasoning since ancient times.

“To follow the scent of an animal, the hunting dog uses this logic: The animal went by this road, or by that, or by the other. But it did not go by this nor by that, thus it went by the other.” —Chrysippus, third-century BCE Greek logician of the Stoic school®

CHAPTER10

HYPOTHETICAL

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

SYLLOGISM

Finally, any argument that conforms to the following argument pattern, known since

the Middle Ages as hypothetical syllogism, is always going to be valid. 1. If P then Q. 2. If Q then R. 3. Therefore, if P then R. Consider the following substitution instance of this valid form:

1. If we drive to Boston, then we'll drive through Concord. 2. If we drive through Concord, then we'll visit Walden Pond. 3. Therefore, surely, if we drive to Boston, then we'll visit Walden Pond. In each of the cases above—modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, and hypothetical syllogism—the validity of the corresponding argument is a matter of the

argument’s form, rather than of its content: any argument that follows one of these

four forms will be valid, no matter what the argument is about. Validity is about form, not content. SENTENTIAL

LOGIC

While categorical arguments break down into terms referring to categories of things (cats, dogs, etc.) and into quantifier words like all, some, and no, the arguments we have just been examining break down into whole sentences (such as “Gabriella swims”) linked together by logical operator words such as and, or, and if, then. These arguments

are called “sentential arguments” and they are studied in the branch of logic called “sentential logic” (also called “propositional logic” and “truth-functional logic”). Sentential arguments are extremely common in every area of life. Like categorical arguments, they too can be tested for validity with the precision of mathematics, although we will

not go that far in this book.’

Exercise 10.4

1. Fillin the blanks with true declarative sentences so as to produce a substitution

instance of modus ponens. 1. If , then 2. .3. Therefore, 2. Fill in the blanks with true declarative sentences so as to produce a substitution instance of modus tollens. 1. If , then 2. It is not the case that .3. Therefore,

LOOK

261

262

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

3.

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Fill in the blanks with true declarative sentences so as to produce a substitution instance of disjunctive syllogism. 1. or . 2. It is

not the case that

. 3. Therefore,

. Fill in the blanks with true declarative sentences so as to produce a substitution instance of hypothetical syllogism. 1. If , then

2. If

, then

. 3. Therefore,

then . Repeat the problems above with one difference: fill in the blanks with false declarative sentences. What does this reveal about the concept of validity?

Exercise 10.5 Identify each argument as an instance of modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive

syllogism, or hypothetical syllogism. If an argument is an instance of none of the forms, answer “none.”

1. If Amber goes jogging, then Barbara goes jogging with her. 2. It is not the case that Barbara will jog with Amber. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Amber will jog. 1. Amber jogs today, or Barbara jogs today. 2. It is not the case that Amber jogs today. 3. Therefore, Barbara jogs today. 1. If Amber jogs today, then Barbara jogs today. 2. Amber jogs today. 3. Therefore, Barbara jogs today. 1. If Amber jogs today, then Barbara jogs today. 2. It is not the case that Amber jogs today. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Barbara jogs today. 1. Amber works today, or Barbara works today. 2. It is not the case that Amber works today. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Barbara works today. 1. If Amber works today, then Barbara works today. 2. Barbara works today. 3. Therefore, Amber works today.

CHAPTER

10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

1. If Amber works today, then Barbara works today. 2. Barbara does not work today. 3. Therefore, Amber does work today.

1. Amber jogs today, or Barbara jogs today. 2. It is not the case that Debbie jogs today. 3. Therefore, Barbara jogs today.

1. If Amber jogs today, then Barbara jogs today. 2. If Barbara jogs today, then Ned jogs today. 3. Therefore, if Amber jogs today, then Ned jogs today.

1. Amber jogs today, or Barbara jogs today. 2. It is not the case that Sue jogs today. 3. Therefore, it is not the case that Ed jogs today.

WHY

BOTHER

WITH

THIS TECHNICAL

MATERIAL?

The study of logic sharpens your ability to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning and at the same time improves your ability to present good arguments of your own. The ability to reason well is surely a character trait of a critical thinker.

CAUTION:

VALID

DOES

NOT MEAN

“TRUE”!

Outside of logic, we often use the words valid and true interchangeably, as when we say,

“You are making a valid point there,” or “Your complaint is valid,” and so on. This is probably why some students, on being introduced to the terminology of logic, confuse

or mix the meanings of valid and true. Now, it might be that in everyday life valid means “true,” but not so in logic! As we have defined our terms, valid does not mean “true.”

When we say that a particular argument is valid, we are not saying that its premises are true, nor are we saying that its conclusion is true. This is a critical point. All we are saying is this: if its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. It is not required that an argument actually have true premises and a true conclusion to be

LOOK

263

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

valid. For instance, the following argument has false premises and a false conclusion, and yet it is a valid argument:

1. All people who drink coffee also drink beer. 2. All people who drink beer also drink rum. 3. So, necessarily, all people who drink coffee also drink rum. Of course, in most cases, an argument is valid and also has true premises and a true conclusion, as in this argument:

1. All dogs are mammals. 2. No mammals are reptiles. 3. So, certainly no dogs are reptiles. However, although the following argument has all true premises, it is invalid:

1. William and George are both pirates. 2. Edward is their cousin. 3. Therefore, it must be that Edward is a pirate as well. CAUTION:

INVALID

DOES

NOT MEAN

“FALSE”!

It is important to also keep the following point in mind: when we say that an argument is invalid, we are not saying that its premises are false, nor are we saying that its conclusion is false. In some cases, an argument will be invalid even though its premises are true and its conclusion is true. No lie! Consider the following example.

. The state of Washington has mountains. » The state of Oregon has mountains. . California borders Oregon.

Wn ere

264

4. Therefore, California must have mountains, too.

If someone knew nothing about the state of California, the premises of this argument would not conclusively prove that it contains mountains! Of course, in other cases, an argument will have false premises and a false conclusion, and it will be invalid, as in the next example.

1. Canada is south of Mexico. 2. Mexico is north of Alaska. 3. Therefore, the population of Mexico is greater than the population of China.

Enter Truth: Sound Arguments Suppose we know that a particular deductive argument is valid. Does it follow that its conclusion is true? As we have seen, the answer is no. An argument need not have true

CHAPTER

10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

premises to qualify as valid. To say that an argument is deductively valid is to say only that if its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. Some valid arguments have true premises, and some have false premises. Some have true conclusions; in others, the conclusions are false. We have seen examples of all these cases. But knowing whether an argument is valid or invalid is not sufficient. We are looking

for more than validity in our deductive arguments. Because the goal of reasoning is to discover the truth, we also want to know whether the premises and conclusion are true—that they correspond to, or accurately describe, reality. A sound deductive argument has these two properties: 1. Itis deductively valid. 2. Its premises are all true.

In short, a sound argument is a valid argument, in which all of its premises are true. Now, suppose an argument is sound. Must its conclusion be true? The answer is yes.

Since any sound argument is valid, it follows that sion must be true. Furthermore, the premises of a fore, the conclusion of any sound argument must should be, the ultimate goal of arguing, we are

if the premises are true, sound argument are all be true as well. Because ultimately interested in

rather than mere validity, when we evaluate deductive arguments.

HOW

NOT

TO MAKE

ONE

OF THE WORST

OF ALL LOGICAL

the conclutrue. Theretruth is, or soundness,

ERRORS

Aristotle thought that one of the all-time worst errors in reasoning is this: to pass from truth to falsity in a single act of reasoning, that is, to start with all true premises and end

in a false conclusion. How can you minimize the chance of committing this error? Make sure your deductive arguments are valid! But how do you do that? How do you

know for sure that your deductive arguments are really valid? The answer is this: there are standards, exact templates of correct reasoning, which, if obeyed, ensure that your deductive arguments are valid.

“Logic is useful, by its ability to raise searching difficulties on both sides ofa subject and make us detect more easily the truth and error about the several points that arise.”—Aristotle,

fourth century BCE®

Exercise 10.6

The following questions provide you an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding: 1.

Can a valid argument have false premises and a false conclusion? Back up your

answer with an example of your own creation.

LOOK

265

266

UNIT4

CRITERIA

2.

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Can an invalid argument have true premises? Back up your answer with an exam-

ple of your own creation. 3. What is the only combination of truth and falsity with respect to premises and conclusion that a valid argument cannot possibly have?

Two Ways an Argument Can Go Wrong It follows from all that has been said so far that there are two ways an argument can go wrong. First, an argument might have flawed reasoning. In a deductive argument, this would be invalid reasoning. Second, an argument might have one or more false prem-

ises. If the argument is deductive, false premises would automatically make the argu-

ment unsound. Thus, an argument could have faulty reasoning but true premises, and an argument could have good reasoning but false premises. Two different ways for an argument to go wrong.

AN INEFFECTIVE

WAY TO CRITICIZE AN ARGUMENT

Many people believe that the proper way to criticize an argument is to argue for the opposite of the argument’s conclusion. For example, if an argument concludes that justice is equality of outcomes, they might object by arguing that justice is not outcome equality. However, this is not an effective way to criticize an argument. Let us

see why. Suppose Joe presents an argument for the conclusion such and such is the case, and

in response Jane presents an argument for the conclusion that such and such is not the case. The result is simply a logical standoff. He says “tomato,” she says “tomahto.” The problem is that neither argument engages the reasoning of the other. There is no dialogue here, no dialectic. This conflict is going nowhere. There is a better way to engage the reasoning of another person. TWO

WAYS

TO EFFECTIVELY OBJECT

TO AN ARGUMENT

Recall the two ways that an argument might go wrong: (a) an argument might have good reasoning but false premises; (b) an argument might have faulty reasoning but true premises. Related to the two ways an argument might go wrong are two ways to effectively criticize an argument. The first way is to produce an argument against one of

the premises of the target argument. This would be an argument whose conclusion is the claim that one of the premises of the target argument is false. The second way to effectively critique or object to an argument is to show that the argument’s reasoning is flawed. If the argument is deductive, this would involve showing that the reasoning of the target argument is invalid.

CHAPTER

10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

Exercise 10.7

True or false? 1. Some deductive arguments have true premises, and yet they are invalid. 2. Some deductive arguments are invalid, and yet they have a true conclusion. 3. A deductive argument can have false premises and a false conclusion and yet be valid. 4. Some sound arguments have false premises.

5. Some sound arguments are invalid.

6. Ifthe premises of a deductive argument are all true and the conclusion is true, then the argument must be valid. 7. If the premises of a deductive argument are all false and the conclusion is false, then the argument must be invalid. 8. An argument can be invalid and yet have a true conclusion. 9. Some invalid arguments have true premises. 10. Ifa deductive argument is valid, then it has at least one true premise. 11. Ifa deductive argument has a false premise, then it is not a sound argument. 12. Hypothetical syllogism is a valid form of deductive reasoning. 13. Disjunctive syllogism is a valid form of deductive reasoning. 14. Affirming the consequent is a valid form of reasoning. 15. Denying the antecedent is a valid form of reasoning, 16. All arguments with true conclusions are valid. 17. All valid arguments are sound arguments. 18. An argument with a false conclusion cannot possibly be a valid argument. 19. Modus tollens is an invalid form of reasoning. 20. Modus ponens is all form and no content. Exercise 10.8

Choose the best answer. 1. The only combination that you will not find in a valid deductive argument is

2.

a.

true premises and a false conclusion

b. c. d. e. The

true premises and a true conclusion false premises and a false conclusion false premises and a true conclusion none of the above combination you will not find in an invalid deductive argument is

b.

true premises and a true conclusion

a.

true premises and a false conclusion

LOOK

267

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

c. d. e. 3. The

false premises and a false conclusion false premises and a true conclusion None of the above, for any combination is possible in an invalid argument combination you will not find in a sound deductive argument is true premises and a false conclusion true premises and invalid reasoning false premises and valid reasoning false premises and a true conclusion all of the above 4. Inavalid deductive argument a. ifthe premises are all false, the conclusion must be false b. ifthe premises are all true, then the conclusion cannot possibly be false c. ifthe premises are all false, then the conclusion is likely

oP

UNIT4

eno

268

d. the premises must be true

5. Ina valid deductive argument a. ifat least one premise is true, the conclusion must be true b. if the premises are all true, then the conclusion is very probably true but not certain

c. ifthe premises are all false, then the conclusion must be false d. the premises must all be true e. none of the above 6. Inavalid deductive argument a. ifno premise is true, the conclusion must be false b. the premises must all be at least probably true c. ifthe premises are all false, then the conclusion is probably false d. if the premises are all true, then the conclusion cannot possibly be false e. none of the above 7. The following is one of the two ways to effectively criticize a deductive argument: a. b.

Hit the arguer over the head with a broom. Make fun of the arguer’s appearance.

c.

State an argument against one of the argument’s premises.

d. Present an argument against the conclusion of the target argument. 8. The following is one of the two ways to effectively criticize a deductive argument: a . Insult the arguer.

b.

Make fun of the arguer’s mom, dad, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc.

c. d.

State an argument against the arguer’s conclusion. Argue that the conclusion is not well-supported by the premises.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

EVALUATING INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS Recall that an inductive argument aims to show that if its premises all are true, then its conclusion, although not certain to be true, is probably true. (Recall also that by probably we mean “better than S0 percent likely.”) If an inductive argument succeeds in this aim, we call it a strong inductive argument. A strong argument thus has this feature: if its premises all are true, then its conclusion is probable, although not certain. An inductive argument that is not strong is said to be a weak inductive argument. A weak inductive argument is therefore an inductive argument in which it is not the case that if its premises all are true, then its conclusion is probably true. Methodical and intuitive procedures exist for the evaluation of inductive arguments; however, inductive arguments can take many different forms, and the procedures vary from one form of inductive argument to another. We have space to examine three common forms of inductive reasoning and the principles of evaluation appropriate to each.

Common Forms of Inductive Reasoning ARGUING

BY ANALOGY

An analogical argument begins by asserting that two things, call them “X” and “Y,”

have many features in common. This establishes an analogy (similarity) between

X and Y. Next, an additional feature of X is identified something not known to not be possessed by Y. The conclusion is that Y probably has this feature as well. For instance:

1. Monkeys and humans have similar hearts. 2. Drug X cures heart disease in monkeys. 3. Therefore, drug X will likely cure heart disease in humans. A great deal of medical research is based on analogical reasoning. We also reason this

way often in everyday life. EVALUATING ANALOGICAL

ARGUMENTS

Analogical arguments, like all inductive arguments, come in degrees: some are stronger than others, and some are weaker. We judge the strength of an analogical argument on the basis of the following criteria: 1. Generally, the more characteristics in common between the things compared, the stronger the analogy, and thus the stronger the argument. Comment.

Recall the argument above: “Monkeys and humans have similar hearts.

Drug X cures heart disease in monkeys. Therefore, drug X will likely cure heart disease in humans.” The more characteristics in common between monkey hearts and human hearts, the more probable the conclusion.

LOOK

269

270

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

2.

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Generally, the more relevant the similar characteristics are to the characteristic described in the conclusion, the stronger the argument.

Comment. There are two ways in which a similarity might be relevant. A characteristic can be causally relevant, or it can be statistically relevant. In the case of a causally relevant factor, there is a cause-and-effect connection between the possession of the attribute mentioned in the premise and the possession of the characteristic mentioned in the con-

clusion. In the case of a statistically relevant factor, there is a statistical relationship between the possession of the attribute mentioned in the premise and the possession of the characteristic mentioned in the conclusion. 3. The larger the number of items analogized in the premises, the stronger the argument.

Comment. Suppose Rita is buying a new car. She reasons, “I have driven two different models made by Honda, and both were good cars. Therefore, ifI buy a car made by Honda, it will probably be a good car.” This argument has a certain degree of strength. But suppose we alter the argument by changing the premise to, “I have driven four different models made by Honda, and all four were good cars. Therefore, if I buy a Honda, it will probably also be a good car.” The argument now makes four comparisons, rather than two, and is obviously stronger. 4. The more diverse or heterogeneous the items compared, the stronger the argument, provided that the diversity concerns features unrelated to the feature cited in the conclusion.

Comment. The more diverse the items compared, the more likely the pattern is not accidental and thus the more likely the pattern is representative of the larger group of things. 5. The larger the number of relevant dissimilarities between the items compared, the weaker the argument. (This is called the “degree of disanalogy.”) Comment. Of course, irrelevant dissimilarities do not weaken an argument.

6.

Generally, all else being equal, the more specific and narrowly drawn the conclusion, the weaker the argument; the more general and broadly drawn the conclusion, the stronger the argument.

Comment. This is a difficult point to grasp. Suppose that after a study of car performances, the conclusion is that the new Bleep will get “exactly 24 miles per gallon.” This

conclusion is more specific (more narrowly drawn) than the prediction that it will get “20 to 30 miles per gallon.” The conclusion that Pietro will arrive “between 8:00 and 8:15 p.m.” is more definite than the more broadly drawn prediction that he will arrive “between 8:00 and 11:00 p.m.”

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

Why is an argument stronger the less specific its conclusion, all else being equal? The

more narrowly drawn a conclusion is, the more circumstances there are “outside the zone”—circumstances in which it can turn out to be false. Thus, the more chances there are for the conclusion to be false. On the other hand, the more broadly drawn a conclusion is, the fewer circumstances there are in which it can turn out to be false, thus, the more chances there are for the conclusion to be true. The rule sounds paradoxical but makes sense upon reflection: the more specific and narrow the conclusion, the weaker the argument; the more general and broadly drawn the conclusion, the stronger the argument, all else being equal. Consider this example: We tested the jeep six times and got the following results, each on a tank of gas: 26.7 mpg, 27.9 mpg, 28.2 mpg, 28.9 mpg, 29.5 mpg, and 28.6 mpg. So, the jeep will likely get 28 to 29 mpg on our trip. This may bea strong argument, but it will be even stronger if we remove the conclusion and replace it with the following less specific ending: so, the jeep will get between 25 and 30 mpg on our next trip.

“The great value of analogy is that by it, and it alone, we are led to seeing a single logical form in things which may be entirely discrepant in content. ... Logic develops the art of seeing structures almost to the point of habit, and reduces to a minimum the danger of getting lost amid abstract ideas.” Susanne Langer, twentieth-century philosopher?

ANALOGY

AND

LEGAL REASONING

Arguments in courts of law are often analogical. In many types of cases, a judge must follow precedent when issuing a decision. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a legal precedent as “a judgment or decision of a court that is cited in a subsequent dispute as an analogy to justify deciding a similar case or point of law in the same manner.”!° When a judge makes a decision based on precedent, he or she looks at the way similar (analo-

gous) cases in the past were decided and then rules the same way in the present case. The decision in the previous cases is treated as a rule to be followed. Thus:

1. Case A was decided in such and such a way. 2. The present case is very similar, for the following reasons... 3. Therefore, the present case should be decided in such and such a way as well. No wonder the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) includes a section on analogical reasoning. “Consequently, one who wishes to attain perfection must first study logic.,—Moses Maimonides,

twelfth-century Jewish

logician"

LOOK

271

272

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

ENUMERATIVE

REASONING

INDUCTION

Imagine that a professional dog-trainer with six large dogs just moved into the house next door. For the first week, every night at 1:00 a.m. he lets his dogs out in the yard for exercise. Every time, they run around and bark like crazy. It is 1 a.m. on the eighth night

and you naturally expect to hear dogs barking any minute. Your reasoning is as follows: 1. The dogs barked at 1 a.m. the first night. 2. The dogs barked at 1:00 a.m. the second night. (and so forth) 3. Therefore, they will probably bark tonight.

Your reasoning has taken the form of an enumerative induction. In such an argument, the premises list or enumerate information about a series of individuals or cases; a pattern is observed; and then a conclusion is drawn that extends that pattern to the next individual case, or to a whole group of like things. Essentially, this kind of inductive argument begins with a series of observations or cases and then extends the series to one or more new (unobserved) cases. The reasoning is inductive because the argu-

ment aims to show only that the conclusion is probable, not that the conclusion is completely certain. GENERALIZATION

FROM

A SAMPLE

In some enumerative inductions, such as the argument just given, the premises are about individual cases and the conclusion extends the pattern to the next individual case expected. In other enumerative inductions, the premises are about individual cases that form a sample ofa larger group of things, and the conclusion drawn is about the group as a whole—called the target population—as in the following argument about crows:

1. Crow 1 was observed and found to be black. 2. Crow 2 was observed and found to be black. 3. Crow 3 was observed and found to be black. (and so forth) 100. Therefore, probably all crows are black. In this case, the 99 crows observed constitute the sample, and all existing crows consti-

tute the target population. This type of enumerative induction is called a generalization from a sample. (It is also called a statistical induction.) Every statistical induction fits the following general form: 1. N percent of a sample of a target population have the property P. 2. Therefore, probably N percent of all the members of the target population have property P.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

For example,

1. Sixty percent of those polled say they plan to vote for Bloggs for governor. 2. Therefore, probably sixty percent of all voters will cast their ballots for Bloggs. In a statistical induction, the premises present information about a sample of a target group. On the basis of this, the argument extends the pattern and concludes something about the target group as a whole. EVALUATING

GENERALIZATIONS

The more likely the sample is representative of the general population, the stronger the conclusion, of course. Three factors should be considered:

1. Sample size. Generally, the larger the sample is in relation to the target group asa whole, the more likely it is that the sample is representative of the group as a whole,

and thus the stronger the argument. 2. Sample variation. Generally, the more varied or heterogeneous the sample items, the more likely it is that the sample is representative of the group as a whole, and thus the stronger the argument. 3. Randomness. Generally, the more randomly selected the sample, the stronger the argument.

A sample counts as randomly selected if every member of the target population has an equal chance of being in the sample. If a sample is unrepresentative of the target population, it is called a biased sample. For example, suppose a group conducts a poll to see how many people in the city of Seattle still believe in God. Five hundred people are interviewed, and 99 percent say they still believe in God. However, the interviews were all conducted at Catholic churches after Mass one Sunday. Those surveyed were Catholics coming out of church! Nevertheless, the group concludes that probably 99 percent of all Seattleites believe in God. It is obvious that this sample was not randomly selected. This is a clear case ofa biased sample and, of course, an unwarranted conclusion. The following argument is stronger: 1. One thousand Seattleites from all walks of life were interviewed. 2. Eighty percent said they believe in God. 3. The interviews were conducted all over the city, at all times of the day, and we made sure that people were chosen randomly and broadly from every age group, ethnic group, gender, social group, and so on. 4. Therefore, probably 80 percent of all Seattleites believe in God.

Recall the fallacy of hasty generalization from chapter 8. If you drawa

conclusion about

a target population on the basis of a biased or unrepresentative sample, you commit this

informal fallacy.

LOOK

273

274

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

MEAN,

FOR

CORRECT

MEDIAN,

REASONING

AND

MODE

Three other concepts associated with statistical reasoning are worth mentioning: mean, median, and mode. The mean ofa series of values is the arithmetic average of the series. The median of a series of values is the midpoint of the series—half the values fall above the median and half fall below it. The mode of a series of values is the value that occurs most often in the series. For example, suppose the following numbers represent sample levels of lye measured in a soap factory over a seven-day period: 2, 4, 7, 6, 7, 7, 5. Adding

these values together and dividing by 7 produces the mean: 5.4. The median value is 6 because half the values lie above 6 and half lie below 6. The mode is 7, since the value 7 occurs most often in the series. SCIENTIFIC POLLING

A scientific poll is a common example ofa generalization from a sample. When news

agencies report the results of scientific polls, they sometimes use the terms “margin of error,” “confidence interval,” and “confidence level.” It is worthwhile to know what these terms mean. Let us consider a plain example. In August 2013, the Gallup organization reported that although “more U.S. restaurants list nutritional information on their menus, less than half of Americans, 43%, say they pay a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of attention to it. In addition, the same poll found that “women are more

likely than men to pay a great deal or fair amount of attention to nutrition information on food packages, 73% to 61%,” and on restaurant menus, 49% to 36%.” The same poll also found that “young adults aged 18 to 29 are the age group least likely to say they pay attention to nutrition information.” Under “survey methods,” the Gallup organization noted:

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 10-14, 2013, with a random sample of 2,027 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample

of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is +3 percentage points.”

The plus or minus figure, +3, is called the survey’s “margin of error.” It is also called the survey's “confidence interval.” The 95% figure is the survey’s “confidence level.” To understand what these terms mean, consider the survey’s first claim, that only 43% of Americans pay attention to the nutritional information on restaurant menus. The con-

fidence interval of +3 means that if the Gallup people had surveyed the entire US population, it is likely that between 40% (43 — 3) and 46% (43 + 3) would say that they paid attention to the nutritional information on their menus. The 95% confidence level means that it is 95% certain that the true statistic lies within the margin of error. So, in

this case, you can be 95% certain that if the Gallup people had surveyed the entire U.S.

population, between 40 and 46% would say they pay attention to the nutritional information on menus.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

“To prevent reason from being exercised haphazardly and to ensure that it be practiced according to certain rules, it is good to discuss the nature of reasoning itself. This discipline, logic, is the mistress of discourse.’”—Boethius, sixth-century CE Roman logician’

INFERENCE

TO THE BEST EXPLANATION

An inference to the best explanation occurs when we begin with one or more facts in need of explanation and then decide what to infer by thinking about what would best explain those facts. More formally, an inference to the best explanation typically takes the following form: 1. Begin with one or more facts in need of explanation. 2. Critically examine as many initially plausible potential explanations as possible (where a potential explanation is one that, if true, would explain the facts in question, and a plausible explanation is one that is consistent with general background information). 3. Rank one explanation as the best explanation on the basis of the standard criteria (to be explained below). 4. Conclude that the explanation ranked as the best explanation is probably true. Arguments given in the courtroom are often inferences to the best explanation. For instance, in the O.J. Simpson trial, called the “trial of the century,” prosecuting attorneys Christopher Darden and Marcia Clarke argued that the best explanation of the sum of

the physical evidence, more than four hundred pieces in all, was that O.J. Simpson committed the crime. For example, blood drops very closely matching the blood of both

victims and of Simpson were found inside his locked car the very morning of the murder.

On the other hand, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran argued that the best explana-

tion of the evidence is that Detective Mark Fuhrman and others in the Los Angeles Police Department framed Simpson for a crime he did not commit. “If the glove does not

fit, you must acquit!” he famously stated. As a result of the back-and-forth arguments, the jury decided that it had grounds for reasonable doubt. CRITERIA

FOR BEST EXPLANATION

No set of universally agreed on criteria exists to determine precisely which explanation is best. The evaluation of an explanation and the comparison of rival explanations is an inexact science, so to speak. However, certain criteria are widely accepted and seem reasonable. When we evaluate potential explanations and compare rival explanations, we may apply one or more of the following criteria. A good explanation 1. is internally consistent. An internally consistent explanation contains no selfcontradictory elements. 2. is externally consistent. An externally consistent explanation does not contradict well-established background information, including already proven theories.

LOOK

275

276

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

3 . explains a wide range of relevant data. The wider the range of relevant data explained, the greater is the explanation’s explanatory scope. 4. has explanatory power. An explanation has explanatory power when it leads us to expect the phenomenon being explained. . is testable. One explanation is better than a rival explanation if it passes more tests and passes tests that its rival does not pass. The more tests an explanation passes, generally the better the explanation. . satisfies considerations of simplicity. One explanation is simpler than another if it makes fewer assumptions, that is, if it refers to fewer explanatory entities, or fewer

kinds of explanatory entities, or invokes fewer explanatory principles. 7. is fruitful, meaning that it leads to new discoveries and opens up new avenues of investigation.

. coheres with, or fits in well with, already established facts—it conserves existing knowledge. MAYBERRY R.F.D.

Each of these standards can be illustrated within the following story. Suppose a Jackson Pollock painting worth $1 million has been stolen from the Mayberry City Art Museum, and detective Barney Fife has been assigned to the case. Among the known facts in need of explanation are these: The burglar broke in through a glass skylight in the museum ceiling, sometime between midnight and 3:00 a.m., cutting his hand in the process. The painting was worth approximately $100,000 on the black market. Two eyewitnesses re-

ported seeing Smith loitering around the painting for several hours on the day of the heist. After being taken in for questioning, Smith is found to have a cut on his hand. Fingerprints taken from Smith match fingerprints found on the broken

skylight. Blood found on the skylight closely matches Smith’s blood sample. It is discovered that Smith deposited $100,000 in his bank account the day after the heist, although he is unemployed and was flat broke last week. In addition, shoe prints found at the scene of the crime match Smith’s shoes, and fibers found at the

scene match fibers from Smith’s shirt. Finally, sheriff Andy Taylor is known to have been out of town at the time the crime was committed.

Now, let us suppose seven hypotheses have been suggested by the citizens of Mayberry, and it is now Detective Fife’s job to decide which of the following hypotheses is the best explanation: H1: H2: H3: H4:

Smith stole the painting. Smith, with the assistance of undetectable ghosts, stole the painting. Smith, aided by extraterrestrials, stole the painting. The sheriff stole the painting.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

HS: The painting was not stolen; it just vanished into thin air, all by itself. H6: Smith stole the painting, but actually the painting never existed in the first place. H7: Aunt Bee stole the painting. CONSISTENCY

H6 can be ruled out because it violates the first criterion: it is inconsistent. Recall that

two statements are logically consistent if it is possible they are both true, and two statements are logically inconsistent if it is not possible both are true. HS can be rejected because it violates the second criterion. It is externally inconsis-

tent because it contradicts established background information and already proven theories. We all know that objects like paintings do not simply vanish into thin air all by themselves, without any cause or explanation at all. EXPLANATORY

POWER

Let us turn to H1. To assess the explanatory power of a hypothesis, we ask, How probable is the phenomenon (the forensic evidence in this case) on the condition that the hypothesis is true? Put another way, if we do not assume the phenomenon exists, but we

assume the hypothesis is true for the sake of argument, does the hypothesis lead us to expect the phenomenon? Does the hypothesis (that Smith did it) make the evidence less surprising than it otherwise would be? In this case, certainly it does. H1 therefore has a good deal of explanatory power. If this is not clear, suppose, hypothetically, that we have never heard of Smith. Imag-

ine that he is not in the picture at all. In that hypothetical case, would we expect to find

blood matching his at the crime scene? Would we expect detectives to find shoe prints and fibers matching his shoes and clothes? We would not. Would we be surprised to discover that he deposited $100,000 in the bank, despite being broke and out of work? That would be very surprising. However, if we adopt H1 and suppose, hypothetically, that Smith stole the painting, everything changes. Now, on the basis of H1, the forensic evidence of the case is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is expected; it is likely to a high degree. In short, H1 has a good deal of explanatory power. Let us now consider H4. Assume that Sheriff Taylor stole the painting. On the basis

of this hypothesis, would we expect to find Smith’s blood at the scene of the crime?

Would we expect to find fibers from Smith’s clothes and shoe prints matching his shoes? Would this assumption lead us to expect that the sheriff was out of town at the time of the crime? Certainly not. H4 has little or no explanatory power with respect to the facts of the case.

“I propose to compile, if God grants it, a kind of treatise on the purity of the art of logic, so that youths who are arguing about any problem at all can be trained and can quickly dispose of it.” —Walter Burley, fourteenth-century English logician*

LOOK

277

278

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

EXPLANATORY

REASONING

SCOPE

H1 has a good deal of explanatory scope as well as explanatory power, for it explains a diverse array of facts connected to the case, including facts about Smith’s bank account, the blood found at the scene of the crime, fingerprint evidence, eyewitness accounts, and so

forth. None of the other hypotheses accounts for as wide an array of facts about the case. SIMPLICITY

It is a generally accepted principle of reasoning, known as the principle of simplicity, that a potential explanation Ais preferable to another explanation B if A explains the same range of data and is otherwise equal except that it makes reference to fewer enti-

ties or contains fewer explanatory principles or explanatory elements. Most of us would

agree that H2 and H3 are inconsistent with our shared background knowledge, which includes the belief that ghosts and extraterrestrials do not exist. However, even if we set aside the issue of whether such things exist, H1 is preferable to both H2 and H3 on grounds of explanatory simplicity. H1 explains all the data in terms of Smith alone. H2 and H3 explain the same data, but posit additional explanatory entities (ghosts, extraterrestrials). Thus, H1 explains everything H2 and H3 explain but in a simpler or more economical way, since it posits fewer explanatory entities and principles. In virtue of this, H1 is preferable to either H2 or H3. TESTABILITY

H2 has a problem: because some of the alleged accessories to the crime are claimed to be undetectable, there is no way to test the hypothesis, which means it fails criterion S. Essentially, to test a hypothesis, we derive a prediction from it, and then we check to see if the prediction can be verified. An empirical hypothesis makes a prediction that can in principle be observed or verified on the basis of sense experience. Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, 6, and7 are all empirical; the others are not. We test an empirical hypothesis in three steps.

Step 1. We derive an observable prediction from the hypothesis by asking, If the hypothesis is true, what can we expect to observe or detect in the world, using our physical senses (perhaps aided by instruments)?

Step 2. We observe the world, looking to see if the prediction is found to be true. Step 3. Ifthe prediction is found to be true, this is evidence in support of the hypothesis, and we say the evidence “confirms the hypothesis.” If the prediction is not found, this is

evidence against the hypothesis, and we say the evidence “disconfirms the hypothesis.”

The testing of hypotheses is often associated with science; however, we test ordinary

hypotheses all the time in everyday life as a matter of common sense. For example, sup-

pose that Bob believes that ifhe asks Sue to the prom, she will turn him down. “She hates me,” he keeps saying. One day, his buddy says to him, “Why don’t you ask her?” What an

idea! That would be one way to test the hypothesis. On the basis of his hypothesis, he

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

could predict that ifhe asks Sue to the dance, she will turn him down. Bob’s problem is that he assumes Sue doesn’t like him, but he hasn’t tested his hypothesis. FRUITFULNESS

After investigators settle on H1, they will seek search warrants, and they will look for further evidence in Smith’s car, in his house, and so forth. They may interview his friends. Whereas the other hypotheses quickly led to dead ends, H1 opens up new trails of evidence and leads to all sorts of discoveries. Imagine that one of the leads links Smith to an

international team of art thieves. This would be a very fruitful hypothesis indeed. CONSERVATISM

A conservative hypothesis coheres well with existing knowledge. (The word conservative in this context has nothing to do with political conservatism.) First, coherence is not the same as consistency. Two statements are consistent if it is possible both are true. In contrast, a statement S coheres with a body of information B if there are mutual explanatory relations between S and B: S helps explain parts of B, and B helps explain

S.H1 coheres well with already existing knowledge, for it explains a wide range of already

known facts; likewise, many known facts will shed light on H1. For instance, facts about psychology might explain why Smith committed the crime, facts about his childhood might provide further insight into his motive, and so forth. On the basis of all the criteria, H1 seems to be the overall best explanation of all the evidence available. Do you agree? Incidentally, in everyday life, we usually do not have

time to compare rival hypotheses in depth and on the basis of all eight of the criteria

listed here. Most of the time, such an exhaustive analysis would be, well, exhaustive. It would not be worth our time. However, ifan issue is important enough, and if the time is

available, we may very well evaluate rival hypotheses on the basis of all eight criteria.

“By reflecting on thoughts, we can notice which methods are used when reasoning well and which cause mistakes. We can then form rules based on these reflections to avoid being caught off guard in the future. This . . . is logic: a light capable of dissipating all the darkness of the mind.” —Antoine Arnauld, seventeenth-century French logician'’

CAUTION:

STRONG

DOES

NOT MEAN

“TRUE”!

Suppose an inductive argument, whether it is an analogical argument, an enumerative induction, or an inference to the best explanation, is strong. Does it follow from that fact alone that its premises are true? Does it follow that its conclusion is true? The answer is no to both questions. Consider the following inductive argument:

1. It has been snowing in Dallas, Texas, for sixty days straight. 2. Today in Dallas, Texas, the sky is completely full of snow clouds, and the temperature is 25 degrees, perfect for snow. 3. Therefore, it will probably snow in Dallas today.

LOOK

279

280

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The premises are false, and the conclusion is false; yet the argument is a strong argument, isn’t it? This example illustrates the fact that true premises and a true conclusion are not required for an inductive argument to be a strong one. An inductive argument might be strong and yet have a false premise or a false conclusion, or both. Of course, in many cases an inductive argument is strong, and in addition it also has true premises and a

conclusion that is very probably true, which is desirable.

ENTER

TRUTH:

COGENT ARGUMENTS

Ifan inductive argument is strong, and, in addition, it has all true premises, then we call it a cogent argument. (Some logicians use the term sound inductive argument instead of cogent argument.)

Thus, a cogent inductive argument has two properties:

1.

Itis strong.

2.

Its premises are all true.

Must its conclusion be true as well? Not necessarily! The conclusion of a cogent argument

will probably be true, of course, but that does not make it certain to be true. Consider this cogent argument:

The past one hundred years it has snowed at least once a year in Nome, Alaska. So, it is probable that it will snow at least once next year in Nome. The premise is true, but there is no absolute guarantee on the conclusion! Shifting gears, although the following inductive argument is strong, it is not cogent because it has a false premise:

It has been snowing every day in Seattle for the past fifty years. The sky is full of snow clouds right now. Therefore, it very probably will snow in Seattle tomorrow. This

argument is strong because if its premises were true, in that case its conclusion

would be highly probable. However, at least one of its premises is false, which means it does not rise to the level of being a cogent argument. In addition to being strong, an inductive argument must have all true premises to qualify as cogent!

Exercise 10.9 True or false? 1. If the premises of an inductive argument are all true, and the conclusion is true, then the argument is inductively strong.

ag

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

If the premises of an inductive argument are all false, and the conclusion is false,

So

Pnnnr

er YH

then the argument is inductively weak.

1 ll. 12.

If the premises of an inductive argument are all true, then the argument is cogent. Some inductive arguments are valid. Some strong inductive arguments have false premises and a false conclusion. Some weak inductive arguments have true premises and a true conclusion. Ifan argument is strong, then it must have a true conclusion. Ifan argument is weak, then it must have at least one false premise. Ifan argument is weak, then its conclusion cannot be true. Ifan argument is strong, then its conclusion is likely true. If an argument has premises that are probably true, then the argument must be inductive. If an inductive argument has premises that are probably false, then the argument is weak.

Exercise 10.10

Choose the best answer.

oe

1. In the case of a strong inductive argument

if the premises are all false, then the conclusion is probably false too if at least one of the premises is true, then the conclusion is probably true

if the conclusion is true, then the premises are probably true

pan Aap ao TP

4.

cao

3.

ere ep

an

TP

2.

if the premises are true, then the argument is called a “true” argument if the premises are all true, then the conclusion probably is true e only combination that you will never find in a strong inductive argument is true premises and a false conclusion true premises and a true conclusion false premises and a false conclusion false premises and a true conclusion none of the above, for any combination is possible e combination you will never find in a weak inductive argument is true premises and a false conclusion true premises and a true conclusion false premises and a false conclusion false premises and a true conclusion none of the above, for any combination is possible e combination you will never find in a cogent inductive argument is true premises and a false conclusion true premises and a true conclusion false premises and a false conclusion false premises and a true conclusion none of the above

LOOK

281

282

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Exercise 10.11

In each case, does the argument seem to be strong or weak? Explain your reasoning. 1. The bank robber accidentally left behind his checkbook. He also dropped his

wallet that contained his driver's license. Both items were traced to Joe Doakes, who was trying to hide $10,000 in his coat when the police arrived. The bank robber escaped with $10,000 but was also covered with red dye when the dye pack exploded. Joe Doakes was found to be covered with red dye. The obvious conclusion is that Joe robbed the bank. 2. Exercising daily helps prevent heart attacks. Don exercises daily. Therefore, Don will probably never suffer a heart attack.

3. It was sunny in Seattle yesterday for the first time in four weeks. Therefore, it will probably be sunny in Seattle all next week. 4. Ed is walking the twelve miles to downtown. He just left five minutes ago. He

walks at an ordinary pace. Therefore, probably he has not arrived yet.

5. Few cats are orange colored. I hear a cat meowing across the street. The cat meowing is probably not orange. 6. A Purdue University study found that rats consumed many more calories and put on weight when they were fed artificial sweeteners before meals. The sweeteners were found to cause powerful urges to eat—urges the rats could not control. The

study was repeated five times, with the same results each time. Humans and rats have similar digestive systems. Therefore, artificial sweeteners probably increase

weight in humans as well. 7. Planets have been discovered orbiting many stars. The stars found with orbiting planets all have in common six characteristics. No star lacking planets has been found to have all six characteristics. A new star has been discovered, and it has all six characteristics. It is probable that the new star has planets. 8. One thousand coffee drinkers selected randomly from all walks of life, from all ages, and from spots all around the city, were interviewed, and 10 percent said they

add sugar to their coffee. Therefore, probably 10 percent of the city’s coffee drinkers add sugar to their coffee.

9. Eight people at the Army recruiting center were interviewed, and all of them said they believe the war is justified. Therefore, probably everyone believes the war is justified. 10. Polar bear attacks on humans have been increasing over the past several years in certain parts of the Arctic. Scientists studying the attacks have discovered only one common variable present in each case: the animals had been disturbed by certain specific noises emanating from large cargo airplanes and scientific research stations. Moreover, these specific noises do not seem to be present in areas where the attacks are not increasing. Therefore, the attacks are probably caused by the disturbances in question.

CHAPTER

10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

Exercise 10.12

Assume each of the following arguments is inductive. In each case, state a premise that, if added, would make the argument stronger. Then state a premise that, if added, would make the argument weaker. 1. At the crime scene, the police found these items belonging to the suspect Jones: his phone (apparently dropped during the confusion), his coat with his name in it, and

his car keys. Therefore, Jones probably did it.

. At the crime scene, the police found no direct evidence that Jones was present;

however, an eyewitness identified Jones from a police lineup. Unfortunately, the witness had been extremely inebriated at the time the crime was committed.

. Since moving into the neighborhood a week ago, we have heard loud rock music every night coming from the corner house. Therefore, tonight we will probably hear loud rock music coming from the corner house.

. Joe has eaten lunch at Grinders Hot Sands every day for the past week. Each time, he orders the meatball grinder and a whack-whack salad. So, he will probably have the same thing today. . Tiny Tim and CDs. Live Tiny . Baby, the

is one of Lorraine’s favorite artists. She owns every one of his records A new CD of unreleased material is coming out tomorrow, titled Long Tim. Lorraine will probably buy it. cat, loves tuna, and she rarely turns down food. Therefore, when we put

this tuna out for her, she will likely gobble it up.

It has been raining for six days straight. Therefore, it will probably rain tomorrow.

. We interviewed twenty people at the coffee shop, and ten of them said they believe in UFOs. Therefore, probably half the population believes in UFOs. The price of gas usually goes up when there is serious trouble in the Middle East. Avery large demonstration was held in Libya today, and a number of demonstrators were killed. Therefore, the price of gas will probably go up. 10.

The weather has been unusually dry. Therefore, the orange crop will probably be

smaller than usual this year.

Exercise 10.13

True or False?

. Inan analogical argument, all things equal, the more specific the conclusion, the weaker the argument. . In an analogical argument, all things equal, the more general and broadly drawn the conclusion, the stronger the argument. . Inan inference to the best explanation, if two hypotheses are otherwise equal, the

simpler hypothesis is preferable.

LOOK

283

284

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Inananalogical argument, the more qualities the items compared have incommon, the weaker the argument. . Ina generalization from a sample, the less random the sample, the stronger the argument.

Ina generalization from a sample, the more heterogeneous the sample, the weaker the argument. In an enumerative induction, generally, the more cases enumerated, the stronger the argument. . Inan enumerative induction, generally, the more heterogeneous the cases enumerated are, the stronger the argument. One way to critique an analogical argument is to show disanalogies between the things compared in the premises. 10. ll. 12. 13.

One way to strengthen an analogical argument is to show further similarities be-

tween the things compared in the premises. One way to strengthen an analogical argument is to make the conclusion more general, in other words, less specific. One way to strengthen an enumerative induction is to list more cases. One way to weaken an inference to the best explanation is to show new facts that cannot be explained by the favored hypothesis.

14. One way to weaken an analogical argument is to list relevant dissimilarities. 1S. An analogical argument is inductive in nature. 16. The logic of inference to the best explanation is deductive in nature. 17. The logic of generalization from a sample is deductive in nature. Exercise 10.14 Instructions are given in context.

1. The Bards, a Seattle rock band, need a new sound system. The system must handle

four singers, and it must be powerful enough to fill up a school gym. Friends in another band, Jimmy Hanna and the Dynamics, have a brand Z sound system that

works well, so the Bards decide to buy a brand Z system. They reason that the brand

Z sound system works fine for the Dynamics, so it will probably work fine for the Bards. For each additional item below, would the addition of the item strengthen the argument (S), weaken the argument (W), or leave the strength of the argument unchanged (U)? Consider each addition separately.

a. b. c.

d.

The The The has The

Dynamics regularly play in school gyms. Bards know another band that uses and likes the same brand sound system. Dynamics have used their sound system in many different settings, and it always worked well. Bards play rock‘n’ roll, but the Dynamics actually play only new-wave polka

music at senior centers.

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

e. f.

The conclusion is changed to “The sound system will work perfectly.” The conclusion is broadened to “The sound system will be adequate, although not always perfect.” 2. Ona visit to the Kingdom of Ogg on the Isle of Grog, all ten adults observed at dinner drank coffee with their meal. The conclusion drawn is that all adult Oggians drink coffee with dinner. Does the suggested alteration strengthen the argument, weaken it, or leave the argument unchanged? Consider each altera-

meaogoe

tion independently.

g. h.

All ten observed adults were men. Five of the ten adults were women, and five were men. All Oggians were observed on a Sunday. We change the conclusion to “All Oggians drink coffee.”

The ten adults were observed over a period of seven days.

All of the men observed wore unusually long beards, whereas no other Oggians wore beards. We change the conclusion to “All adult Oggians drink coffee with their meals.” We change the conclusion to “All Oggians drink coffee with their dinners.”

i. We change the conclusion to “Many Oggians drink coffee with their dinners.” 3. You take your car to Latka’s Total Car Care on three different occasions, and each

gmoe

noe oe

time your car is fixed. You conclude that this time your car will again be fixed. Does the alteration strengthen or weaken the original argument? Or does it leave the argument’s strength unaffected? The earlier three visits were for transmission work; this one is for body work. The shop has a new manager. You have actually taken your car in eight times. The earlier visits were for mechanical work, but this time the problem is electrical.

h.

The earlier visits were for your Ford Escort; this time you have a new car, a Jeep. The earlier visits were for 1960s models; now you have a 1998 model. You conclude instead that your car will probably be returned in absolutely perfect condition.

You conclude instead that you will probably be satisfied.

Exercise 10.15 Instructions in context.

1. Pick an incident in your life in which you solved a problem using inference to the best explanation. Explain the problem that was solved, and the reasoning you used. 2. Select a conspiracy theory (such as the 9-11 theory or the international bankers conspiracy) that interests you. Research it online and critically evaluate an argument for or against it on the basis of the criteria for inference to the best explanation presented in this chapter.

LOOK

285

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

3. Search the news or online for a generalization from a sample given in support of an interesting claim, and then evaluate it critically on the basis of the criteria pre-

sented in this chapter.

4. Adetective examines a crime scene and finds sixty shoe prints, all made by size 12 Acebrand tennis shoes. Several hypotheses suggest themselves: perhaps one person wearing size 12 Ace shoes left all the prints. Perhaps two persons, each wearing identical Ace shoes, left the prints. Perhaps three persons, each wearing identical Ace shoes, left the prints, and so on. Each hypothesis is equally consistent with the evidence. The detective goes with the single person hypothesis. What was the detective’s reasoning?

5. Choose an episode ofa T'V detective story (or a detective movie), and summarize an inference to the best explanation employed to solve a crime.

Exercise 10.16 Visit the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org), and examine one case study in which someone in prison was exonerated. Explain the way inference to the best explanation was used to overturn the person’s conviction. Exercise 10.17

roa

ne

ao

Fp

Construct an inference to the best explanation in support of one or more of the following claims:

ee

UNIT4

rare

286

The Earth is round, not flat. Caffeine is a stimulant. Alcohol causes drunkenness. Elvis is no longer alive. The whole ocean is salty. World War II has ended.

Sasquatch exist (or do not exist).

Oswald had an accomplice (or did not).

UFOs are real (or are not real).

Global warming is real (or is not real). Ghosts are real (or are not real). ESP is real (or is not real).

CHAPTER10

DEDUCTION

AND

INDUCTION:

A CLOSER

NOTES L Indeed,

the five treatises on logical theory written by Aristotle—the first textbooks on logic ever written—were collectively known as the Organon (Greek for “tool,” as in “tool of thought”). For initiating the study of the standards of reasoning and giving the subject its first systematic treatment preserved in written form, Aristotle certainly earned the title that history has given him: founder of logic. The name Organon was actually applied to Aristotle’s logical treatises after his death by an editor, but it reflects Aristotle’s claim that logic is an all-purpose tool of thought, a guide to the precise thinking that is needed if we want to attain solidly proven truth on any subject. Ifa definition of “possible” is wanted, here is a brief one. A statement or state of affairs—no matter how unlikely—counts as possible as long as it is not self-contradictory. Assuming standard meanings for words and assuming that a word retains its meaning in a single context, the following is an example of a self-contradictory statement: Ann is 18 and it is not the case that Ann is 18. The following is a selfcontradictory description: There are two brothers in Kansas, and each one is older than the other. The letters A, B, and C are serving here as variables. A variable is a symbol standing for anything from a group of things. Most students are familiar with the use of variables in mathematics. While variables in math (x, y, z, etc.) often stand in for numbers, the variables in these examples stand for

NAY >

categories of things. Variables are essentially placeholders for other things.

Ibid., 19.

Ibid, 123. Tbid., 9.

For a survey of sentential logic (also called truth-functional logic), see Paul Herrick, Introduction to

Logic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), chapters 10-22.

David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu

Enterprises, 2013), 7. | highly recommend this delightful little book. It can be downloaded for free at a logic site that I maintain: manyworldsoflogic.com. However, David’s book is much more enjoyable held in hand. It can be purchased for a small price at Lulu.com. Marans, Logic Gallery, 136. 10.

See “Precedent.” In Encyclopedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,

11.

Marans, Logic Gallery, 22.

12.

My information is from www.gallup.com/poll/163904/less-half-look-restaurant-nutrition-facts.aspx Ibid., 16.

13. 14. 1S.

2011).

Ibid., 29.

Ibid., 45.

KEY TERMS

analogical argument analogy argument form categorical argument categorical logic categorical sentence cogent argument

counterexample to a deductive argument deductive argument deductive logic disjunctive syllogism enumerative induction generalization from a sample hypothetical syllogism

LOOK

287

288

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

inductive argument inference to the best explanation invalid deductive argument mean median mode modus ponens modus tollens

principle of simplicity sound deductive argument strong inductive argument

substitution instance valid argument form valid deductive argument weak inductive argument

Chapter 11 Explorations in Inductive Reasoning: The Logic of Science

ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955) once said that science is “nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.” There is a great deal of truth in his observation: scientific theories are ultimately justified on the basis of the same criteria that govern inference to the best explanation, which (as we have seen) plays a large role in everyday reasoning as well. The eight criteria that we use in everyday life to decide which of a group of proposed explanations is best (examined in the last chapter) are used in science as well to decide which of a group of proposed scientific explanations best explains the data. For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century, physicists who relied on Newtonian physics could not explain certain well-verified atomic phenomena. When Einstein put forward the special theory of relativity in 1905, it quickly became clear that Einstein’s theory could explain everything Newton’s theory explained, while also explaining phenomena Newton’s theory could not. Furthermore, Einstein’s theory made novel predictions and opened up new areas of research. The fact that Einstein’s theory provided the best explanation of the data, based on the standard criteria for an inference to the best explanation, was the ultimate reason physicists accepted his theory over Newton's. In science, in the courtroom, and in everyday life, the fact that a hypothesis provides the best explanation of all the evidence is a good reason for accepting the hypothesis as true. But we can take a closer look than this.

THE HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD The method used to test an individual hypothesis in science is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method since it involves hypotheses and predictions deduced from them. The method is often presented in the following idealized steps: Step 1. Scientists encounter a puzzling phenomenon that needs an explanation. Step 2. Scientists propose a hypothesis that would, if true, explain the phenomenon. Step 3. Scientists ask, Ifthe hypothesis is true, what facts about the world can we expect to observe or otherwise detect with our senses? To answer this question, they derive

observational predictions from the hypothesis.

Step 4. Scientists test the hypothesis by observing the world to see if the phenomenon predicted will be observed. 289

290

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Step 5. Finally, they accept, reject, or revise the hypothesis on the basis of the test observations. Formulating a Hypothesis Some people suppose that a hypothesis is derived straight from the data collected via a process of enumerative induction. Although this is sometimes the case, in most cases the hypothesis is “thought up” via a creative, imaginative process that is more like painting a picture than like completing a list (enumeration) of observations. Formulating an ex-

planatory hypothesis after puzzling over the facts is a creative process requiring guess-

work, inspiration, and imagination, combined with a basic knowledge of how the world works. No hard-and-fast rules tell the scientist how to come up with a good hypothesis. For instance, in 1900, the German physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) showed that

when atoms are heated, they absorb or emit energy in discrete units that are all set either at a certain minimum quantity or at integral multiples of that minimum quantity. After learning of Planck’s discovery, Einstein began thinking deeply about the nature of light.

His general knowledge of how the world works, and his knowledge of current research, helped him formulate the hypothesis that light is particulate in nature.! However, Friedrich Kekule’s hypothesis concerning the structure of the benzene molecule came to him during a dream. In 1858, Kekule (1829-1896), a German chemist who laid much of the groundwork of organic chemistry, had shown that carbon atoms link together in long chains. One night in 1865, Kekule dreamed that the benzene molecule was a snake biting its own tail and whirling in a circle. That dream image gave him the concept of the six-carbon benzene ring, and a hypothesis was born. The point is that

not all hypotheses originate in the same way; they take root in some creative area of the human mind where not all thought-processes are rule-governed.

Deriving Predictions In order for a hypothesis to count as scientific, it must be empirical in character. This rule has been part of the scientific enterprise since the beginnings of modern science in the

sixteenth century. An empirical hypothesis is one that generates observational predictions—

predictions that can be verified on the basis of observable facts (i.e., facts that can be detected using our physical senses). When scientists derive predictions from an empirical hypothesis, either deductive or inductive reasoning may be employed. Thus, deduction and induction are both used in science to derive predictions from hypotheses.

Testing The fact that some scientific hypotheses are literally “dreamed up” does not mean that scientists invent their own truths. The fact that a hypothesis has been put forward does not mean that it is true. Regardless of how a hypothesis was initially thought up, once it is presented to the scientific community, it must “run the gantlet.” The gantlet, of course,

will be a series of standard scientific tests. A hypothesis will not be considered true until it has passed the standard tests. In addition, the tests will be performed by many researchers

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

SCIENCE

from various locations, and many of these researchers will have no vested interest in the

hypothesis being found true. Indeed, some may actively try to disprove the hypothesis. One important requirement at this stage of the investigation is reproducibility. The results of a test must be reproducible by any scientist anywhere, as long as the specified procedures are followed. There is never any guarantee that a hypothesis, once formed, will prove true.

Confirmation and Disconfirmation If the predicted phenomenon is observed, we say that the test “confirms the hypothesis.” If the predicted phenomenon is not observed, we say the test “disconfirms the hypothesis.” These two procedures, the process of confirmation and the process of disconfirmation, lie at the heart of the scientific method. The logic of confirmation takes the following form: 1. If the hypothesis is true, then P should be observed. 2. P is observed. 3. Therefore the hypothesis is probably true. The logic of disconfirmation takes the following form: 1. If the hypothesis is true, then P should be observed. 2. P is not observed. 3. Therefore, the hypothesis is probably not true.

The more times a hypothesis has been confirmed, the higher the probability it is true. Thus, confirmation is never an all-or-nothing affair, and a hypothesis is never guaranteed to be true. Confirmation is always a matter of degree. Likewise, the more

times a hypothesis has been disconfirmed, the more likely it is false. The evidence makes it probable to some degree that the hypothesis is false. We'll look at examples of confirmation and disconfirmation shortly.

HYPOTHESES

VERSUS

THEORIES

Hypotheses and theories are explanations. We normally call an explanation a hypothesis when (at least for the time being) it lacks sufficient confirming evidence. Once an explanation has been well confirmed, it isa theory. Thus, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines hypothesis as “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences” and notes that the term “implies insufficient evidence.” On the other hand, the word theory suggests “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena,” thus implying “a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.” In practice, however, people often use theory and hypothesis interchangeably to refer to any proposed explanation, as when we have a hunch regarding the cause of some phenomenon and say, “I’ve got a theory.”

291

292

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

SEMMELWEIS AND CHILDBED FEVER: THE LOGIC OF CONFIRMATION AND DISCONFIRMATION ILLUSTRATED The logic of confirmation and disconfirmation are both illustrated in an interesting and often retold episode from the history of science: the discovery of the cause of childbed fever (puerperal fever) by Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865), a Hungarian doctor practicing medicine in Vienna during the nineteenth century. His research was a major stepping-stone on the road to the discovery that microscopic bacteria and viruses (“germs”) are the cause of many diseases. In the 1840s, the Vienna General Hospital occupied a sprawling campus composed

of many large buildings linked by numerous walkways and courtyards. (When it was built in 1784, it was the largest hospital in the world.) By the 1840s, thousands of

patients a day were being treated for hundreds of diseases and ailments. In its charity wards—thanks to a humanitarian movement begun the century before—thousands of the city’s poor were receiving the best available medical care of the day at no charge. In addition, important scientific research on the cause of hundreds of diseases was being

conducted in its research faculties. Nearby was the University of Vienna Medical

School, one of the leading centers of scientific medical research in the world. Following his appointment as assistant in obstetrics at Vienna General Hospital in 1847, Semmelweis immediately took up the question: What is the cause of the puer-

peral fever that is killing so many mothers after they give birth? This disease, commonly

known as “childbed fever,” had first been diagnosed in ancient times by the Greek doctor Hippocrates (c. 460-370 BcE), the father of Western medicine. (The disease is described in his Forty-third Aphorism.) At Vienna General, the mortality rate from the disease was high (by modern standards) in both of the hospital’s two maternity wards; however, the death rate in the first ward was three times the rate in the second. When Semmelweis began his investigations, many doctors subscribed to the foul

air hypothesis first proposed in 1773 by the English doctor Charles White, who conjectured that the disease is caused by something bad transmitted through the air.” Semmelweis rejected White’s hypothesis by reasoning that if an airborne element

were the cause of the disease, it would affect both maternity divisions equally, and it would also affect women giving birth in the city of Vienna. Yet no epidemic of childbed fever was detected outside the hospital’s maternity divisions, and the two divisions had very different disease rates (yet the same air). This reasoning can be put in the form of the following simple argument that instantiates, or follows, the logic

of disconfirmation:

1. If the foul air hypothesis is true, then the disease would affect both maternity divisions equally, and it would also affect the larger city. (This is the observable prediction.) 2. The disease does not affect both divisions equally and does not affect the larger city. (The prediction, in other words, is false.) 3. So, probably the hypothesis is false.

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

SCIENCE

The evidence, in this case, disconfirms the hypothesis;

that

is, it gives

us

reason

to

suppose

the

hypothesis is probably false.

Another hypothesis rejected by Semmelweis was

a. 7 : the “misconduct theory,” also first proposed in the

Cl il ii Fy

|

jy

TEE TEC

previous century. According to a standard medical textbook written in 1793, the cause of childbed fever “has been traced to misconduct in the early part of the pregnancy, such as tight stays and petticoat bindings. ...” However, detailed records kept by researchers since 1793 showed no correlation between “fashion misconduct” and the incidence of the disease. The argument would be:

1. If the misconduct hypothesis is true, then a correlation will be found between fashion mis-

Figure 11-1. Vintage engravings of Victorian-era medical

conduct and the incidence of childbed fever. __ kits, nineteenth century.

2. No such correlation was found. 3. Therefore, the misconduct hypothesis is probably false.

Gordon’s Unpopular Hypothesis Of interest from a Socratic perspective is the reception received by an early hypothesis regarding the cause of childbed fever proposed by the pioneering Scottish physician Alexander Gordon (1752-1799). In 1789, Gordon began keeping careful records of every case of childbed fever occurring at the Aberdeen Infirmary. On the basis of extensive records, he rejected existing hypotheses and proposed a startling new explanation: physicians and midwives themselves were spreading the disease! They did so, he argued, by carrying on their hands some unknown infectious matter from one sick patient to

another. In 1795, he argued for his theory in A Treatise on the Epidemic Puerperal Fever of

Aberdeen. The crux of his argument was this reasoning: “I could... [predict] what women would be affected with the disease, upon hearing by what midwife they were to be delivered... and in almost every instance my prediction was verified.” In other words: 1. If we assume my hypothesis is true, we can predict which women will get sick, and which will not on the basis of knowing which midwives and physicians attended which mothers. 2. The prediction comes true every time. 3. Therefore, my hypothesis is probably true.

This is, of course, the logic of confirmation. Gordon had the courage to note that according to his own hypothesis, he himself had been responsible for transmitting the

293

294

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

disease in many cases. “It is a disagreeable declaration for me to mention, that I myself was the means of carrying the infection to a great number of women.”® Sadly, although his book was full of tables of data, autopsy reports, and statistics, the explanation he proposed was not well received. Sherwin Nuland writes, “Even the few physicians who had taken Gordon seriously . . . had difficulty believing that they or their colleagues were the proximate cause of such devastation. Some of them nevertheless took great pains to disinfect themselves after a

puerperal fever death, while others took equally great pains to deny that medical attendants might be transmitting the disease to their patients.”

The furor aroused by his hypothesis was too much for him. Gordon quit medicine, re-enlisted in the Navy, and died of tuberculosis a few years later. His idea slipped into relative obscurity—until Ignaz Semmelweis took up the cause some fifty years later. The First Germ Theories of Disease The hypothesis that microscopic objects might be responsible for disease had actually been around for some time. In 1658 a Jesuit priest had suggested that “small animals invisible to the naked eye” spread disease. The same hypothesis had been put forward in 1546 ina book by an Italian scientist. Unfortunately, all of these early prototypes of

the germ theory of disease were considered too far out in their day and were ignored. Keep in mind that the compound microscope was not invented until the 1590s (in the country of Holland), and bacteria were first observed by Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), the father of microscopy, in the 1660s. Other Hypotheses

A priest, accompanied by an altar boy ringing a bell, would arrive ona regular basis to administer the last rites of the Catholic Church to a patient in the hospital’s death room. Because of the layout of the hospital, the priest walked through the first maternity division but not through the second. Someone suggested that perhaps fear caused by the appearance of the priest caused the women in the first division to contract the fever. Semmelweis noticed that he even felt fear and a lump in his throat upon hearing the dreaded bell. To test this hypothesis, Semmelweis had the priest change his route. The change had no effect on the mortality rate, thus disconfirming the

hypothesis. Another hypothesis suggested itself when Semmelweis noticed that women in the first division delivered their babies while lying on

Figure 11-2. Vintage illustration of an

antique microscope, published in 1884. Scan by Ivan Burmistrov.

their backs, whereas in the second division they delivered while lying on their sides. He wondered whether the birth position was perhaps the cause of the illness. To test the idea, Semmelweis had the Loe : : F two divisions switch their procedures. The result? The mortality rates did not change at all. Disconfirmation again.

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

SCIENCE

Semmelweis considered, tested, and rejected many other hypotheses. One of the least plausible explanations was derived from the observation that male doctors attended the patients in the first ward, where the incidence of the disease was highest, while the moth-

ers giving birth in the second ward were attended by midwives. According to this hypoth-

esis, the presence of male attendants “wounded the modesty” of the women in the first ward, thereby causing the disease. However, this hypothesis could not account for the fact that male doctors attended private home deliveries, as well as deliveries in the private wards of the hospital, without any incidence of the disease. Disconfirmation again. At one point, Semmelweis considered the hypothesis that overcrowding contributed to the disease. Upon investigating, however, he found that the second division was

actually more crowded than the first division (perhaps because women were trying to avoid the first division). Semmelweis Makes His Great Discovery The hospital’s autopsy room was located close to the first maternity ward. Here a great deal of medical research was conducted, as well as instruction in surgical techniques.

One day, a professor of anatomy accidentally cut himself with a scalpel while perform-

ing an autopsy. The professor soon became extremely sick, and, as he lay dying, showed

the symptoms of childbed fever. The experience caused Semmelweis to formulate the hypothesis that some microscopic agent from the cadavers in the autopsy room causes childbed fever. After investigating the matter further, he discovered that doctors would

routinely perform autopsies on dead bodies in the autopsy room, wash their hands with soap, and then go immediately into the first maternity division to deliver babies and treat patients. The women in the second maternity division, on the other hand, were attended by midwives rather than by doctors, and the midwives did not perform autopsies.

Semmelweis hypothesized that the soap being used after the autopsies did not remove the microscopic infectious agent from the hands of the doctors. To test his idea, he had the doctors wash with a solution of chlorinated lime, one of the most powerful

cleaning agents known at the time. The result was dramatic—the mortality rate in the

first division plummeted. Semmelweis now could argue

1. If the microscopic infectious agent hypothesis is true, washing with chlorinated lime should cut the mortality rate in the first division. 2. Washing with chlorinated lime cuts the mortality rate as predicted. 3. Therefore, the hypothesis is probably true.

“The mind can perceive logical forms that are necessary. However, nothing in sense experience is necessary. Thus, the mind can perceive beyond sense experience.’—AI-Kindi, ninth-century Arab logician®

295

296

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The evidence in this case confirms the hypothesis; that is, it gives us reason to suppose the hypothesis is probably true. This is the logic of confirmation. Note that the claim is not that the evidence proves the hy-

pothesis with certainty, or that the hypothesis must be true. Rather, the claim is that the observations make

the hypothesis likely, or probable.

Tragic End Semmelweis’s theory was not widely accepted in the medical profession during his lifetime. When his 543-

page treatise on the cause of childbed fever was finally published in 1861, his mental health was already dete-

riorating. Tragically, Semmelweis died in a mental Figure 11-3. Vintage engraving of a Victorian-era chemistry lab in Leipzig University, Germany.

hospital in 1863, alone and isolated from the profession he had once devoted his life to. Ironically, a few years earlier, in 1857, the French

chemist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) had identified bacteria in putrefying material.

Pasteur discovered that heating the material killed the bacteria. Six years later, during

the year of Semmelweis’s death, Pasteur’s scientific papers were read by Joseph Lister (1827-1912), an English surgeon and expert microscopist at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, who quickly saw the connection between bacteria and disease. After treating surgical areas, infections, and wounds with bacteria-killing carbolic acid, Lister cut mortality rates by two-thirds. The series of papers written by Pasteur and Lister, published in the

scientific journals of the day and read all over Europe, established the germ theory of disease once and for all and introduced the new technique of antisepsis. Hundreds of millions of lives have been saved as the result of the selfless labors of Semmelweis, Pasteur, and Lister—critical thinkers who refused to accept established explanations that did

not adequately explain the data.’

COMPARING RIVAL HYPOTHESES The hypothetico-deductive method is not the totality of the scientific method. It is an idealized process for testing one individual hypothesis, or for testing hypotheses one at a time. In most test situations, many different hypotheses will have been proposed to explain a given phenomenon, and each will have some explanatory power. Scientists will have to decide which of the rival hypotheses is the overall best explanation (and

thus most likely to be true). How do scientists decide between competing hypotheses

“One who learns the principles of logic and then carefully studies other sciences, will thereby develop even greater in the art of logic.’ William of Ockham, fourteenth-century logician’

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

SCIENCE

ofa given phenomenon? They rely on the eight criteria for inference to the best explanation that we examined in the preceding chapter—essentially the same criteria we use in everyday life when we rank competing explanations, albeit with a few refinements. Ein-

stein was right: science is indeed just a “refinement of everyday thinking’—a refine-

PINNDNMRYNY

ment of inference to the best explanation. In the preceding chapter we examined these criteria for selecting the best explanation: internal consistency external consistency

testability explanatory scope explanatory power

simplicity fruitfulness conservatism

There is no mathematical algorithm or exact metric that ranks rival scientific hypotheses on the basis of all eight criteria. Ironically, comparing rival scientific hypotheses is not an exact science. Upon reflection, it seems that the evaluation of competing theories is a complicated matter indeed.

OCKHAM’S

RAZOR

The principle of simplicity (or economy) deserves special mention. This principle of explanation was first explicitly formulated in the fourteenth century by the philosopher William of Ockham (c. 1285-1347), who put the principle this way: “What can be explained with fewer terms is explained in vain with more.” In other words, if we are choosing between two competing explanations of a phenomenon, and both equally explain the data, the simpler explanation—the explanation postulating fewer explanatory entities or explanatory principles—is rationally preferable. The principle of simplicity is sometimes called “Ockham’s razor,” in honor of its author, because it requires that we “shave” our explanatory hypotheses to a minimum of entities and a minimum of complexity.

“Science can proceed only by correct forms of logic. So to not embrace logic is to never find the truth.”—John of Salisbury, twelfth-century English logician’

297

298

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Exercise 11.1 Instructions are given in context.

1. Write a short paper (your instructor will tell you the length) on an episode from the history of science. Identify (a) the problem under investigation, (b) the hypothesis or hypotheses formulated, (c) the implications drawn from the hypothesis or hypotheses, (d) the test procedure used, and (e) the result. . Write a short paper (your instructor will tell you the length) on a case solved by Sherlock Holmes in one of the detective stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Explain the reasoning used by Holmes to solve the case, including the hypothesis formulated, the implications drawn, and the way the hypothesis was tested. . Watch an episode of a detective show such as Colombo, Magnum P.1., or The Rockford Files, and explain how inference to the best explanation was used to solve the case. Find an account of a specific line of scientific research in a newspaper, magazine, or science book. Analyze the logic of the research in terms of the steps discussed in this chapter. . Take a CSI case and analyze the way inference to the best explanation was used to solve the crime. Formulate a hypothesis that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observational evidence. Give two observation statements. One of these should be an observation state-

ment that would confirm the hypothesis; the other should be an observation statement that would disconfirm the hypothesis.

Formulate a hypothesis of your own that could be confirmed or disconfirmed by

observation evidence. Explain how you would test your theory. State confirming evidence for the following hypotheses: a. The Earth is spherical. b.

The Earth rotates on its axis.

c. Electricity is a form of energy. d. Stars are extremely far away.

Explain why this is not an empirical explanation: the roof of this building is being held up by an invisible gorilla. 10. On an isolated Greek island, archaeologists find an ancient city containing temples and small buildings, but no marketplace and no other signs of human habitation. The city has no source of water and no signs of cultivation around it. Puzzled, the scientists devise a number of hypotheses. Which proposed explanation would seem to be the best explanation? Argue for your conclusion. a. The city was inhabited by aliens from outer space who enslaved a few humans to build the city and then vaporized them after it was built. These aliens lived on air and sunshine alone.

CHAPTER11

b. c.

d.

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

The city was a necropolis, a city of the dead, and the houses were mausoleums. The city was at one time a thriving metropolis, but global warming caused the sources of water to dry up and made cultivation of the ground impossible. The people simply dropped everything and moved away. The people got tired of their location and simply moved way, taking everything with them—lock, stock, and barrel.

Exercise 11.2

PYM

Choose one of the following questionable claims. Research the item and provide an inference to the best explanation for the conclusion that the story is a myth, or else provide an inference to the best explanation backing up the story.

5.

The Loch Ness Monster exists—there are even photos of the creature. Of course ghosts exist—people have taken pictures of ghosts. UFOs have been proved to exist—we have many pictures of them now.

Many people possess paranormal powers. Psychics have appeared and demonstrated their powers on TV. Sasquatch exist. I have seen actual home movies of Bigfoot.

PSEUDOSCIENCE Many hypotheses put forward and championed as “scientific” turn out, upon critical examination, to be pseudoscience rather than the real thing. A hypothesis is pseudoscience if its advocates claim that it is based on, and justified in terms of, the methods of science, when in reality it is not. Most pseudoscience can be identified by asking, Is the theory testable? Has it been tested? What were the results? Most pseudoscience fails to count as real science because it violates the testability requirement in one or more of the following ways:

1. The hypothesis makes claims that are simply not (observationally) testable. 2. The hypothesis makes claims that are too vague to be tested. 3. The advocates of the hypothesis use ad hoc additions to defend their hypothesis. An ad hoc addition to a hypothesis has three features: (a) it is not independently testable, (b) it is not supported by independent evidence, and (c) the only reason for adding the ad hoc clause is to save the hypothesis from being disconfirmed. Here is a simple example. Suppose I claim that the government is altering my mind by beaming microwave radiation into my house. You conduct a test and tell me that no microwave radiation is being beamed into my house. I reply that the test failed to find the radiation because the government is beaming a new kind of radiation at me—radiation that is not detectable by any scientific instruments. I just added an ad hoc clause to my hypothesis.

OF

SCIENCE

299

300

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

“Logic enfolds and unfolds the power of reason. Yet too much of logic can be injurious, rather than beneficial.”—Nicholas of Cusa, fifteenth-century German logician"!

Exercise 11.3 Instructions are given in context.

1. Find an example of a hypothesis that you believe is pseudoscience. Explain the hypothesis and explain why you believe it is not real science. Argue your case. 2. Inventors even today continue claiming to have produced perpetual motion machines. Is there such a thing as the “science” of perpetual motion machines? Or is this a pseudoscience? Argue your case.

3. Isthe flat Earth theory an example of pseudoscience? Or is it a legitimate scientific theory? Argue your case.

4. Is astrology a pseudoscience? Or is it the real thing? Argue your case. Exercise 11.4 Instructions in context.

1. On the basis of Kepler’s discoveries, state an argument that disconfirms the ancient theory that the planets move in perfectly circular orbits.

2. On the basis of Galileo’s discoveries, state an argument that disconfirms the ancient theory that the planets are perfectly round spheres with smooth surfaces. 3. On the basis of Galileo’s discoveries, state an inference to the best explanation in favor of Copernicus’s theory.

DISCOVERING

THE

CAUSE:

MILL’S METHODS

When a group of people all come down with the same illness, scientists from the health department often are called in to track down the likely cause. For example, a few years ago, a number of people in Washington State got sick, and several died. In their search for the cause of the illness, scientists quickly learned that all the victims had eaten

hamburgers at the same fast-food restaurant. Eventually, the deaths were traced to a particular strain of E. coli bacteria in undercooked hamburgers. When scientists track down the causes of things, the procedures they use are often based on a set of principles first formulated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill

CHAPTER

11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

(1806-1873) in his System of Logic published in 1843. These principles, now known as “Mill’s methods,” state procedures for identifying probable causes. Most of the principles are common sense. However, before we survey Mill’s methods, we must first clarify the concept of a cause. Cause and Effect

One of the key objectives of causal investigation is to discover, for a specified effect, the

conditions under which the effect will or will not occur. Likewise, a key question of causal reasoning is this: under which conditions will the effect occur and under which

conditions will the effect be absent? Thus, philosophers have found it illuminating to analyze causes in terms of underlying, or antecedent, conditions, and specifically in terms of two types of antecedents, or underlying, conditions: necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. Recall from chapter 3 that a necessary condition for something X is a condition that is required; without the necessary condition, X will not obtain. For

example, oxygen is necessary for a fire to burn. A sufficient condition for something

X is a condition that guarantees that X will obtain; the sufficient condition is all that is needed for the obtaining of X. For example, jumping in a lake is sufficient for being wet. Notice that although oxygen is necessary for a fire to burn, it is not sufficient; while jumping in a lake is sufficient for getting wet but is not a necessary condition for getting

wet. Mill’s methods are commonsense guides for discovering causally necessary and sufficient conditions.

Method of Agreement Suppose four students eat lunch in the school cafeteria, and later in the afternoon all four become sick. What is the cause of the illness? The health department would probably begin its investigation by asking each student what he or she ate for lunch. Suppose the information is compiled on the following table:

Student 1

xX

Xx

—

—

XxX

Student 2

—

XxX

x

—

—

Student 3

|

xX

|

Xx

|

—

|

—

XxX

Student 4

|

—

|

Xx

|

Xx

|

xX

—

Notice that each ate different items, with one exception: the salad. Given that the salad was the only factor all four cases had in common, the conclusion is that the salad is the

probable cause of the illness. In a case like this, the health department would probably take samples of the salad and test them in its laboratory. The logical process illustrated in this case is Mill’s method of agreement.

OF

SCIENCE

301

302

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The basic idea here is that the probable cause of the effect E (the sickness) is to be found in the one antecedent condition common to each case where the effect is present. Of course, it is possible that something else, in addition to the salad, contributed to the outbreak. The cause identified by the method of agreement is likely a necessary cause—a neces-

sary condition for the effect under investigation.

The method of agreement requires that we draw up a list of possible causes. We use our background knowledge of cause-and-effect connections when we do this. Next we look for one antecedent causal factor common to all cases of the effect in question. This common factor, if found, is identified as the probable necessary condition or as part of the neces-

sary condition. Note that the conclusion is not that

Figure 11-4. Illustration showing virus particles as they

would appear under very high magnification.

the condition singled out must be the cause; the con. . clusion is only that this isos probably the cause (or is: part of the cause).

Method of Difference Suppose Jan and Pat both have lunch at the school cafeteria. Later, in biology class, Jan gets sick, but Pat feels fine. The health department is again called in to investigate. Let us imagine that the information is compiled on the following table:

The only difference between their lunches was that Jan

ate the burger and Pat skipped

the burger plate. Otherwise, they ate the same food at lunch. The burger is the obvious suspect. Why? It is the one factor present when the effect (the sickness) is present and absent when the effect is absent, where the two cases are otherwise similar. In such a

case, it is natural to conclude that the burger probably caused the sickness. This reasoning embodies Mill’s method of difference, which states that if an effect E is present in one case and absent in a closely similar case, the difference (D) between the cases is probably the cause of E. D will be the circumstance or condition present when E occurs and absent when E doesn’t occur—provided that the cases compared are otherwise alike in all, or nearly all, relevant respects. Unlike the method of agreement, the method of difference identifies a probable sufficient condition of an effect.

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

Let’s look at another example. Suppose researchers are testing the effects of a drug. They begin with, let us suppose, one hundred rats. The rats are divided into two identical groups, each consisting of fifty rats. Both groups receive the same food and live in the

same conditions. Both groups of rats are alike in every respect. Now, drug D is administered to the rats in one group (the test group), and no drug is administered to the rats in the other group (the control group). The two groups are now similar except for the one difference: only the test group received the drug. Suppose the rats in the test group act

nervous, whereas the rats in the control group do not. The conclusion is that the drug probably causes nervousness. The drug is the only difference, and this is evidence in support of the claim that the drug is the cause of the nervousness. The difference is the factor present when the effect is present and absent when the effect is absent. In science, the method of difference is often implemented in this form, called a con-

trolled experiment. In such an experiment, scientists search for the cause of a particu-

lar effect. Two groups of individuals are formed: the test group and the control group. The difference between the two groups is that only the test group has or is given the factor suspected to be the cause of the effect. The control group is similar to the test group except that it lacks the factor under investigation—that is, the suspected cause. If a factor is found that is present when the effect is present and absent when the effect

is not present, this factor is probably the cause of the effect. The tests to find the cause of lung cancer employed the method of difference. Groups

of smokers were compared with various groups of nonsmokers who were otherwise similar to the smokers. The only observable difference between the groups being compared was the practice of smoking. The groups of smokers had significantly higher rates

of lung cancer, which was then attributed to the only difference: smoking. WHAT

IS A DOUBLE-BLIND

EXPERIMENT?

Suppose we are to use Mill’s method of difference to test a new diet drug. To reduce the possibility of error to a minimum, we select two large groups of people, alike in every way, except that one group (the test group) will get the drug and the second group (the control group) will not get the drug. The control group will be given only a placebo. However, to make sure people’s expectations won't influence the outcome, nobody in either group will know which group is getting the drug and which is getting the placebo. So, nobody will know whether the pill he or she is given is the drug or the placebo. However, this is not enough. It is still possible that the researchers administering the pills might tip people off as they are conducting the experiment, perhaps even unintentionally (e.g., by giving unconscious cues to people as they hand out the pills). A double-blind setup will prevent this by keeping everyone in the dark, not just those being tested. Those handing out the real pills and the placebo pills won’t know which pill is which, and each person in each group will not know whether he or she is in the control group or the test group. A double-blind

test provides less chance for the mind to play tricks on the body.

In sum, according to the method of difference, if there is some antecedent phenomenon B present when phenomenon A is present and absent when A is absent, and the

SCIENCE

303

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

two cases are alike in every other relevant respect, then we may conclude that A and B are causally related; that is, B is probably the cause of A. Let’s now compare the two methods. The method of agreement is aimed at the iden-

tification of a necessary condition for an effect E, and it bids us search for the common

factor in all cases of E. The common factor, if found, is cited as the probable cause or as part of the cause. On the other hand, the method of difference is aimed at the identification of a sufficient condition for an effect E, and it directs us to choose as cause the one

respect in which a case where the effect E occurs differs from an otherwise relevantly similar case where E is absent.

Joint Method of Agreement and Difference

Imagine that six students eat lunch in the school cafeteria and two become sick. The

Student 6

XxX

Mm

Student 5

KO

|

mM

Student 4

mM

Student 3

~

Student 2

mM

RKO

XxX

mM

Student 1

KOK

health department investigates and compiles the following information.

Mm

UNIT4

mM

304

Notice that everyone who got sick ate a taco for lunch. Eating a taco was thus the common antecedent factor. By the method of agreement, we may infer that the tacos

were likely a necessary condition for the sickness. Next, notice that the one difference between the two groups of students—those who got sick and those who did not—is that the students who did not get sick did not eat the tacos. By the method of difference, the tacos were likely a sufficient condition for the sickness. Putting the two arguments together, we seem to have identified a likely necessary and sufficient condition for the illness. We have reasoned in accord with Mill’s joint method of agreement and difference. Method of Concomitant Variation

Suppose a direct relationship is discovered between eating food X and stomach cancer. People who eat food X tend on average to develop stomach cancer. People who do not eat food X tend on average not to develop stomach cancer. The rate of stomach cancer

varies in a regular way with the eating of food X. The more of X that a person eats, the

more likely it is that he will get stomach cancer. We would conclude from this that a causal connection probably (but not necessarily) exists between eating food X and

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

stomach cancer. Because some people who have stomach cancer do not eat food X, and some people who eat food X do not have stomach cancer, we would not conclude that eating food X is the only cause of stomach cancer, but we would conclude that it is probably part of the cause or is connected with the cause. Mill’s method of concomitant variation looks for changes in one phenomenon that

vary with or correspond to (are concomitant with) changes in a second phenomenon. If the measured change in the one varies along with the measured change in the second, this is evidence that the two phenomena are probably causally related: one of the two probably causes the other, or some third factor is the cause of both. The method of concomitant variation is often used in everyday life as well as in the laboratory setting. For instance, suppose a community college district discovers a correlation between changes in enrollment and changes in employment at the local steel mill: when employment at the mill goes down, enrollment goes up; when employment at the mill goes up, enrollment goes down. The district officials conclude that employment at the mill is one of the causes of fluctuation in college enrollment. However, a word of caution: the mere fact that two phenomena are correlated does not show with certainty that they are causally related. The number of Starbucks stores per square mile and the number of churches per square mile are statistically correlated. However, this does not prove that the presence of churches influences where Starbucks locates its stores. Common sense suggests that there is likely a third factor behind both sets of statistics, namely, population density. Method of Residues The method of residues is common sense and takes this logical form.

1. 2. 3. 4.

A, B, and C are known to cause the set of effects X, Y and Z. Ais found to be the cause of X. Bis found to be the cause of Y. So, C is likely the cause of the residue Z.

For example, a store owner discovers that three employees, A, B, and C, have embezzled a total of $1,500 from the tills. She then verifies that A embezzled $500 and that B embezzled $800. It follows that C embezzled the residual, $200.

Exercise 11.5 In each case, which of Mill’s methods is being used?

1. To test the quality of a gasoline additive that promises to increase mileage by 10 percent, a delivery company buys two identical cars, one red, the other blue.

SCIENCE

305

306

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

During the test period, the red car gets the new additive, and the blue car gets no additive. Both cars are driven under the same conditions for the same number of miles. At the end of the test, the company finds that the car that received the additive had 10 percent better mileage. The company concludes that the additive does indeed increase mileage by 10 percent.

. Rumplestiltskin awakes from a hundred-year nap and sees an air conditioner for the first time. He turns the button to the right and feels cool air. The farther to the right he turns the button, the cooler the air. He concludes that turning the button to the right causes the air to cool down.

. Six pupils are very poor readers. The teacher investigates the background of each student and finds that each comes from a different family, has a different socioeconomic background, and had attended a different previous school. However, all six lacked phonics instruction. The teacher concludes that phonics instruction causes good reading. Many XYZ computers keep getting returned for repairs. The company looks into

the matter and finds that the returned computers were produced in different years and were sold in different areas. Finally, it is found that all were sold in areas with very high heat and humidity. The company concludes that hot and highly humid

air damages the computers. . A department store manager notices a statistical relationship between the local

employment rate and the shoplifting rate in her store. As the employment rate increased, the theft rate decreased, and vice versa. The manager concludes that unemployment is part of the cause of shoplifting.

. A doctor is treating five cancer patients. The patients have only one factor in common: all five were employed by the XYZ chemical company in a division producing a chemical bug repellant. The doctor concludes that the bug repellant is at least a partial cause of the cancer. Two bushes are covered with unseemly splotches. The gardener sprays one bush with chemical X and leaves the other unsprayed. A week later, the splotches are gone from the sprayed bush but remain on the unsprayed bush. The gardener concludes that chemical X eliminated the splotches. . Aresort is testing a new type of fish bait. The manager gives the new bait to three of six fishermen. The three with the new bait all used different gear but all caught lots of fish. The other fishermen didn’t catch anything. The manager concludes that the new bait works. A psychiatrist has ten patients with insomnia. All ten have different backgrounds, religious beliefs, jobs, and so on. However, all the patients have one thing in common: each is an avid reader of zombie novels. The psychiatrist concludes that reading zombie novels is a partial cause of the problem. 10. A cook bakes six different cakes, each time testing a new additive in an attempt to make a cake that will glow in the dark. All the additives containing chemical X

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

produce a cake that glows in the dark. The other additives result in a normal cake. The cook concludes that chemical X makes a cake glow in the dark.

ll. During the 1950s, many men from different parts of the country developed the same cancer. Investigators discovered that all the men had worked in nuclear weapons programs during World War II, and all had been exposed to radiation. The investigators concluded that the cancer was caused by exposure to radiation. 12. During the nineteenth century, scientists searched for the cause of the bone disease called “rickets.” At first it was thought that the disease was related to poverty

because many of those who had rickets were poor. One obvious hypothesis was

suggested: perhaps rickets is caused by malnutrition. However, that hypothesis was ruled out when rickets were found among people who were neither poor nor

malnourished. A common factor was finally found: a lack of sunlight. The conclu-

13.

sion was that a lack of sunlight can cause rickets. In 1854, during a cholera epidemic in London, the English physician John Snow (1813-1858) launched his famous “Grand Experiment” to find the cause of the disease. He discovered that the areas of London suffering from the latest outbreak all received water that was contaminated with raw sewage. One neighborhood, however, was free from the disease. The cholera-free district received uncontaminated water piped in from the River Thames. On the basis of his

study, Snow ruled out the bad air theory and proposed that cholera is caused by fecal contamination of drinking water. Snow is known as the father of modern

epidemiology. 14.

In 1886, while working at an asylum on the island of Java, the Dutch physician Christian Eijkman (1858-1930) sought the cause of the disease beriberi. He found that hens in the courtyard of the asylum behaved like the humans who had the disease. Upon further investigation, he discovered that the eating of polished rice,

by humans and by chickens, was closely correlated with high rates of the disease. After he could find no other factor, Eijkman concluded that beriberi is caused by a diet of polished rice. (Further research found that the disease is caused bya dietary deficiency caused by eating polished rice.)

1S.

People used to think that maggots came from within meat. In the nineteenth century, Pasteur performed the following test of the theory: he boiled meat broth in a flask to kill the bacteria; then he sealed the container and let it sit. When he examined it later, the broth was free of bacteria. However, meat broth that had

been exposed to the air soon became covered with bacteria and quickly decayed.

Pasteur concluded that the bacteria came from the air rather than from within the meat itself. 16. A politician who studied at the Gorgias School of Rhetoric is testing a new stump speech. After delivering his speech to one hundred audiences, the results are in. Among other favorite targets, his speech hits stamp collectors. Every speech is the same except for one variable: his attack on stamp collectors. He varies the

OF

SCIENCE

307

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

severity of this part from town to town. The harder he hits the stamp collectors, the more money he takes in (and the louder the applause). The softer he is on stamp collectors, the lighter the donations and the smaller the applause. His advisors conclude that smacking the stamp collecting community causes campaign donations to rise.

17. A master gardener is testing different brands of fertilizer. She uses brand X in garden 1, brand Y in garden 2, and brand Z in garden 3. The flowers are largest in garden 3, smallest in garden 2, and medium in garden 1. The only ingredient the brands contain in common is chemical C. In her laboratory she discovers that brand Y contains the highest concentration of C, brand Z contains the lowest, while the concentration in brand X is in between. She concludes that chemical C discourages growth. 18. A group of scientists suspect that eating prunes causes colon cancer. To test their

hypothesis, they assemble two are similar in every way except and those in group 2 do not eat dence of colon cancer, whereas

large groups of people. The people in both groups one: those in group 1 have a diet high in prunes, prunes. They discover that group 1 has a high incigroup 2 has a very low incidence. Which of Mill’s

methods is in play, and what did the scientists conclude?

19. Joe, the dermatologist, formulates the following hypothesis: acne is caused by fluorescent lighting. After hearing of his theory, a group of scientists is awarded a

billion-dollar grant to test it. They discover no correlation whatsoever between

fluorescent lighting and acne. In his response, the dermatologist argues, “Your

fancy research has not disconfirmed my theory. I believe that fluorescent lighting has a very unusual property: unlike other lighting, it can travel from one place to

another place miles away without leaving any detectable traces or information. I call this phenomenon ‘stray light.’ The cases you discovered of acne not associated with fluorescent lighting are obviously caused by stray fluorescent light.” What kind of hypothesis is Joe’s stray light theory? Exercise 11.6

How would you investigate the situation, using Mill’s methods? 1. A disproportionately large number of athletes are enrolled in Professor Smith’s

philosophy class. Why?

2. The number of students attending college rose during the 1970s and then fell during the 1980s. Business at Pink’s Hot Dogs rose during August and then declined during September. You and four coworkers get sick after lunch. You plant six rose bushes. Three grow and three die. You bake a cherry pie three times, and twice the pie turns out lousy. Two singers in a chorus get sore throats at the same time.

NAS

308

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

8. Two people on a group camping trip become sick. 9. Sometimes the coffee drink you order at the local coffee shop is good, and some-

times it is not good. 10. Every time you get extremely busy, you get sick. Exercise 11.7

True or false?

ne

YP

Ifa prediction is derived from a hypothesis and the prediction is observed, we say

the hypothesis has been “confirmed.” Ifa hypothesis is confirmed, then it must be true, with complete certainty. If a hypothesis is disconfirmed, then it must be

false, with complete certainty.

The scientific method is infallible—when followed properly it cannot result in error. If a prediction is derived from a hypothesis and the prediction is not observed,

na

we say the hypothesis has been “disconfirmed.” Semmelweis was known in his day as the father of microscopy. Einstein’s theories were widely accepted because they provided the best explanation of the known data. Einstein’s theory explained facts that could not be explained on Newton’s theory. The hypothetico-deductive method is used to test single hypotheses in science. 10. Ifa hypothesis generates predictions, then it is an empirical hypothesis. ll. The more times a hypothesis has been confirmed, the more likely the hypothesis is true.

12. A theory is an explanation. 13. Hippocrates is known as the father of Western medicine. 14. One of the hypotheses considered by Semmelweis was the claim that foul air 1S. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

causes childbed fever. One of the hypotheses tested by Semmelweis was the claim that fear causes childbed fever. One of the hypotheses tested by Semmelweis was the claim that overcrowding causes childbed fever. There exists a mathematical algorithm that tells us which hypothesis is the best explanation. Conservatism is one of the criteria used to decide which explanation is best. Ockham’s razor tells us to always choose the simplest explanation of all the explanations available. The common factor identified by the method of agreement is probably a necessary condition for the effect. The factor identified by the method of difference is probably a sufficient condition for the effect. If a factor is identified by the method of agreement as the cause of a phenomenon, that factor must be the cause.

OF

SCIENCE

309

4

CRITERIA

23. 24. 25. 26.

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Ifa factor is identified by the method of difference as the cause of a phenomenon, that factor must be the cause. Mill’s methods are inductive in nature. Sis a sufficient condition for X if S is required for X. Nisanecessary condition for X ifN is all that is needed for X.

Exercise 11.8

Choose the best answer. 1. Semmelweis was searching for the cause of this disease: a. cholera b. childbed fever

c. d. 2. The a. b. c. d.

cancer whooping cough method of agreement identifies this type of cause: necessary condition sufficient condition overriding condition negative condition

3. The method of difference identifies this type of cause:

a. necessary condition b. sufficient condition c. overriding condition d. negative condition 4. This is not one of the causes considered by Semmelweis: foul air misconduct fear caused by the presence of a priest position during delivery diet 5. In the annals of science, Semmelweis’s name is associated with a. the special theory of relativity b. the discovery of a cure for cholera c. the discovery of a cure for scurvy d the discovery of a cure for puerperal fever e the discovery of the planet Pluto 6. Which of the following is not one of the criteria for evaluating scientific theories?

oP

UNIT

oan

310

a. b.

simplicity interestingness

e.

conservatism

c. d.

explanatory scope explanatory power

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

7. Which of the following is not one of the criteria for evaluating scientific theories? a. simplicity b. internal consistency c. external consistency d. gut intuitions e.

emotions

f.

conservatism

Exercise 11.9

Find a causal argument (an argument regarding the likely cause of something) in the news or online pertaining to a public outbreak of a disease such as hepatitis C or the clinical testing of a new drug. Evaluate the reasoning on the basis of Mill’s methods.

APPENDIX:

ELEMENTARY

PROBABILITY

THEORY

When students are first introduced to the concept of inductive reasoning, they often want to know if the degree of inductive strength can be measured or calculated. Unfortunately, logicians have not yet discovered a standard of measurement that will measure degrees of probability in all inductive arguments. However, in some restricted

contexts, the degree of probability can be assigned a number with the precision of

mathematics. The principles used to assign numerical probabilities are the subject of the branch of inductive logic known as “probability theory” or “statistics.” In the seventeenth century, the French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), along with Pierre Fermat (1601-1665), developed the first systematic theory of probability, now known as the “classical theory of probability.” Suppose two

assumptions can reasonably be made:

1. All possible outcomes of an experiment can be counted.

2. Each outcome is equally likely.

According to the classical theory, the probability of an event E occurring is

P(E) = fT

where P(E) abbreviates the probability of event E occurring, f is the number of favor-

able outcomes, and T is the total number of possible outcomes. For example, suppose you reach into a perfectly shuffled poker deck and draw a

card at random. What is the probability that the card drawn is a queen? Because the

SCIENCE

311

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

deck contains fifty-two cards, the total number of possible outcomes is fifty-two. The

deck contains four queens, so there are four “favorable” outcomes among the possible outcomes. Therefore, assuming it’s reasonable to suppose that all possible outcomes have been counted and that each is equally likely, the probability of drawing a queen

from a shuffled poker deck is 4/52 or 1/13. Thus:

1. You just reached into a perfectly shuffled random. 2. Therefore, the card drawn is a queen.

poker deck and draw a card at

The probability that the conclusion is true, given the premise, is exactly 4/52.

The next two basic rules concern necessary and impossible events. The probability of an

event that necessarily must happen is 1; the probability of an event that cannot possibly happenis 0. Thus, the probability that it will either snow tomorrow or it will not snow tomorrowis 1; and the probability that it will snow tomorrow and yet not snow tomorrow is 0.

Exercise 11.10

Use the classical theory to compute the probabilities of the following events: Bed re

UNIT

A six-sided die is rolled and comes up with a 4. A six-sided die is rolled and lands showing an odd number. Acard drawn from a poker deck is red. A book of 165 pages is opened, and a page is selected at random. The page selected is page SS.

y

312

A bird drops its payload randomly on a crowd of 250 people. Ed is in the crowd, and it is Ed who has to go home and wash his hair.

6. Asix-sided die is rolled, and it comes up with a 6 or 1.

7. 8. 9. 10.

Asix-sided die is rolled, and it comes up with a 1, 2, or 3. Acard is drawn from a regular poker deck, and the card is a king. Jan is sixty and it is not the case that Jan is sixty. Jan is either sixty, or she is not sixty.

RULES

OF PROBABILITY

FOR COMPOUND

EVENTS

Once probabilities have been assigned to single events, probabilities can be assigned to compound arrangements of events. For example, we earlier used the classical theory to

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

assign a probability to the event of drawing a queen on one draw from a shuffled poker deck. What is the probability that someone draws two cards in a row and both are queens?

We begin with two definitions. If the occurrence of an event E has no effect on the occurrence of an event E’, then E and E’ are called independent events. For example, if someone draws a card and replaces it before drawing a second card, the first draw has no effect on the second draw, and so the two draws are independent events. If two events cannot both occur at the same time, the two events are called mutually exclusive events. For example, ifa normal coin is tossed, it’s not possible that it will come up both heads and tails at the same time, and so the heads outcome and the tails outcome are mutually exclusive events. In the following, x and y are variables ranging over events, and P(x) abbreviates the probability of event x occurring.

The Restricted Conjunction Rule Ifxand y are independent events, then the probability that x and y both happen is equal to the probability of x multiplied by the probability of y: P(x and y) = P(x) X P(y)

where x and y are independent. For example, we have already seen that the probability of drawing a queen from a shuffled poker deck is 1/13. What is the probability of drawing a queen on the first draw, and then, after placing that card back in the deck, drawing a queen again on the

second draw? According to the restricted conjunction rule, the probability is figured this way:

P(queen 1 and queen 2) = P(queen 1) times P(queen 2)

= 1/13 X 1/13 = 1/169

where queen 1 abbreviates “a queen is drawn on the first draw” and queen 2 abbreviates “a queen is drawn on the second draw.” What is the probability that you toss two quarters in the air and both land tails up? Because the first toss has no effect on the second toss, the two events are independent. The probability of a fair coin landing tails is obviously 1/2. So, the probability that both land on tails is calculated as follows: ll

P(tails 1 and tails 2) = P(tails 1) times P(tails 2)

= 1/2 xX 1/2 =1/4

What is the probability of rolling two threes with a standard pair of dice? Because each die has six sides, the probability that a single die is rolled and comes up three is 1/6. As

the outcome of one die’s roll doesn’t affect the outcome of the other’s roll, the probability

SCIENCE

313

314

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

that a pair of dice comes up two threes is calculated according to the restricted conjunction rule as follows: P(three 1 and three 2) = P(three 1) times P(three 2)

= 1/6 X 1/6 = 1/36

The General Conjunction Rule This rule is used to compute the probability of two events occurring together in cases in which the two events are not independent: P(p and q) = P(p) X P(q given that p occurred) For example, what is the probability of drawing two cards in a row without replacing

any cards drawn, and both are aces? The probability that the first card is an ace is, of course, 4/52. The probability that the second card is an ace—given that the first card was an ace and was not replaced—is 3/51, for at the second draw, only three aces exist among the $1 remaining cards. The probability of drawing two aces in a row without replacement is therefore: P(ace 1 and ace 2) = P(ace 1) X P(ace 2 given ace 1)

= 4/52 X 3/51 = 12/2,652 = 1/221

Exercise 11.11

Suppose a bowl contains eight apples, three oranges, and six peaches. 1. Whatis the probability of drawing at random two apples in a row with replacement?

What is the probability of drawing two apples in a row without replacement?

2. What is the probability of randomly drawing an orange and then a peach with replacement? What is the probability of drawing an orange and then a peach with-

out replacement?

The Restricted Disjunction Rule This rule is used to compute the probability that one or the other of two events occurs when the two events are mutually exclusive. The rule is:

P(p or q) = P(p) + P(q)

CHAPTER

11

EXPLORATIONS

IN INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

OF

For example, what is the probability of drawing just one card from a poker deck, and the

card is either a jack or an ace? The probability that a drawn card is an ace is 4/52. The probability that a drawn card is a jack is also 4/52. Therefore, the probability that a single card drawn is either a jack or an ace is: P(jack or ace) = P(jack) + P(ace)

= 4/52 + 4/52 = 8/52 = 2/13

Exercise 11.12

A bowl contains eight grapes, five cherries, and three hamburgers.

1. What is the probability that someone randomly selects one item from the bow], and the item is either a grape ora cherry? 2. What is the probability one item is randomly drawn, and it is not a grape?

COMBINING

THE

RULES

‘The restricted disjunction rule can be combined with the restricted conjunction rule. Assume we are reaching into the bowl just mentioned in the previous exercise. What is the probability of randomly drawing either a grape or a cherry and then, after replacing what was drawn, drawing again either a grape or cherry? That is, what is the

value of:

P[(grape or cherry)1 and (grape or cherry)2]

The probability of drawing either a grape or a cherry on a single draw is, according to the restricted disjunction rule: P(grape or cherry) = P(grape) + P(cherry)

= 8/16 + 5/16

= 13/16

According to the restricted conjunction rule, the probability that this happens twice is calculated by multiplying the probability of the first by the probability of the second.

SCIENCE

315

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

We may now insert this into the format required by the restricted conjunction rule as follows: P[(grape or cherry)1 and (grape or cherry)2] = P(grape or cherry)1 X P(grape or cherry)2

= (8/16 + 5/16) X (8/16 + 5/16) 13/16 X 13/16

Exercise 11.13 Figure the following probabilities, assuming an ordinary deck of cards and an ordinary

pair of dice, and so forth. YWPwYd Pp

UNIT

P(6 or2 ona single roll ofa die) P(heads on four successive tosses of a coin) P(king or ace on one draw) P(at least one king or queen on two draws with replacement) P(two kings in two draws) if: a. the first card drawn is replaced. b._ the first card is not replaced.

Exercise 11.14 Imagine two bowls of marbles. One has three green, six blue, and seven yellow marbles,

and the other has two blue, four green, and five yellow marbles. If a single marble is drawn from each, what is the probability of the following.

YPwdr

316

both are the same color. at least one is blue. one is blue and the other is green. at least one is either blue or yellow? both are green?

Exercise 11.15

Imagine a jar containing five purple, six orange, and seven gold marbles. If two marbles are drawn without replacement, what is the probability that 1. both are the same color? 2. both are gold? 3. both are orange?

CHAPTER11

EXPLORATIONS

IN

INDUCTIVE

REASONING:

THE

LOGIC

NOTES L Einstein

formulated the particulate theory of light in the first paper in a series of papers that he published during his famous “miracle year” of 1905—papers that transformed the very foundations of modern physics.

PINNM

PY

Sherwin B. Nuland, The Doctor’s Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever, and the Strange Story of Ignac

Semmelweis (New York: Norton, 2003), 58. Ibid., 43. Ibid., 47. Ibid. Ibid., 49.

On the life of Semmelweis, I recommend Nuland, The Doctor's Plague. David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu

Enterprises, 2013), 17. 10. 11.

Ibid., 28.

Marans, Logic Gallery, 21.

Ibid., 33.

KEY TERMS

controlled experiment hypothesis hypothetico-deductive method necessary condition observational prediction principle of simplicity

process of confirmation process of disconfirmation pseudoscience sufficient condition theory

OF

SCIENCE

317

Interlude Critical Thinking and the Birth of Modern Science COPERNICUS AND THE DAY THE EARTH MOVED At the beginning of the sixteenth century, it seemed obvious to just about everybody that the Earth sits motionless at the center of the universe and the Sun and the planets orbit the Earth. This was the geocentric (Earth-centered) “theory” of the solar system, considered accurate since ancient times.

After making thousands of careful measurements of the positions of the Sun and the planets throughout the year (using instruments of the day such as the quadrant and the triquetrum), the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) critically analyzed his data and formulated a revolutionary hypothesis: the Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun, not the other way around.' Moreover, he argued, the Earth not only moves around the Sun, it also turns on its axis at the same time, and small changes in the direction of its axis explain the precession of the equinoxes. Copernicus made a detailed case for his heliocentric (Sun-centered) theory in his masterpiece, On the Revo-

lutions of the Heavenly Bodies, published in 1543, the year of his death. With chapters

on trigonometry and applied mathematics, Copernicus’s Revolutions changed forever the way we view the universe and our place within it. Copernicus’s theory also raised new problems to solve and opened new avenues of investigation. For instance, if the

Earth moves through space, why don’t we sense its motion? Why doesn’t its motion show

against the background stars? Why do objects fall straight down when dropped, rather than to the side? It seemed to serious thinkers that a new theory of motion was needed. A line of distinguished critical thinkers, including Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, and Newton, would soon be taking up these challenges. Critical thinker Nicolaus Copernicus is one of the founders of modern science.

Figure 11-5. Image of Nicolaus

Copernicus (1473-1543) on a 1,000 zlotych banknote from Poland.

BRAHE, KEPLER, AND THE LAWS OF PLANETARY MOTION Before the telescope was invented, the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) compiled enormous quantities of astronomical data by carefully observing . a : : the night sky. After sifting through the piles of data, his assistant, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), a mathematician 318

INTERLUDE

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

THE

BIRTH

OF

MODERN

SCIENCE

319

and astronomer, made an amazing discovery: the planets move through the sky exactly as if they obey three mathematical “laws,” or principles. Kepler's three “laws of planetary motion” may be put this way: 1. Planets move in ellipses rather than in circles.

2. The orbital velocity increases when a planet nears the Sun and decreases when the planet is far out, such that the area swept within the planet’s orbit is equal during equal periods of time. 3. The cube of the semi-major axis of orbit is proportional to the square of the planet’s orbital period.

Figure 11-6. Victorian-era orrery that demonstrates the circulation of the planets around the sun. Woodcut engraving published in 1864.

Astronomers of the day were astonished by Kepler’s claim because practically everyone had assumed since ancient times that the planets move in perfect circles (rather than in elliptical orbits or “squished” circles). Indeed,

before Kepler derived his laws of planetary motion, philosophers had argued, on the basis of a priori arguments, that the planets must move in perfectly circular orbits. Kepler’s

theory was anathema to these a priori theorizers.” The question of the day became, Why do the planets move according to Kepler’s laws, rather than in perfect circles as posited in ancient times by Plato and Aristotle? As Copernicus had done before him, Kepler had thus demolished ancient views while opening up newlines of research. His theory helped pave the way for our current understanding of the universe. Critical thinker Johannes Kepler is one of the founders of

modern science.

GALILEO AND

THE BOOK

OF NATURE

The next great step in the development of modern science occurred when the Italian astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) proposed that the “Book of Nature” is written in the language of mathematics. In support of his claim, Galileo discovered mathematical laws governing falling bodies, circular motion, and the parabolic paths of moving bodies such as cannonballs. His discoveries, added to Kepler's, helped change science from a qualitative subject written in literary terms into a quantitative subject expressed with precise mathematical equations. In 1609, Galileo heard about an instrument invented in the Netherlands that made distant objects appear closer than they actually are. He figured out the principle of the telescope, built a series of increasingly more powerful models, and discovered that the Moon’s surface contains mountains (using geometry, Galileo even measured their height) and craters. He also discovered sunspots, the moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and the phases of Venus. Before Galileo made his observations, philosophers had argued, on the basis of a priori arguments, that all heavenly bodies must be perfectly round spheres, with perfectly smooth and unblemished surfaces (think ofa billiard ball).

320

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Figure 11-7. Steel engraving of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), published in 1842.

Figure 11-8. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), engraving from 1835. Digital restoration by Steven Wynn Photography.

Galileo’s discoveries demolished views of the universe considered obvious since ancient times, helped overturn the Aristotelian model of the universe, and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican model. Little wonder his views were at first consid-

ered anathema to a priori theorizers emotionally wedded to the ancient model.

Some philosophers even refused to look through his telescope. Galileo’s discoveries supported the Copernican model over the ancient model by identifying features of the solar system (such as the phases of Venus) that could not be

explained on the geocentric model but which could easily be explained, and ina simpler

fashion, on the heliocentric model. Galileo’s many discoveries, made after years of study in mathematics, astronomy, and physics, and on the basis of years of scientific

observations, helped pave the way for our modern understanding of the universe. Critical thinker Galileo Galilei is one of the founders of modern science.

ISAAC NEWTON AND THE CLOCKWORK UNIVERSE After Kepler, everybody was asking, Why do the planets move in accord with his three mathematical laws of motion, rather than in accord with the ancient model of the uni-

verse long thought to be accurate? The English mathematician and physicist Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the explanation. Newton showed that Kepler's three laws of planetary motion follow mathematically from a combination of three more general laws of motion plus a law describing a universal attractive force, which he named “universal gravitation.” Newton expressed all four laws in precise mathematical equations, thus producing a mathematical model of the universe. Sir Roger Penrose

of Cambridge University, one of the greatest mathematicians alive today, writes

INTERLUDE

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

THE

BIRTH

OF

MODERN

SCIENCE

321

that Newton “uncovered the mathematical underpinnings of the physical world, a mathematical substructure under-

neath physical reality.’> Newton actually discovered the calculus while searching for a way to express his discoveries in exact mathematical form. His life’s work ranks among the

greatest accomplishments in the history of science.

I. Bernard Cohen, a noted historian of science, writes:

The publication of Isaac Newton’s

[The Mathematical

Principles of Natural Philosophy] in 1687 was one of the

most notable events in the whole history of physical science. In it one may find the culmination of thousands of

years of striving to comprehend the system of the world,

the principles of force and of motion, and the physics of bodies moving in different media. It is no small testimony to the vitality of Newton’s scientific genius that although the physics

of the Principia has been altered,

Figure 11-9. Victorian-era engraving of Francis

improved, and challenged ever since, we still set about Bacon (1561-1626), by J. Pofselwhite from a solving most problems of celestial mechanics and the picture by J. Houbraken in 1738. physics of gross bodies proceeding essentially as Newton did some 300 years ago. And if this is not enough to satisfy the canons of great-

ness, Newton was equally great as a pure mathematician. He invented the differential and integral calculus (produced simultaneously by the German

philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz), which is the language of physics; he developed the binomial theorem and various properties of infinite series; and he laid the foundations for the calculus of variations. In optics Newton began the experimental study of the analysis and composition of light, showing that white light is a mixture of light of many colors, each having a characteristic index of

refraction. Upon these researches have risen the science of spectroscopy and the methods of color analysis. Newton invented the reflecting telescope and so

showed astronomers how to transcend the limitations of telescopes built of lenses. All in all, it was a fantastic scientific achievement—of a kind that has never been equaled.*

NOTES

1. The quadrant measured the Sun’s meridian altitude at specific times, and the triquetrum measured the altitudes of the other heavenly bodies.

2.

Ana priori argument is an argument containing one or more premises justified a priori. We exam-

3. 4.

ined a priori justification in chapter 6. Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford, 1989), 150. I. Bernard Cohen, The Birth ofa New Physics (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1960), 152-1583.

Chapter 12 Explorations in Deductive Reasoning: Categorical Logic

CATEGORICAL

LOGIC

is the branch of logic that treats categorical arguments.

Recall that a categorical sentence relates one category of things to another category of things by asserting that all, some, or none of one category of things either belong to, or do not belong to, a second category of things. Essentially, a categorical argument is a deductive argument composed of categorical sentences, in which a conclusion about one category of things is drawn on the basis of information about one or more other categories of things. The following is a categorical argument that might have been used in class by Aristotle himself, the founder of logic and the first to write a systematic textbook on categorical logic:

1. All Greeks are human beings. 2. Some Greeks are Spartans. 3. Therefore, some human beings are Spartans. In this argument, the terms Greeks, human beings, and Spartans refer to groups or categories of things, while the words all and some specify the quantities of things in those categories. The first premise of this argument indicates that all the members of the

Greeks category belong to the category of human beings, the second premise says that some members of the Greeks category belong to the Spartans category,

and so on. Categorical logic was the first of the specialized branches of logical theory to

be systematically developed in written form and taught in the classroom; it re-

mains an important part of the logic curriculum today. Amazingly, the fundamental principles of this branch of logic have changed little since they were first discovered and stated by Aristotle. Although he was starting from scratch with no previous discoveries to build on, Aristotle produced an impressive body of principles that have withstood the test of time well.! The principles of logic that we will examine in this chapter are useful because we reason about categories of things, and about the relations between Figure 12-01. Ancient

statue of Aristotle (384-322 sce) located at his birthplace in Stageira, Greece.

categories of things, all the time. Categorical reasoning is especially prevalent

in the law, where legal rules are carefully written to apply to all the members of one category of things but to no members of another category, only to some members of a further category, and so on. It is also employed in math and the 322

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

sciences when relations between various categories of things must be stated with great precision. We begin with the building blocks and then put the basic elements together from there.

WHY BOTHER? Studying the principles of logic, for a critical thinker, is like working out in the gym,

for an athlete. Not only is the study of logic an excellent workout for your brain, it sharpens your ability to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning and (as noted previously) improves your ability to present good arguments of your own. Working out ina “logic gym” (such as this chapter) will therefore sharpen your general reasoning abilities: one more reason the study of logic and the study of critical thinking go hand in hand. The study of categorical logic also has a side benefit. Many academic subjects today are highly technical. Logical theory is also highly technical, involving exact definitions and procedures as precise as any in mathematics. The study of categorical logic thus gives you experience learning a technical subject, which can prepare you to study other technical subjects in college. This is one reason the study of logic is often called a “gateway class” for the study of mathematics and other technical disciplines.

“By reflecting on thoughts, we can notice which methods are used when reasoning well and which cause mistakes. We can then form rules based on these reflections to avoid being caught off guard in the future. This ... is logic: a light capable of dissipating all the darkness of the mind.” —Antoine Arnauld, seventeenth-century French logician”

CATEGORICAL

SENTENCES

There are four basic patterns or forms that a categorical sentence might follow:

1. State that all the members of one category belong to a second category; for example, “All cats belong to the category of mammals,” or simply, “All cats are mammals.” 2. State that none of one category belong to a second category; for example, “No cats belong to the category of fish,” or simply, “No cats are fish.” 3. State that some members of one category belong to a second category; for example, “Some cats belong to the category of pets,” or simply, “Some cats are pets.” 4. State that some members of one category do not belong to a second category; for example, “Some cats do not belong to the category of pets,” or simply, “Some cats are not pets.” Let’s examine each of these patterns in turn.

LOGIC

323

324

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

1. All S are P Our example of this pattern is, “All cats are mammals.” Aristotle broke this type of categorical sentence down into four parts, named as follows: The The The The

quantifier: subject term: copula: predicate term:

All cats are mammals

Let S and P be variables standing for categories of things. The logical form of this type of sentence is All S are P, where S stands for the subject term and P stands for the predicate term. In general, the subject term of a sentence states what the sentence is about; the predicate term says something about the subject. The subject term in this case (cats) refers to a category or class of things—the category of cats. The predicate term (mammals) also denotes a category or class—in this case the class of mammals.

The word all is called a quantifier because it tells us the quantity of things in the sub-

ject category—the category named in the subject of the sentence—that are said to belong to the predicate category, that is, the category named in the predicate. The word are is called the copula because it joins, or “couples,” the subject to the predicate. In this case the quantifier (all) teams up with the copula (are) to assert that all the members of the subject category belong to the predicate category, which is to say, in this case, that every cat is included within the mammal category. But what does included within mean? A member of category A is included within category B if the member of A is also a member of B. If every member of category A also belongs to category B, then we can say that category A is included within category B. For instance, the category of cats is included within the category of mammals, the category of roses is included within the category of plants, and so on. Thus, the sentence “All cats are mammals” asserts that all the members of the subject category (cats) are included within the predicate category (mammals), which is to say that every cat belongs to the mammal category. In other words, every cat isa mammal. 2. No S are P Our example of this second way to form a categorical sentence is “No cats are fish.” This sentence asserts that no member of the subject category (cats) belongs to the predicate category (fish), which is to say that all the members of the subject category are excluded from the predicate category. In general, a member of category A is excluded from category B if the member of A is not a member of B, that is, does not belong to B. No

cats

are

quantifier

subject term

copula

tf

fish.

predicate term

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

The word no counts as a quantifier because it states the quantity of things in the subject

category that also belong to the predicate category, namely, the quantity zero.

3. Some S are P “Some aardvarks are pets” asserts that some members of the subject category (aardvarks) are included within the predicate category (pets). But what exactly does the word some mean? This seemingly innocent little word turns out, on close inspection, to be ambiguous. A definition is needed to make things more precise. Two interpretations are possible: 1. Some can mean “one or more but not all.” 2. Some can mean “one or more,” that is, “at least one.” Aristotle chose the second meaning, and it has become the standard in logic. Thus, in standard categorical logic, the word some shall mean “one or more,” which means the same as “at least one.”

Some

aardvarks

are

quantifier

subject term

copula

rf

pets.

predicate term

This sentence says that at least one aardvark is a pet. 4. Some S are not P “Some aardvarks are not pets” says that some (one or more) members of the subject class are not included in the predicate class; that is, one or more aardvarks do not belong to the class of pets.

Some

aardvarks

are not

quantifier

subject term

copula

rf

pets.

predicate term

Quantity and Quality Aristotle discovered that every categorical sentence has a quantity and a quality. The quantity is universal if the sentence makes a claim about every member of the subject term category, and the quantity is particular if the sentence makes a claim about some members of the category denoted by the subject term. Thus, a sentence such as, “All snakes are reptiles” is a universal sentence because it

makes a claim about every member of the subject category. But a sentence such as, “No

birds are mammals” is also universal, for it, too, makes a claim about every member of its subject category, namely, that every bird is not a mammal. In contrast, statements such as “Some cats are pets” and “Some cats are not pets” are obviously particular be-

cause they talk about some of the subject category.

LOGIC

325

326

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The quality is affirmative if the copula affirms membership in the predicate category, and the quality is negative if it denies membership in the predicate group. For example, “All aardvarks are mammals’ is affirmative, because the copula tells us the members of the subject category are included within the predicate category. “Some cats are pets” is also affirmative, for it, too, says members of the subject group belong to the predicate group. However, the sentence “Some cats are not pets” is negative, since the copula denies membership in the predicate category (“Some cats do not belong to the pet category”). Thus: 1. Sentences of the form “All S are P” are both universal and affirmative. They are therefore universal affirmative sentences. 2. Sentences of the form “No S are P” are both universal and negative. These are universal negative sentences.

3. Sentences of the form “Some S are P” are both particular and affirmative. These are particular affirmative sentences. 4. Sentences of the form “Some S are not P” are both particular and negative. These are particular negative sentences.

During the Middle Ages, when most of the cutting-edge research in logical theory was conducted in the cathedral schools of Europe, Latin was the universal language of scholarship. It has become customary since that period to label the two affirmative

forms A and I (from the first two vowels of the Latin word affirmo, which means “I affirm”) and to label the two negative forms E and O (from the two vowels in the Latin word nego, which means “I deny”). Thus, the standard table:

Type

Quantity/Quality

Logical Form

A E I 0

Universal Universal Particular Particular

All S No S Some Some

Affirmative Negative Affirmative Negative

are P. are P. S are P. S are not P.

Notice that the content of the various categorical sentences has now dropped away, and our focus is on pure logical forms of the sentences alone: form without content.

Exercise 12.1

Classify each sentence as A, E, I, or O. Also state the quantity and quality in each case. Greek subjects are used in honor of Aristotle. 1. All adult male Spartans are highly trained soldiers. 2. No Athenian citizens are Spartans.

SOPNADNMAY

CHAPTER12

1

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

Some Athenians are not philosophers. No students of Socrates are professional Sophists.

Some Athenians are farmers. All No All All No

philosophers are logicians. Spartan warriors are philosophers. logicians at Aristotle’s school are philosophers. priests who work at the temple at Delphi are professionals. hoplites serving in the Athenian infantry are logic teachers.

REALITY CHECK: TRANSLATING COMMON SENTENCES OF ENGLISH INTO STANDARD CATEGORICAL FORM You probably noticed that the categorical sentences examined so far all sound stiff and rigid. “Some cats are mammals,” “Some dogs are pets,” “No cats are reptiles,” and so on.

The common feature, of course, is that each exactly fits (and thus illustrates) one of the

four standardized forms, “All S are P,” “No S are P,” and so on. We don’t speak this way in ordinary life, however. There is a reason for this discrepancy. The English language is flexible, which means that in most cases it allows us to say something in many different ways. How-

ever, this flexibility raises a problem for a logical theory that aims to be systematic

and universal. If we want to formulate precise rules that hold universally, which has

been logic’s goal since the beginning, we must specify rules so that they apply to specifically identified sentences fitting a limited number of exact forms. It is possible to formulate rules that fit any sentence, no matter what its form, but given the in-

credible variety of English sentences (or sentences in any other language, for that matter), rules that would apply to any sentence in any form would be rules too complex to be useful. Sentences written in standardized forms have the virtue of being clearer and are freer of emotional overtones. It is easier to reason about such sentences.

To make matters as precise as possible, let’s say that a categorical sentence is in

standard form if the following are true:

1. It begins with a quantifier, and the quantifier is either all, no, or some. 2. The subject term (designating the subject class) appears next, and it designates or

names a class or category of things (cats, mammals, etc.). 3. The copula (relating the subject and predicate terms) appears next and is either the word are or the words are not. 4. The predicate term (designating the predicate class) appears last, and it names or designates a class or category of things.

LOGIC

327

328

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Although few sentences in everyday English fit this rigid standard format, most can be translated into this format without loss of essential logical meaning. We shall consider some common cases.

Sentences with Nonstandard Predicates The subject and predicate terms of a standard categorical statement must each be a noun that denotes a class or category of things. Thus, the sentence “Some roses are red” is not in standard form, since its predicate term is an adjective (red), and adjectives do not by themselves name groups of things (they denote characteristics of things). In everyday life, we often state categorical sentences that have adjectives as their predicate terms, but this is easy to fix. If the predicate term is only an adjective, we can change the adjective to a noun ora noun-like expression referring to a class or category of things. For example, ifwe rewrite “Some roses are red” as “Some roses are red flowers,” then the sentence fits the standard form, for red flowers names a class of things. In general, then, ifa statement has an adjectival predicate, replace this predicate with a term naming the class of all objects of which the adjective may truly be predicated. Study the following examples closely:

Nonstandard

Standard

All tigers are carnivorous. All deer are fleeing the fire. All students are striking. Some aardvarks are cute. All cars are metallic.

All tigers are carnivorous animals. All deer are things that are fleeing the fire. All students are persons who are striking. Some aardvarks are cute animals. All cars are metallic things.

Sentences with Missing and Nonstandard Quantifiers

A categorical sentence in standard form begins with either all, no, or some. Therefore, a plain sentence such as “Mammals are animals” or “A dog is in the room’ is not in standard form. The problem, of course, is that these sentences are missing a quantifier. This can easily be fixed by simply adding a quantifier to each one. But which quantifier? To decide, think about what the author probably intends, and then add the quantifier the author probably intended. For example, a universal quantifier is normally intended when a quantifier is left unstated ina blanket sentence such as “Mammals are animals.” Why? It is a matter of common sense that all mammals are animals. Following the principle of charity, we assume the author possesses common sense, and we suppose she meant “All mammals are animals.” We therefore rewrite the sentence and place the universal quantifier all at the front. Suppose someone says, “A dog is in the room.” It is common sense that there are millions of dogs in the world and that no room could contain them all. Consequently, when we interpret this sentence, we assume the author has common sense, and we do not suppose she means to say that all dogs are in the room. We add the intended quantifier and rewrite the sentence as “Some dogs are in the room.” Of course, the predicate of

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

this sentence also needs work. Best to render the sentence, “Some dogs are animals that are in the room.” Here are some further examples:

Nonstandard

Standard

A tiger is a mammal. A fish is not a mammal. Emeralds are green.

All tigers are mammals. No fish are mammals. All emeralds are green things.

A whale is a beautiful creature.

All whales are beautiful creatures.

Recall that in logic the word some means “at least one” or “one or more.” Many ordinary sentences start with most, few, and at least one, rather than the word some. Such sentences need to be rewritten with the quantifier some replacing nonstandard quantifiers such as most, many, few, and so on. Any quantity less than all is best translated as some.” Thus:

Nonstandard Quantifier

Standard Interpretation

Most cats are cute.

Some cats are cute animals.

Few aardvarks are handsome. At least one platypus is cute.

Some aardvarks are handsome animals. Some platypuses are cute animals.

Several pigs are smart.

Some pigs are smart animals.

Many bears are timid. There are bears in the woods. A tiger roared.

Some bears are timid animals. Some bears are animals in the woods. Some tigers are animals that roared.

Missing or Nonstandard Copulas

The copula connects (couples) the subject and predicate terms. In standard form, the only copulas allowed are the words are and are not. Consider the sentence “All mice eat cheese.” This sentence obviously is meant to express a universal affirmative statement. However,

the sentence does not contain are or are not. To place this sentence into standard form, we rewrite the predicate term so as to preserve the meaning of the original sentence while at the same time using the copula are: “All mice are cheese-eaters.” In other words, all mice belong to the category of cheese-eating creatures. For another example, “All hens lay eggs” is not in standard form since it lacks a proper copula. Adding the copula are and making suitable adjustments produces: “All hens are egg-laying animals.” There are many other nonstandard copulas. To standardize such sentences, we re-

write them so that they contain are or are not. Thus, “Some dogs shake hands” becomes “Some dogs are animals that shake hands.” And “Some persons who become educated” turns into “Some persons who go to college are become educated.” Similarly, “Some dogs bite” needs to be rewritten animals that bite.” The nonstandard “All ducks swim” becomes “All

go to college will persons who will as “Some dogs are ducks are animals

that swim.” Finally, “Some birds fly south for the winter” can be rewritten as “Some birds are animals that fly south for the winter.” Study these examples carefully to see

LOGIC

329

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

the way sentences can be translated from ordinary English into standard categorical form without loss of meaning.

Exercise 12.2 Instructions are given in context.

me

ao

oe

1. Translate the following colloquial statements into standard A statements: Any drop of seawater is salty. Any critical thinker accepts criticism calmly and rationally.

Teenagers are naturally rebellious.

Whoever worships regularly at the Temple of Athena is religious. Any moral person is a rational person. Any rational person is a moral person.

FP

ae

Olives are a good source of cooking oil. ranslate the following loose statements into exact E statements:

Any irrational person is a person who does not accept criticism calmly.

oe

PaO

Any self-realized person is not an irrational person. Any person who is a user is not a moral person. Rocks are not a good source of cooking oil. Human beings are not naturally selfish. 3. Translate the following statements into standard I statements: There are moral warriors. Most kings are tyrants.

4.

Ge

mean

Some kings are tolerant. Several citizens voted. A few philosophers drink wine. Several people saw smoke. There are some sacred places. ranslate the following statements into precise O statements: There are dishonest politicians. There are critical thinkers who aren't artists.

aap

UNIT4

me

330

Most logicians are not astronomers.

Many logicians don’t own a spear. Most logicians aren’t rich. Some places are not sacred.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM Aristotle divided categorical arguments into several basic types and studied them all. However, he devoted a great deal of his attention to one specific kind of categorical argument, which he named the “categorical syllogism.” A categorical syllogism has all the following properties: 1. Itis composed of exactly two premises and one conclusion—all categorical statements. 2. Each sentence in the argument contains exactly two terms—no more, no less. 3. The argument as a whole contains exactly three different terms, each appearing exactly twice in the argument. 4.

Noterm appears twice in the same sentence.

The following argument is an example: 1. All whales are swimmers. 2. All whales are mammals. 3. Therefore, some mammals are swimmers.

The three terms are whales, swimmers, and mammals. Notice that, given the definition of a categorical syllogism (hereafter, “syllogism” for short), each term appears in only two of the syllogism’s sentences. Aristotle discovered that what makes a categorical syllogism valid, when it is valid, is not its content; that is, what it is about. Rather, what makes it valid is its abstract form or logical structure—something that has nothing intrinsically to do with the subject matter at all, or indeed with any particular subject matter. The logical form is a pure logical structure—pure in the sense of being unsullied by direct contact with objects of the material world. If categorical logic is to be comprehensive and exact, a form must be specified for every possible type of categorical syllogism. All 256 types, as it turned out. However, a number of technical words must be defined before we can specify categorical argument forms with precision. Middle, Major, and Minor Terms and Standard Form The term appearing in both premises (and thus not in the conclusion) is called the

middle term. The predicate term of the conclusion is called the major term. The term appearing as the subject of the conclusion is the minor term. The major premise is the premise containing the major term, and the minor premise is the premise containing the minor term. In the following example, animals is the major term, snakes is the minor term, and pets is the middle term.

1. All pets are animals. 2. Some snakes are pets. 3. So, necessarily, some snakes are animals.

LOGIC

331

332

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

A categorical syllogism is in standard form if the major premise is listed first, followed

by the minor premise, and finally the conclusion.

“Logic proceeds by syllogisms in an orderly progression from principles simple and evident, to the most remote and complicated conclusions. Its inherent reasons remain perpetually the same, firm and durable, and cannot be confuted. She reminds you of the invisible form of the soul. She gives light to her own discoveries. She awakens the mind and purifies the intellect. She brings light to our intrinsic ideas. She abolishes oblivion and ignorance which are ours by birth.’”—Proclus Diadochus, fifth-century Byzantine logician®

Medieval Game Show: “Name That Form!” During the Middle Ages, logicians assigned Latin names

to the fifteen forms of

syllogism first proved valid by Aristotle. These syllogisms were arranged into four groups known as “figures.” The exact logical form for a syllogism is specified by giving the type (A, E, I, or O) for each sentence followed by the number of the syllogism’s figure. SYLLOGISMS

OF FIGURE

1

Ina syllogism in figure 1, the middle term is the subject term in the major premise while being the predicate term in the minor premise. For example, AAA-1 signifies a figure 1 syllogism whose premises and conclusion all are A (universal affirmative) sentences.

Name

Logical Form

Barbara

AAA-1:

ALL M are P; all S are M. So, all S are P.

Celarent Darii

EAE-1: AII-1:

No M are P; all S are M. So, no S are P. All M are P; some S are M. So, some S are P.

EIO-1:

No Mare

Ferio FIGURE

P; some S are M. So, some S are not P.

2

Ina syllogism in figure 2, the middle term is the predicate term in both premises. Cesare

EAE-2:

No P are M; all S are M. So, no S

Camestres

AEE-2:

AIlP are M; no S are M. So, no S are P.

Festino

EIO-2:

No P are M; some S are M. So, some S

Baroco

AOO-2:

All P are M; some S are not M. So, some S are not P.

FIGURE

are P. are not P.

3

Ina syllogism in figure 3, the middle term is the subject term in both premises. Darapti

AAI-3:

AIL M are P; all M are S. So, some S are P.

Disamis

TAI-3:

Some M are P; all M are S. So, some S are P.

CHAPTER12

Datisi Felapton Bocardo Ferison

AII-3: EAO-3: OAO-3: EIO-3:

ALL M No M Some No M

EXPLORATIONS

are P; are P; M are are P;

some M are all M are S. not P; all M some M are

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

S. So, some S are P. So, some S are not P. are S. So, some S are not P. S. So, some S are not P.

After Aristotle’s death, his successors at the Lyceum studied syllogisms in the overlooked fourth figure and showed that the following forms are valid. FIGURE 4

In a syllogism in figure 4, the middle term is the predicate term in the major premise and the subject term in the minor premise.

Bramantip Camenes Dimaris Fesapo Fresison

AAI-4: AEE-4: IAI-4: EAO-4: EIO-4:

All P ALL P Some No P

are M; are M; P are are M;

all no M; all

M are S. Mare S. all M are M are S.

So, some S are P. So, no S are P. S. So, some S are P. So, some S are not P.

No P are M; some M are S. So, some S

are not P.

Medieval Logician Rap Artists Incidentally, the Latin names were not chosen arbitrarily. The vowels in each name, and the order in which the vowels appear, match the letters assigned to the propositions in the logical form, in the order in which they appear in the form. For example, the vowels in Darii remind us that it is an AII syllogism, the vowels in Celarent reminds us the syllogism is EAE, and so on. In medieval times, these names were incorporated into a clever little mnemonic rhyming chant that the monks would sing in class to memorize the forms Aristotle had proved valid. Medieval logic class must have been brutal!

“The laws of logic are the most general laws, which prescribe universally the way in which one ought to think if one is to think at all.’ Gottlob Frege, nineteenth-century German mathema-

tician and logician*

Exercise 12.3

Using just common sense and your innate reasoning ability, complete these syllogisms in such a way that each is valid: 1.

1. 2. 3.

Allcatsare Some So, some

are pets. are

LOGIC

333

CRITERIA

2.

3.

4.

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

1. 2. 3. 1.

All are No mammals are are So, no are pets. Some

2.

No

3. 1.

So, some Some cats are

2.

No

3.

So, some

are

are not

are insects.

are not

Exercise 12.4

Bed re

True or False?

Aristotle is the founder of categorical logic. Every categorical sentence is either an A, E, I, or O sentence. The copula joins the subject and the predicate.

The subject term in a standard form categorical is always the name of a group of

things. 5. Every properly formed categorical sentence has a subject term and a predicate term.

PND

1

Every properly formed categorical sentence contains one copula. The two standard copulas are “are” and “are not.” The word every is a standard universal quantifier. The word many is a standard particular quantifier.

A categorical sentence is defined as a sentence that is definitely true.

Exercise 12.5 Multiple Choice

oP

1. The A sentence is universal and universal and particular and particular and

affirmative negative affirmative negative

e E sentence is

universal and universal and particular and particular and 3. The I sentence is a. universal and b. universal and

BOSP

4

SO

UNIT

& Hao

334

affirmative negative affirmative negative affirmative negative

CHAPTER12

c. particular and affirmative d. particular and negative 4. The O sentence is a. universal and affirmative b. universal and negative c. particular and affirmative d. particular and negative 5. Acategorical syllogism has

a.

one

b. c. d.

two three four

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

premises.

TESTING FOR VALIDITY USING VENN DIAGRAMS Aristotle developed a system of proof, similar to that found in geometry, for proving syllogisms valid. His method, however, is difficult to use and will not concern us here. He also discovered a set of exact rules that can be used to determine, also with mathe-

matical precision, whether a categorical syllogism is valid or invalid. Although his system of rules is simpler to use, we will pass it by in favor of an even more congenial

method for showing validity and invalidity for categorical syllogisms. (Aristotle’s system of rules is, however, summarized in an appendix to this chapter.)

In the nineteenth century, the English logician and philosopher John Venn (18341923) revolutionized categorical logic by inventing a radically new way to test categori-

cal syllogisms for validity and invalidity. Venn’s method allows us to visually represent the information content of categorical sentences in such a way that we can actually see the relations between the sentences of a syllogism. This, in turn, allows us to determine

validity and invalidity visually simply by looking at a diagram. When matters get extremely complex, it is always nice when we can draw a picture. This was an enormous

leap forward for logical theory.

A Venn diagram is a set of overlapping circles, with each circle standing for a category or class of things, and with the circles arranged so as to display the logical relationships between the categories represented. A Venn diagram for a single categorical statement has two overlapping circles, one standing for the category named by the subject term and one representing the category named by the predicate term, producing four distinct areas, or regions. To illustrate, consider “All As are Bs.” For clarity, we shall adopt the convention of numbering each region from the left side. The A circle represents all the things in the universe that are A, while the B circle represents all the things that are B. If the As are aardvarks, the A circle represents all

LOGIC

335

336

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

aardvarks; if the Bs are brown things, then the B brown, and so forth. Thus: Region Region Region Region

1 2 3 4

represents things represents things represents things (the area outside

circle represents all the things that are

that are A, but not B. that are both A and B. that are B, but not A. the circles) represents everything that is neitherA nor B.

Next, information is entered into a Venn diagram in three ways: we shade an area to in-

dicate that the area is empty. (Note that in many math contexts using Venn diagrams, shad-

ing means the opposite; i.e., that the quadrant is full.) We place an X in an area to say that the area contains at least one thing. In addition, we will adopt the following convention: If two areas have been defined and we know that something exists in one of the two areas but we do not know which of the two areas contains the item, we straddle the line, that is, we will place the X directly on the line separating the two areas. An X straddling a line will therefore indicate that (a) an item exists on one side or the other of the line but (b) the avail-

able information does not tell us which side of the line contains the entity in question.

The Aristotelian Assumption The system of principles of categorical logic developed by Aristotle rested on a nonobvious assumption, namely, the assumption that the subject terms of categorical state-

ments refer to actually existing things. This assumption is known in logic as the existential assumption. It is also called the “Aristotelian assumption,” the “traditional assumption,” and the “assumption of existential import.”

A statement is said to have existential import if its subject term refers to one or more actually existing things. A statement lacks existential import if its subject term does not refer to one or more actually existing things. For example, the statement “All unicorns are magical flying creatures” obviously lacks existential import because unicorns do not actually exist. We say that the subject term in this case (unicorns) is an empty term because the category it refers to does not contain any actually existing entities. In contrast, the statement “Some cats are pets” has existential import because

at least one cat exists. The term cats is thus not an empty term. Aristotle thus assumed that all categorical statements under consideration have existential import—they are all about existing things. We will say more about this assumption in a moment.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

Venn Diagrams for Particular Statements A particular statement is only true when its terms refer to one or more actually existing things, Using obvious abbreviations (A for “aardvarks,” etc.), the Venn diagram for the I statement “Some aardvarks are mammals” therefore looks like this:

A

M

You might find it helpful to imagine all the aardvarks in the universe rounded up and rooting around for ants inside the first circle—the A circle. Likewise, imagine all the mammals in the universe collected and resting inside the second circle—the M circle. The X indicates that there is at least one thing existing in the part of the aardvark region that overlaps with the mammal region. That is, some aardvarks are mammals. Notice that we did not put an X in region 3. Independent of the diagram, we might know that there are creatures in region 3—there are mammals that are not aardvarks—but the I statement does not tell us this, and we wish to diagram only the information the statement gives, and nothing more. Region 3 therefore gets no X. The following is the Venn diagram for the O sentence “Some cats are not pets”:

Region 1 represents things that are cats but not pets, region 2 represents cats that are pets, and region 3 represents pets that are not cats. The X tells us there is at least one thing “inside” area 1.

Caution If no X or shading appears in an area, this does not say that nothing exists in the area; rather, it indicates that nothing is known of the area. It only means we have no information about the area. Thus, for all we know, the area might be empty, or it might contain one or more things.

LOGIC

337

338

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The Existential versus the Hypothetical Viewpoints Before we draw Venn diagrams for universal sentences, an important decision must be made. Recall Aristotle’s existential assumption: the subject terms of all categorical sentences under consideration refer to existing things. In the nineteenth century, the mathematician and logician George Boole (1815-1864) asked an important question: What happens to categorical logic if we drop Aristotle’s assumption and do not suppose that subject terms of universal sentences refer to existing entities? (The subject

terms of true particular sentences obviously refer to existing entities.) Boole discovered that a perfectly consistent system of principles can be formulated without making

the existential assumption, and moreover, the new system seemed to fit better with the

logical needs of the latest scientific theories. Boole thus developed a new way to interpret universal categorical sentences with respect to existence: we can, without contra-

diction, drop the existential assumption. If we do not presuppose that the subject term denotes or refers to actually existing things when we interpret a universal sentence, we

are taking the hypothetical viewpoint viewpoint”).

(also called the “Boolean”

or “modern

In contrast, if we interpret a categorical sentence on the basis of the existential, or Aristotelian, assumption, we are taking the existential viewpoint (also called the “Aristotelian” or “traditional viewpoint”) with respect to the sentence. A universal statement can thus be interpreted from either the Aristotelian or the Boolean standpoint, by assuming that the subject term either does, or does not, refer to actually existing things. (Again, particular statements always presuppose the existential or Aristotelian standpoint.) Back to Venn. When developing his system of circles, Venn went with Boole and dropped the existential assumption. In our presentation, we will sometimes follow Venn and drop the existential assumption. In these cases, our diagram will reflect the

modern or Boolean interpretation of universal sentences. In other cases, we will assume the Aristotelian standpoint.

From the Boolean standpoint, a universal sentence such as “All unicorns are white animals,” is understood as asserting “If there ever were to be any unicorns (and we are

not saying that there are), then they would all be white animals.” Similarly, on the hypothetical or Boolean viewpoint, to say that “All vampires are bloodsuckers” is just to say that vampires (if they were to exist) would be bloodsuckers. In Favor of the Boolean Interpretation The Boolean interpretation makes sense because we often assert a universal statement

without assuming that the subject term refers to existing things. For instance, a teacher writes in her syllabus, “All students who receive anA on each of their tests are students who will receive an A for the course.” She means it, but her statement does not presup-

pose that there actually will be any students who receive an A on each of their tests. It might be that the top student will receive all As except for one B. The statement is

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

made, but there is no assumption that the subject term refers to actually existing individuals. Furthermore, modern mathematical physics contains universal statements that lack existential import. Galileo proved formulas about bodies moving on frictionless surfaces, but no frictionless surfaces actually exist (or even can exist). Einstein discovered one of his most important theories, the special theory of relativity, by asking himself, “What

would happen if a material body were to travel at the speed of light?” Yet a body traveling

at the speed of light is a physical impossibility; no body actually has, or ever will do so, for

it would violate the laws of physics. Einstein’s hypothetical lacks existential import.

Venn Diagrams for Universal Statements We are now ready to diagram universal statements. On the Boolean interpretation, the Venn diagram for the A statement “All cats are mammals,” looks like this:

Because we are not assuming existential import, no X was added to the circle for the

subject category cats. No X was needed in the cat circle because we were not assuming that the category referred to by the subject term cats has any actual members.

The corresponding universal negative or E statement in this case, assuming the Boolean interpretation, is understood as asserting, “Nothing is a cat and a mammal,” or “No cats are mammals.” The Venn diagram looks like this:

LOGIC

339

340

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

On the Aristotelian assumption of existential import, the Venn diagrams for the two universal categorical sentence forms look like this: All cats are mammals:

No

cats are mammals:

Notice the way an X was added to record the Aristotelian assumption in each case.

Venn-Testing Categorical Syllogisms Recall that a categorical syllogism has two premises and a conclusion. A

set of three interlocking Venn circles can be drawn to represent the information content and logical structure of an entire categorical syllogism. Once the diagram is drawn, we can determine, just from a visual inspection of the circles, whether or not the argument is valid. ‘The first step is to set up the circles correctly. In the following example, S stands for the minor term, P stands for the major term, and M stands for the middle term. The circle

labeled S represents the category of things referred to by the minor term, circle P repre-

sents the category of things referred to by the major term, and circle M represents the

category of things referred to by the middle term.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

To represent all the logical possibilities, the Venn circles must overlap to form the seven different areas numbered by convention shown here. Each of these areas, starting in order from the top, and dropping down and moving from left to right as one would read an English text, represents a different class of things:

Area 1: Anything here is an M, but not an S, and not a P. Area 2: Anything here is an S and an M, but not a P. Area 3: Anything here is an S, a P, and an M.

Area 4: Anything here is a P and an M, but not an S. Area 5: Anything here is an S, but not an M and not a P. Area 6: Anything here is an S and a P, but not an M. Area 7: Anything here is a P, but not an S, and not an M. Area 8: Things out here would be neither P, S, nor M.

Once your circles are in place, the following general procedure allows you to test a cat-

egorical syllogism for validity. It’s an easy technique, but be careful with step 7—it has some very specific demands.

The Venn Diagram Test for Categorical Syllogisms

1. Abbreviate the argument, replacing (consistently) each term with a single capital letter and retaining the quantifier and copula of each statement. (Example: “Some gems are not green rubies” becomes “Some G are not R.”) By convention we place the conclusion last. 2. Draw three overlapping circles, one for each term, to form seven distinct regions. 3. Label the circles using the three capital letters chosen (use the predicate term of the conclusion for the lower right circle, the subject term of the conclusion for the lower left circle, and the middle term for the middle circle). 4. Enter the information for both premises and stop. Enter only the information for the premises; do not enter information for the conclusion. If the argument contains only

LOGIC

341

342

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

one universal premise, enter its information first. Ifthe argument contains two univer-

sal premises or two particular premises, either premise can be entered first. This step

requires a decision before you proceed: Are you assuming the Aristotelian or the Bool-

ean standpoint? Make your choice and keep it in mind as you move to the next step. a. When placing an X in an area, if one part of the area has been shaded, place the X in an unshaded part. b. When placing an X in an area, ifa circle’s line runs through the area, and our in-

formation does not tell us which side of the line gets the X, place the X directly on

the line. In other words, the X must straddle the line, hanging over both sides equally. Remember that an X straddling a line means that, for all we know, the individual represented by the X might be on either side of the line, or on both sides; in other words, it is not known which side of the line the X is actually on. Look at the two circles standing for the subject terms of your premises. If these

terms refer to existing things, then if there is only one region unshaded in either or both circles, place an X in that unshaded region (thereby presenting the existential viewpoint). If these terms refer to things that do not exist or that the arguer does not wish to assume exists, then you are finished and can go on to the next step. 5. Finally, use the following tests to determine if the argument is valid or invalid.

A categorical syllogism is valid if, when the information from the two premises has been entered into the diagram, visual inspection of the diagram reveals that the information content of the conclusion is represented as well. In other words, by diagramming only the premises, we have also represented the information found in the conclusion. Comment. This shows that the information contained in the conclusion is already present in the premises. Ina sense, the premises contain all the information presented in the conclusion. This in turn means that it would be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false—a sure sign that an argument is valid.

A categorical syllogism is invalid if, when we have diagrammed the information content of the premises, information must be added to the diagram to represent the information content of the conclusion. Comment. If the diagram for the premises does not contain all the information in the conclusion, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false; that is, the conclusion could be false even though the premises are true. In this case, the argument is invalid. Let’s begin with the Barbara (AAA-Figure 1) syllogism: 1. All mammals are warm-blooded creatures. 2. All aardvarks are mammals. 3. Therefore, all aardvarks are warm-blooded creatures.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

Our first step is to abbreviate the argument, placing the conclusion at the bottom: 1. All M are W. 2. ALLA are M. 3. ALLA are W.

Second, we draw the three overlapping circles. For step 3 we label the circles:

The subject term of the conclusion, A, is at the lower left. The predicate term of the conclusion, W, is at the lower right. The middle term, M, is above and to the middle. Because both premises are universal, we can enter them into the diagram in either order. We'll adopt the Aristotelian assumption in this example. The major premise tells us that all M are W. That is, no M are not W. In terms of the diagram, this indicates that all of the M circle that is outside the W circle is empty. Therefore, the part of the M circle that is outside the W circle must be shaded to indicate that it is empty.

LOGIC

343

344

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

We will assume that at least one mammal exists. However, we will wait to enter the X for this assumption until after we enter the shading for the next premise. Next, we enter into the diagram the information from the other premise, “All A are M..” This premise asserts that all aardvarks belong to the class of mammals. That is, all of the members of the A circle are inside the M circle. To enter this information, we must shade the part of the A circle that lies outside the M circle, indicating that this area is empty.

A

Ww

We are assuming there are aardvarks. So, with the shading completed we look to see if

either circles M or A have only one region unmarked. We note that circle A has only one

region unmarked: region 3. Because we know that aardvarks exist, we record the existential viewpoint by placing an X in region 3, the only region on our diagram that can hold the little critters.

A

Ww

The terms represented by the other two circles also happen to refer to existing things. However, for circle M, there are two unmarked regions, and the premises do not tell us which region or regions contain mammals; and for circle W there are three unmarked regions, and the premises do not tell us which regions contain warm-blooded creatures.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

It would be guesswork on our part to place an X ina region in these cases. As it happens, if we placed one or more Xs on lines in these cases, it would not alter the final assessment of the argument as valid or invalid anyway. The preceding diagram represents the information contained in the premises. We purposely do not enter the information from the conclusion. Finally, we inspect the diagram to see if the information in the conclusion is already represented in the diagram of the premises. If it is, then the conclusion cannot possibly be false if the premises are true, which means the argument is valid. The conclusion “All A are W” indicates that all members of the class of A are also members of the class of W. That is, nothing in the A circle is not also in the W circle. And that is, indeed, exactly what our diagram indicates, for all sections of the A circle outside the W circle have been shaded. Nothing more would need to be added to our diagram to have it also repre-

sent the conclusion. The information content of the conclusion is already present in the premises. The conclusion would have to be true if the premises are true. The argument is therefore valid. Let’s Venn-test another categorical syllogism.

1. Some farmers are not happy individuals. 2. No happy individuals are greedy individuals. 3. So, some greedy individuals are farmers.

We again begin by abbreviating the argument. 1. Some F are not H. 2. NoH are G. 3.

Some G

are F.

Next we draw and label three overlapping circles.

LOGIC

345

346

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The next step is to enter the information from the second premise because it is the only one of the two that is universal. The premise tells us that no member of the H circle is amember

of the G circle. Consequently, we shade the part of the H circle that lies inside the G circle.

Next, the first premise indicates that some F are not H. To record this information, we place an X inside the F circle but outside the H circle. However, we must avoid

any shaded areas, for these areas are supposed to be empty. Where do we place our X? The remaining region is divided into two parts, and the premises do not indicate which of the two parts contains the X. In this case, we place the X squarely on the line between the two parts. We straddle the fence, so to speak. This indicates that, given the information in the premises, we do not know to which of the two areas X belongs.

To record the Aristotelian assumption, we place an X inside the unshaded part of the

H circle, indicating the existence of at least one happy person. Note that the first X took care of the assumption of at least one farmer. Because the remaining part of the H circle is divided into two parts, we place this X on the line dividing the parts.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

The conclusion claims that some greedy individuals are farmers, but the diagram of the premises does not guarantee this at all. The information content of the conclusion is therefore not contained within the diagram of the premises. It is therefore possible that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. The syllogism is invalid. Consider the following syllogism, which has already been abbreviated. 1. AUC are G. 2. Some Gare S. 3. Therefore, some S are C.

Let’s assume again that the subject terms refer to existing things. After drawing and labeling three overlapping circles, we diagram the universal premise first. It indicates that all members of the C class also belong to the G class. In terms of our diagram, this is to say that the area of the C circle that lies outside the G circle is therefore empty and is shaded.

LOGIC

347

348

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Next, the remaining premise indicates that at least one member of the G class is a member of the S class. We therefore place an X in a spot within the G circle that is also within the S circle. However, the area we are interested in is divided into two regions (2 and 3), and our premises do not tell us in which region to place our X. In sucha case, we place the X on the line between the two areas. This indicates that we do not know to which of the two regions the X belongs.

Step 6 of our procedure is complete. Moving to step 7, we recall our assumption for this example, that the terms refer to existing things. We therefore examine the Cand G circles to see if either needs an additional x. No additional x is needed. Our diagram is complete. For step 8, we note that the information conveyed by the conclusion (Some S are C) is not represented in the diagram. Given just the information in the premises, the conclusion is not guaranteed. This argument is therefore invalid. Consider the following already abbreviated EIO-3 syllogism. Let’s again assume that each term refers to existing things. 1. No S are F. 2. Some S are R.

3. Some R

are not F.

After drawing the gram the universal bers of the S circle that is inside the F

three circles and labeling them according to our convention, we diapremise. In terms of our diagram, this premise tells us that no memare also inside the F circle. We therefore shade the part of the S circle circle.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

For the next premise, we must place an X inside a part of the S circle that is also a part of the R circle.

Examining the diagram, we see that the information conveyed by the conclusion (Some Rare not F) is indeed represented (the X in region 2 represents an example of an R that is not an F). The argument is thus valid. Consider the following whimsical syllogism:

Some leprechauns are not rainbow

hunters because (1) all leprechauns are seekers of fortune; and (2) no seekers of fortune are rainbow hunters. Abbreviated, our syllogism looks like this: 1. AllL are S. 2. NoSareR. 3. Some L are not R.

LOGIC

349

350

UNIT4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

The corresponding diagram looks like this:

The next step asks us to decide whether the subject terms of the premises refer to existing things. In this case, they obviously do not. Thus, we will not even consider placing any additional existential Xs in the diagram. We thus now have a diagram conveying the information from the premises, assuming the hypothetical viewpoint. But the diagram does not contain the information conveyed by the conclusion. The argument is thus invalid. Our next syllogism comes already abbreviated. Let’s interpret it from the Aristotelian standpoint: 1.

Some A are K.

2. Some K are

not C.

3. So, some C are not A.

We draw three circles, label them, and note that because both premises are particular,

it really does not make any difference which we diagram first. The resulting diagram looks like this:

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

Diagramming the first premise, we wanted to place an X in the area where the A and K circles overlap but noted that a line cut that area into two quadrants. We thus placed the X right on the line, straddling both sides, indicating that the premise only tells us that there is something in region 3, region 4, or both. We just don’t know which side of the line the X is actually on, and so we hedge our bets by placing the X on the fence. For the second premise, we wanted to place an X in the K circle but outside the C circle; however, we noticed a line cutting the area into two regions, 1 and 4. Since we

have no information placing the X on one side or the other, we placed the X squarely on the line. Our diagram is complete. Unfortunately, the information entered does not convey the content of the conclusion. The argument is thus invalid. One final example will complete our demonstration:

1. Some abominable snowmen are icy personalities. 2. No icy personalities are cheerful chaps. 3. Thus, some abominable snowmen are not cheerful chaps. In symbol, this is: 1. Some A are I. 2. NolareC. 3. Some A are not C. Next we draw and label our circles and then diagram the premises.

A

c

Assuming that abominable snowmen do not exist, we do not place an additional existential X in the diagram. The diagram reveals that the information found in the conclusion is indeed found in the diagram; there is indeed an X in region 4, somewhere in the two-region area where A and C overlap. The argument is thus valid.

LOGIC

351

352

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

It is important to keep in mind that Venn diagrams do not tell us if the arguments under consideration are deductively sound or unsound. The Venn diagram test can only detect validity or invalidity. Assuming that abominable snowmen do not exist, our final syllogism is valid, but it is certainly not sound.‘

“Logic is not concerned with what we do believe, but with what we ought to believe, if we are to

believe correctly.’—John Venn, nineteenth-century British logician®

Exercise 12.6 Test these syllogisms for validity using Venn diagrams. 1. Some logicians are lawyers. All lawyers are extemporaneous speakers. So, some extemporaneous speakers are logicians. 2. All chariot racers are musicians. Some chariot racers are soldiers. Therefore, some musicians are soldiers. . All philosophers are lovers of truth. No lovers of truth are closed-minded people.

Thus, no philosophers are closed-minded people.

All goats are cute. All small mammals are cute. So, all small mammals are goats. . Some musicians are not poets. All musicians are happy persons. Therefore, some happy persons are not poets.

No soldiers are rich. No rich persons are poets. So, no soldiers are poets. No logicians are musicians. All musicians are artists. Consequently, no artists are logicians. Some politicians are idealistic persons. No idealistic persons are scientists. So, some scientists are not politicians. No scientists are poets. Some scientists are logicians. Therefore, some logicians are not poets.

10.

Some

actors

are sculptors.

Some

poets

are not

actors.

So,

some

sculptors.

Exercise 12.7

True or False?

1. Ina standard categorical syllogism, the minor term appears twice. 2. Ina standard categorical syllogism, the major term appears once.

poets

are not

SOPNADNMAY

CHAPTER12

1

11. 12. 13. 14. 1S.

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING : CATEGORICAL

Some properly formed categorical syllogisms have no middle term. Some properly formed categorical syllogisms contain three premises. Some standard categorical syllogisms contain two conclusions. No standard categorical syllogism contains three premises. No standard categorical syllogism contains just one premise. A syllogism is a deductive argument. Every categorical syllogism contains exactly three statements. Every categorical syllogism contains exactly three terms. Every categorical syllogism has two premises. Every categorical syllogism has a major term. Every categorical syllogism has exactly one conclusion. Every categorical syllogism is valid. John Venn was a logician who was also the first American in space.

Exercise 12.8

Multiple Choice

1. Every categorical syllogism has a. b. c. d.

amajor term, minor term, and a term limit amajor term, minor term, and middle term amajor term, a middle term, and an upper term a fall term, winter term, and spring term

a.

one premise

b. c. d.

two premises three premises four premises

a.

exactly one conclusion

d. e.

at least one false premise all true premises

a. b. c. d.

deductive in nature inductive in nature always a mix of deductive and inductive always valid

2. Every categorical syllogism contains

3. Every categorical syllogism has b. c.

as many as two conclusions as many as three conclusions

4. A categorical syllogism is

LOGIC

353

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

Exercise 12.9

Test these symbolized syllogisms for validity using Venn diagrams. No Aare B. All A are B. Some A are AllA are B. AllA are B. AllA are B, No Aare B. Some A are Some A are No Aare B.

SOPnnrrYdY

be

All C are A. So, no C are B. All Aare C. So, some C are B. B. All C are B. So, some C are A. No Bare C. Therefore, some C are A. All Aare C. Thus, all C are B. because all A are C and all Bare C. Therefore, some C are B, because no A are C. B. Some A are C. So, some B are C. not B, because some A are not C, and all C are B. So, no C are A because all B are C.

Exercise 12.10 Recall from chapter 10 that a counterexample to an argument is a description of a pos-

sible circumstance in which the premises would be true and the conclusion would be

false, which shows to all rational observers that the argument is invalid. Use the method

of counterexample to show that the following categorical argument forms are invalid forms: No S are P. No P are M. So, no S are M.

SePFNAYA YN

UNIT4

ee

354

Some S are P. No P are M. Thus, some M are S. Some S are P. Some P are M. So, some S are M. All S are P. All P are M. So, all Mare S.

Some Some No S Some No S Some

S are S are are P. S are are P. S are

P. All S are M. Therefore, all P are M. P. No Mare P. So, some M are S. No P are M. Accordingly, no M are S. P. Some P are M. So, some M are S. All P are M. Therefore, no S are M. not P. Some P are not M. Thus, some S are not M.

CHAPTER12

APPENDIX

1: TESTING

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

SYLLOGISMS

REASONING:

USING

CATEGORICAL

RULES

Aristotle did not, of course, use Venn diagrams to test syllogisms for validity. However,

he discovered a rule-based test for validity that is every bit as effective. Aristotle and his successors at the Lyceum demonstrated that if a syllogism satisfies all four of the following rules, it must be valid; if it does not satisfy them all, it must be invalid. This system of rules is complete in the sense that it allows us to determine, for any possible syllogism, whether or not it is valid. Recall the intuitive test for validity that we learned in chapter 10. The results of applying the four rules correspond well to our intuitive, or commonsense, judgments of validity, in that the results agree with our intuitive

judgments of validity and invalidity for categorical syllogisms. One caveat is in order. Aristotle’s system of rules presupposes the existential assumption, namely, that the subject terms of all categorical sentences under consideration refer to existing entities.

eve

THE TRADITIONAL RULES OF VALIDITY A categorical syllogism is valid if, and only if, all the following conditions are met: The middle term is distributed in at least one premise. If either term is distributed in the conclusion, it is also distributed in a premise. The syllogism does not contain two negative premises. If one premise is negative, then the conclusion is negative; if the conclusion is negative, then one premise is negative.

A term appearing in a syllogism is distributed if it is being used to make a claim about every member

of a given category. For example, in an A (universal affirmative) sen-

tence, the subject term is distributed because it is being used to say something about

every member of the category to which it refers. However, the predicate term is not being used to say something about every member of the predicate category, and so the predicate term of an A sentence is not distributed. In an E (universal negative) sentence, both terms are distributed. Clearly neither term is distributed in an I sentence. The situation is not as obvious in the case ofan O sentence. The subject term is certainly not distributed; however, is the predicate term distributed? It does not appear to be, at least at first glance. However, on closer inspection, the predicate term is indeed being

employed to say something about the entire category to which it refers. These four rules are sound (this means only valid syllogistic forms pass the test) and complete (this means all valid syllogistic forms pass the test), although a rigorous proof of these claims is beyond the scope of our discussion. For practice, use these rules to answer the questions in Exercise 12.7 and Exercise 12.10.

LOGIC

355

356

UNIT

4

CRITERIA

FOR

CORRECT

REASONING

APPENDIX 2: HOW AN IDEA IN LOGIC LED TO THE DIGITAL COMPUTER AND TRANSFORMED THE WORLD In the simplest terms, an algorithm is a set of precise, step-by-step instructions for accomplishing a task, stated in such a way that each step is a matter of following a precise rule without employing any creativity or additional information, and such that a definite result is guaranteed after a finite number of steps. Logicians from the beginning aspired to the precision of mathematics, which attains much of its precision through the use of algorithms. For this reason, logicians over the years developed algorithms and exact methods for key logical operations. The algorithm is also one of the central ideas in computer science, which is why the computer scientist David Berlinski has called the algorithm the idea “that has made possible the modern world.”’ A computer is essentially a machine that operates according to carefully programmed algorithms. Aristotle’s system of categorical logic contained the first important algorithmic methods in the history of logic. This might explain why the first person in history to design a mechanical computer was an Aristotelian logician. Inspired by Aristotle’s algorithmic procedures, Raymon Lull (1232-c. 1315), a medieval logician who was also a Catholic priest, designed a computing machine consisting of two rotating disks, each inscribed with symbols for categorical propositions. The disks were aligned in such a way that one could turn a dial and see which statements validly follow from a given statement. Although it was rudimentary, Lull’s idea anticipated the modern digital computer. For the first time in history, someone had conceived of a machine that takes inputs of a certain sort and then, on the basis of logical algorithms, computes an exact answer, which is then read off some other part of the device. Some historians of computer science have called this medieval logician the founder of computer science. We usually associate computing with mathematics; but the first designs in history for computing machines were designed by a logician, and they were intended for devices that would operate according to the exact laws, not of mathematics, but of logic. Students of logic sometimes ask, Why does it all have to be so technical and exact? This story, of the role that logic played in the birth of the machine “that made possible the modern world” is my answer to that question.

“Rhetoric moves a prince to show compassion, but logic moves —Ramon Lull, thirteenth-century Spanish logician®

a prince to enforce justice.”

NOTES

1. The standard work on the history of logic is William Kneale and Martha Kneale, The Development of Logic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

2. Ibid., 45. 3.

David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, Ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu

Enterprises, 2013), 15.

CHAPTER12

EXPLORATIONS

IN

DEDUCTIVE

REASONING:

CATEGORICAL

4. Ibid., 99.

5. For amore complete presentation of Aristotelian logic, see Paul Herrick, Introduction to Logic

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), chapters 7-9.

6.

David Marans, Logic Gallery: Famous Logicians; Words, Images, Bios, Ed. 7.1.8 (Raleigh, NC: Lulu

7. 8.

David Berlinski, The Advent of the Algorithm (New York: Mariner Books, 2001), xvi. Marans, Logic Gallery, 24.

Enterprises, 2013), 88.

KEY TERMS

Boolean interpretation

major term

categorical sentence

minor premise

existential assumption

particular negative sentence

existential viewpoint

some

categorical logic

categorical syllogism copula existential import

middle term minor term particular affirmative sentence quantifier

hypothetical viewpoint

universal affirmative sentence

major premise

universal negative sentence

LOGIC

357

This page intentionally left blank

Unit 5 MORAL

REASONING, AND

THE

WORLDVIEWS, EXAMINED

LIFE

AT HIS TRIAL, Socrates uttered the words for which he is most often remembered: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Critical thinkers examine their assumptions, beliefs, and values and evaluate them honestly on the basis of rational, reality-based criteria. We have seen how beliefs about matters of fact are critically evaluated. How do critical thinkers evaluate values, in particular, moral values? An example of a belief about a matter of fact would be the belief that the Earth is round. An example ofa moral value would be the claim that racial discrimination is morally wrong. Chapter 13 introduces the logic of moral reasoning and some of the principles by which critical thinkers assess moral arguments and the values they support. Chapter 14 sums up all that we have studied by looking at the way a critical thinker assembles all the pieces in the form of a well-reasoned worldview. In many ways, the previous four units of this book have been a preamble to our final topic.

359

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 13 Critical Thinking and Moral Reasoning

WHEN WE THINK critically about moral issues, we are engaging in moral reasoning. Among the moral questions we as a society are reasoning about and debating today are these: Under what conditions (ifany) is it morally right for a nation to go to war? Should the federal government raise taxes on the wealthy, or would doing so be unjust? What should we do about homelessness? Should people be allowed to sell their organs? Under what conditions, if any, is it morally permissible to take a human life? Should same-sex marriage be prohibited or allowed? And the question Socrates sought to answer re-

mains as vital today as it ever was: What is the best way for a human being to live, all things considered?

Ina nutshell, critical thinkers seek the truth in matters of morality the same way they

seek truth in any other area of life: on the basis of the best reasoning possible. As we have seen, when reasoning is put into words, the result is called an “argument.” When reasoning about a moral issue is put into words, the result is a special type of argument, amoral argument. Thus, critical thinkers seek the truth in matters of morality on the basis of the best moral arguments possible, all things considered. Understanding the

nature of a moral argument is therefore the first step to understanding the way critical thinkers seek the truth in matters of morality.

Rede

WHAT IS A MORAL ARGUMENT? We begin with the building blocks. A moral statement is a statement asserting that something is morally right or wrong, or good or bad. Each of the following is a moral statement asserting a moral claim: Stealing is wrong. It is immoral to lie to get your way.

Every human being deserves to be treated with equal concern and respect. Genocide is wrong. Slavery is an unjust institution.

361

362

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

A moral statement expresses an evaluation of what it is about. In contrast, a nonmoral statement contains no terms of moral appraisal (good, bad, right, wrong, etc.) and thus makes no (moral) evaluation. Each of the following statements is nonmoral:

¢ The Moon has mountains. ¢ Barack Obama was elected president in 2008.

¢ Oxygen is an element. A nonmoral argument is composed following example:

exclusively of nonmoral

statements, as in the

1. If vinegar and baking soda are combined, a foamy reaction will occur. 2. This experiment will combine vinegar and baking soda. 3. Therefore, this experiment will produce a foamy reaction.

When fully stated, a moral argument satisfies two conditions: 1. At least one premise is a moral statement. 2. The conclusion is a moral statement. The following is a moral argument applied to a specific situation:

1. Kidnapping is always morally wrong. 2. The XYZ drug cartel kidnaps people. 3. Therefore, the XYZ drug cartel is engaged in morally wrong behavior. The first premise of this argument is a moral statement because it attributes a moral property (moral wrongness) to something (in this case, kidnapping). Premise 2 is a nonmoral statement because it describes the facts without morally evaluating those

facts. If the XYZ cartel kidnaps people, it is simply a fact that it kidnaps people. The

conclusion, however, is a moral statement, for it does more than merely describe the facts—it evaluates them in moral terms. Here is a moral argument for a general moral claim or moral norm.

1. All people have the moral right to be free from aggressive, forceful interference in their lives. 2. The institution of slavery necessarily involves aggressive, forceful interference in the lives of those enslaved. 3. Therefore, slavery is morally wrong. In this argument, premise 1 is moral, premise 2 is nonmoral, and the conclusion, of course, is a moral statement. Notice that the premises provide epistemic reasons for

CHAPTER

13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

accepting the conclusion—reasons to believe the conclusion is true. And isn’t the conclusion true?

In the moral arguments we have examined, each part has a job to do. The moral premise states the moral principle that will be applied, while the nonmoral premise

singles out and describes some fact or aspect of the world that the moral principle will

be applied to. The conclusion then applies the moral principle to the fact that was singled out for moral evaluation. The moral and the nonmoral premises thus work

together: the moral premise connects the nonmoral premise to the conclusion.

. .

BPR

wn ke

ee

SyOPnNarnAWN>

Exercise 13.1 Which of the following statements are nonmoral and which are moral?

.

Slavery is a violation of the human person. Mount Rainier has snow all year round.

Lying in order to get ahead is wrong. The Moon actually has mountains.

Global warming is a fact. The United States is south of Mexico. The Nazi concentration camps were moral abominations.

Stalin deliberately starved millions of people to death in the 1930s. Hitler intentionally had millions of innocent people put to death. Stealing is wrong. Some cats are orange. The war against Ruritania was unjust. Some people tell lies. Jim Crow laws were morally wrong.

14. 1S. Itis wrong to use other people in order to get ahead. 16.

Kidnapping for ransom is unjustly using another person.

17. 18. 19. 20.

Some people don’t believe in morality. It is wrong to physically force another person to do your bidding. Slavery is still practiced in some parts of the world. Every adult citizen should have the legal right to vote.

21. 22.

Honor killing is practiced in some parts of the world. Honor killing is morally wrong.

REASONING

363

364

UNITS5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

THREE CRITERIA FOR REASONABLE MORAL PRINCIPLES In the course of our lives, we consider (and accept or reject) a wide variety of moral principles. Some we formulate ourselves; others are presented to us for our consideration by our parents, teachers, ministers, friends, colleagues, and so forth. There is a broad consensus among moral philosophers that any moral principle worthy of rational

consideration ought to satisfy three basic criteria: (a) it must be supported by reasons, (b) it must be impartial, and (c) it must possess universality. Many opposing moral principles (from widely differing moral standpoints) will satisfy all three requirements. These are simply the minimum formal requirements, or desiderata, that any reasonable moral principle ought to meet. Let’s examine the three criteria, one by one. Supported by Reasons

To be acceptable, moral claims need to be supported by reasons. If you make a moral claim, for instance, you claim that abortion is morally wrong, you should be prepared to provide a supporting reason if asked for one. It would be silly to claim that abortion is wrong and then, when asked for my reason, to say, “There is no reason at all for my

claim.” Morality is ultimately rooted in reason. This is the conclusion Socrates seems to have been driving at in his discussion with Euthyphro. Acceptable moral judgments need to be supported by reasons, and sound moral deliberation needs to be based on reasoning. Our common moral experience backs Socrates on this point. Moral reasoning is critical thinking applied to the moral sphere of life.

EMOTION

AND

EMPATHY

None of this implies that emotion and feelings play no role in moral deliberation and critical discussion. As the philosopher Russ Shafer-Landau observes, sometimes the presence of felt emotion regarding a moral issue is a sign of moral passion and seriousness, which can give us the motivation we need to do the right thing. Indeed, our common experience suggests that a moral life without some degree of passion would go nowhere.’

Empathy appears to be a crucial part of the moral life as well. In an important book on moral reasoning, Which Rights Should Be Universal? (2007), the philosopher William Talbott argues that imaginative, empathetic understanding of others plays a crucial role in moral deliberation by helping us understand how our actions affect other people.’ In an act of empathetic understanding, he argues, we enter into the shoes of other people and try to understand what it is like for them. Without empathetic understanding, we would not be able to project ourselves into other people’s positions and imagine what the consequences of our actions are for them. But without knowing the

full consequences of our actions, we could not make fully informed moral judgments. Empathy thus enters into moral deliberation by helping us grasp the full consequences of our actions—including how our actions affect others.

Many moral epiphanies have occurred after one person attains an empathetic under-

standing of others—moral breakthroughs which would not have occurred if the person had relied on pure logical reasoning alone. One reason for this fact deserves mention. Without

CHAPTER

13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

empathy, it is all too easy to rationalize one’s selfish desires; it is also easy to objectify others. But rationalization and the objecti-

fication of others can cause one to miss the boat morally.? However, moral claims cannot be based solely on feelings

or empathy. In chapter 2 we discussed the fact that raw, untutored feelings can, at least in some cases, be the result of prejudice, egocentrism, social conditioning, hatred, and other

factors that are not necessarily indicators of truth. Joe may “feel” that all people outside his ethnic group are morally

inferior and ought to be ruled by people in his group, but his

feeling doesn’t justify the moral claim that his group ought

to rule all others. Feelings by themselves are no guarantee of moral truth and cannot serve as the legitimate, logical basis of a moral claim. Likewise,

someone may empathize with the plight of an ex-Nazi arrested for crimes against humanity, but a feeling of empathy alone does not make what the ex-Nazi did a good thing. Feelings and empathy need to be checked by reason; while reason in turn needs to be checked by feelings and empathy. Of course, reason can also be biased. The reasons one has at the moment can be the result of prejudice, egocentrism, groupthink, blinders, and so forth. We examined this possibility, and the remedy, in chapter 2: reason sometimes has to criticize and correct itself. But on the basis of what? On the basis of the principles of correct reasoning and critical thinking, of course.

Impartiality Second, reasonable moral principles must be impartial. This means they must apply to, and treat, all people equally—regardless of race, religion, social standing, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and other morally arbitrary factors. For instance, it would be morally outrageous if] were to say, “Everyone in my neighborhood should be quiet after 11:00 p.m., except for me and my friends: we get to hold loud parties and make noise as late as we want

to.” Put another way, impartiality means that in matters of morality, nobody gets a special deal—an exemption from principles that apply to everyone else in the same situation.

Impartiality implies that like cases should be treated alike. This means that two cases may be treated differently only if there is a morally relevant distinction that justifies differential treatment. Imagine, for example, someone who says that the members of his group should have rights but that the members of other groups should have no rights at all. Suppose we ask him, “What is it about the members of your group that

makes them morally superior to the members of other groups and deserving of special treatment? Are is the difference “I cannot think morally absurd.

the members of your group more loving? Are they more moral? What that justifies the special treatment?” Imagine that the person replies, of any difference that justifies different treatment.” His claim is then In the absence of morally relevant distinctions, those in other groups

should not be treated differently. The moral philosopher James Rachels writes that the criterion of impartiality “is at bottom nothing more than a prescription against

365

366

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

arbitrariness in dealing with people . .. a rule that forbids us from treating one person worse than another when there is no good reason to do so.”* In some situations, of course, there may be morally acceptable reasons for treating some people differently than others. For instance, a police officer is talking with a group of citizens, answering questions, discussing police procedures, and so forth. She is treating everyone equally. All of a sudden, a person across the street is being held up at gunpoint. Seeing what is happening, the officer draws her gun and stops a crime in progress. At the moment, the victim will get special attention from the officer, and the others will be ignored—for a morally sufficient reason. However, ifno morally relevant difference exists between two cases, then impartiality requires that the same moral principle apply in both cases. If it is morally wrong for me to walk across your property, then it is morally wrong for you to walk across mine (when there are no morally relevant differences between our situations). Any moral principle that fails to treat like cases alike is morally defective. Likewise, any instance of moral reasoning that fails to treat like cases alike is defective moral reasoning. This is the principle of impartiality. People violate this principle every time they apply a moral standard to others that they do not apply to themselves—when there are no relevant differences that make them special or an exception to the rule. Socrates encountered this moral failure all the time. For a contemporary example, Joe borrows money from his parents and then refuses to pay it back (even though he has the money and can easily afford to), while demanding that his friend Ed pay back the money he borrowed last month. To someone like this, we may ask, “What makes you special? What makes you an exception to the general rule? Don’t the same rules apply to you?” If the person is not a critical thinker, we may have to wait a long time for an answer. Someone who commits the fallacy of special pleading (chapter 8) concerning a moral matter runs afoul of the impartiality requirement. As you may recall, when Socrates encountered this moral failure in a person, he often responded with an elenchus designed to wake the person up.

Universality Third, a reasonable moral principle has universality. This means that if the principle applies in one particular situation, it applies in all morally similar situations. Universality is closely related to impartiality, but the two are not the same property. The following

principle has universality but not impartiality: everyone who belongs to religion X should always defer to people in religion Y. At times in history, this universal but nonimpartial principle has been accompanied by another principle of the same ilk: whenever people of religion X encounter people of religion Y, they must bow down and yield

the walkway. Both principles have universality; both lack impartiality. In sum, to be merely worthy of rational consideration, a proposed principle needs to be impartial, universal, and supported by reasons. Whether the principle is true will be a matter of further consideration—a matter of critical thinking.

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

Exercise 13.2 Questions for class or group discussion, short essays, or personal reflection. 1.

Can you name impartiality?

a public figure whose moral principles violate the principle of

Make your case. 2.

Can you name a universality?

public figure whose

moral principles violate the principle of

Make your case. 3. Write a short Platonic dialogue in which Socrates performs an elenchus on a dictator or other public figure whose moral principles violate the principle of impartiality or the principle of universality.

Rede

Exercise 13.3 Which of the three desiderata on moral principles does each of the following principles or actions violate?

This drinking fountain is for whites; that drinking fountain is for blacks. Men have the franchise, but women are not allowed to vote.

Religion X is the only religion that may be legally practiced in this society. The king is allowed to do X, but ordinary citizens go to jail if they do X.

If you are Italian, then you must score 90 to pass the test. All others pass if their score is above 60. 6. Joe shoplifts whenever he needs new clothes. One day he finds that a friend has stolen his new sweater. He beats up his friend and takes back the sweater. 7. Only men are allowed to own property.

THREE

METHODS

OF JUSTIFYING

MORAL

CLAIMS

Moral claims are typically expressed using declarative sentences. This indicates that moral statements are true or false, since declarative sentences express claims that are either true or false. Unless we are relativists or skeptics about morality, we believe that

moral statements are objectively true (or false). We have already examined strong reasons for rejecting moral relativism and skepticism (chapter S$). Proceeding from this

basis, suppose a moral statement appearing as a premise in a moral argument satisfies the three criteria for reasonable moral principles and is therefore worthy of rational

367

368

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

consideration: it is impartial, universal, and supported by reasons. It has passed the initial test. The question now becomes, how can we know whether the claim is true?> In other words, how are moral claims epistemically justified? Recall from chapter S that a

claim is epistemically justified if it is supported by a sufficient reason that links the claim solidly to reality and gives us an adequate reason to believe the claim is true. How does epistemic justification work in the case ofa moral claim?

The general answer today remains the same one Socrates first gave: we justify a moral claim on the basis of critical thinking. Since the days of Socrates, philosophers have offered moral arguments for moral claims, and they have gone deeper and supported the moral premises in their arguments using careful critical thinking. Ethics,

also called “moral philosophy,” is the field of philosophy concerned with the nature of right and wrong, good and bad, and related moral notions. Many fascinating moral arguments in support of important moral claims can be found in the subject of ethics. Three major approaches to justifying a moral claim can be found in this field of phi-

losophy. Not every moral philosopher agrees on the cogency of each method; some

favor one, others favor another, and some reject one or more of these methods. The issues are complex and well beyond the scope of this book. Without taking sides, we

will briefly examine the three main methods of epistemic justification for moral claims: (1) on the basis of particular observations, known as “bottom-up justification”; (2) on the basis of a priori reasoning, known as “top-down justification”; and (3) on the basis of reflective equilibrium, a combo of top down and bottom up justification.°

Bottom-up Reasoning: Particular to General Sometimes we justify a moral claim on the basis of particular observations that moral philosophers call “considered moral judgments.” What are these? A considered moral judgment, as philosophers use the term, is a judgment about the rightness, wrongness, goodness, or badness, ofa particular action, institution, state of affairs, etc., made under the conditions proper to moral reasoning. The conditions proper to moral reasoning, however, are strict: « You make the judgment in a cool moment undistorted by anger, envy, jealousy, hatred, bias, prejudice, and other irrational distorting influences. ¢ Your mind is clear of distractions and is focused like a laser on the facts of the situation under evaluation. ¢ You have carefully considered all the relevant facts and moral principles as objec-

tively and dispassionately as possible, after reviewing them over and over in your mind as critically as possible. « Youare certain and confident that your judgment is correct, and you can think of no good reason to doubt it. A judgment made under these conditions is a considered moral judgment. For example, imagine the following scenario: a person is walking down the street, minding his own

business, not threatening or harming anyone. Suddenly, someone jumps out of the

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

bushes and shoots the person dead, for no reason other than to test his new gun for

accuracy. Now, think calmly and carefully about this case. Was the shooting morally

justified? Or was it wrong? Suppose you have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the situation. Suppose you thought about the facts as objectively and dispassionately

as possible, calmly and carefully reviewing them over and over. Suppose you avoided

the distorting and irrational emotions of anger, hatred, envy, prejudice, and so on. Imagine also that in an act of imaginative, empathetic understanding, you placed yourself in the shoes of the person getting shot, and in the shoes of his family and loved ones.

Suppose that after all of this, you concluded that the shooting was morally wrong.

In addition, let’s suppose, you feel completely certain and can think of no good reason to doubt your conclusion. Your conclusion in this case, that it is morally wrong to shoot

someone for no reason other than to test a new gun, would qualify as a considered moral

judgment. It is a moral judgment since it is about right and wrong. It is a considered moral judgment because it was made under the conditions proper to moral reasoning. Since it is a considered moral judgment, it is a well-supported moral claim. Try another (hypothetical) case. Suppose person A cuts off person B in traffic, and as a result B is delayed ten seconds on his way to work. Imagine that A is unarmed and is not threatening B in any other way. Suppose B pulls out a gun and shoots A—simply out of anger. Now, after considering the matter carefully, under the conditions proper for correct moral reasoning, what do you conclude? In this manner, one might eventually arrive at another considered judgment, that it is wrong to shoot someone for a trivial reason. Do you agree with this judgment? These two considered moral judgments, each about a specific incident, could be combined with other considered judgments about similar incidents to form the logical basis for a general moral principle that follows from them, namely, that it is morally wrong to kill a person who is not threatening or harming you or anyone else. The justification for this principle might then look like this:

1. Considered moral judgment a: it is morally wrong to shoot a person merely to test the accuracy of your pistol. 2. Considered moral judgment b: it is morally wrong to shoot a person merely because he cut you off in traffic. 3. Considered moral judgment c: it is morally wrong to shoot a person merely because you don’t like his religion. 4. Considered moral judgment d: it is morally wrong to shoot someone merely because you don’t like his color. 5. The common factor in each case is that the person is not threatening or harming anyone in any way. 6. Therefore, it is always morally wrong to kill someone when the person is not threatening or harming anyone in any way.

We examined this basic form of inductive reasoning in chapter 10. This is enumerative induction. In this way, particular observations might provide inductive logical support

REASONING

369

370

UNIT

5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

for a moral claim. Notice that this argument could be recast in the form of an inference

to the best explanation by replacing step 5 with the following:

5*. The best explanation of these observations is that it is morally wrong to kill someone when the person is not threatening or harming anyone in any way. THE INDUCTIVIST MODEL

William Talbott calls this method of justifying a moral norm the “inductivist model of epistemic justification.””? On this model of justification, considered moral judgments about specific cases “have immediate epistemic justification and then other moral beliefs, including moral norms, acquire their epistemic justification by their role in explaining particular moral judgments.” Talbott also calls this the “bottom-up” model of moral reasoning. Think of considered judgments as bottom level and general moral norms as top level. Talbott argues that in some cases, a considered moral judgment functions as a “moral observation” of an “objective moral fact,” conferring “direct epistemic justification” on a particular moral judgment.® ARE

CONSIDERED

MORAL

JUDGMENTS

INEALLIBLE?

This is important: nothing in what has been said implies that our considered moral judgments are infallible. (An infallible judgment would be one that cannot possibly be wrong.) Over time, as we have more life experiences, as we learn more about the world and the way it works, as our empathetic awareness of others deepens and as our moral awareness develops, we all revise some of our considered moral judgments (hopefully on the basis of good reasons and under the conditions proper to moral reasoning). Some considered judgments we may even reject altogether. Most people acquire a deeper insight into moral matters as they mature. Is there any adult alive whose considered moral judgments did not change as he or she advanced from youth into adulthood? Of course, the fact that a judgment is not infallible, the fact that it might possibly be mistaken, does not provide grounds for rejecting the judgment. We have already seen, in chapter 5, that the fact a proposition might be false is not in itselfa sufficient reason to conclude that it is false. Talbott argues forcefully that moral judgments are fallible; however, he also argues that properly justified moral judgments are objectively true.

Top-Down Reasoning: General to Particular

Many moral philosophers throughout history (starting with Plato) have maintained that moral claims are ultimately justified a priori, that is, through an act of pure thought or reasoning alone, without reliance on the physical senses at all. Such principles, sometimes called “first principles,” are said to be “self-evident” or “evident to pure reason.” (We examined a priori justification in chapter 6.) The logic ofa priori justification based on first-principles would be 1. Moral principle P is known to be true a priori. 2. If P is true, then moral statement S is true. 3. Therefore, moral statement S is true, that is, reflective of justice.

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

Thomas Jefferson may have had this method of justification in mind when he chose to begin the Declaration of Independence with these immortal words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit

of happiness.

On this basis, Jefferson went on to argue that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Incidentally, Jefferson addressed his argument to the entire world, not simply to the British government. Like Socrates, he believed that moral reasoning is a universal

human ability.

Philosophers who justify moral claims in this way, on the basis of foundational, a priori moral principles, claim that the rational intellect has the power all by itself to see the truth of moral principles directly, through an intellectual kind of seeing that does not rely for its justification on the physical senses. Moral principles, they argue,

could hardly be justified empirically, the way we justify empirical claims about observ-

able material things such as butterflies, geodes, and laws of chemistry. In addition, they argue, our introspective moral experience reveals that our intellects are capable of a direct, a priori grasp of objective moral truth.’

We met the notion of a noetic structure in chapter 6. On this approach to justifying

moral claims, our moral noetic structure is similar to an office building or tall tower: the moral beliefs on the top “floor” are justified by beliefs on the floor underneath the top floor; the beliefs on this floor are justified in terms of the beliefs on the next level down, and so on until justification ends with foundational moral beliefs justified a priori rather than in terms of other moral beliefs underneath them. The basic moral beliefs, argue

moral foundationalists, can be seen to be self-evident when examined critically and

under the conditions proper to moral judgment. Does reason have this power to know moral truths directly through a priori insight

into the nature of moral reality? Socrates certainly believed so. Most of the major philosophers of history have argued for the existence of a priori knowledge, at least until the nineteenth century. However, philosophers today disagree on the matter. The issue is very complicated, and it is beyond the scope of this book. The question is examined in moral philosophy. THE PROOF

PARADIGM

Professor Talbott calls this method of justifying moral claims the “proof paradigm” because it “takes the model of proof in mathematics as the paradigm for all

371

372

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

epistemically justified beliefs [including epistemically justified moral beliefs].”!° On this paradigm, to be epistemically justified a moral claim must be “rationally unquestionable” (self-evident) or provable by deductively valid inference from premises that “can be directly seen [via a priori reasoning] to be rationally unquestionable.” Talbott characterizes this method of moral reasoning as “top-down” justification."! (We met this method of epistemic justification in chapter 6.) This is the method favored by foundationalism. Bottom-up and Top-Down: The Equilibrium Model The first method of epistemic justification that we examined (the bottom-up method) goes from particular observations to general principles. The second method (the topdown method) goes from general principles to particular cases. In Which Rights Should Be Universal?, Talbott argues for an “equilibrium model” of epistemic justification that combines both methods. Moral reasoning, he argues is both top down and bottom up. The bottom level is composed of particular moral observations made under the conditions proper to moral reasoning. In other words, the bottom level is composed of considered moral judgments. The top level is composed of general principles adopted as the best explanation of our considered judgments. Some philosophers argue that the top level must also include some principles justified a priori. Epistemic justification for a moral claim, Talbott argues, is the end-result of a backand-forth process in which we reason from particular moral judgments to the general principles that best explain them, and from general principles to the particular cases that fall under them, sometimes adjusting a general principle to take account of particular judgments that conflict with it, other times adjusting a particular judgment in the light of

a general principle that applies in the case. The process is theoretically complete—and

real moral knowledge is attained—when an equilibrium is reached and no further adjust-

ments between particular judgments and general principles is reasonably called for.

We all make particular moral judgments, and we all frame general moral principles to make sense of our particular moral judgments. We also routinely apply moral principles to particular cases. However, if one is a critical thinker, logical conflicts between the general principles one holds and the considered judgments one makes are inevitable. Sometimes a strongly held considered judgment will stand in logical conflict with a general principle, and a critical thinker feels a stronger rational commitment to the considered judgment than to the general principle. In such a case, the considered judg-

ment leads the critical thinker to modify the general principle, perhaps by formulating a clause allowing for an exception to the principle.” Talbott suggests that one good way to critically examine a general moral norm is to think critically about what would count

as an exception to the principle.

In other cases, an act of imaginative, empathetic understanding may lead to a considered judgment that causes a person to reject a general moral principle. For example, imagine a slave owner who believes that slavery is morally acceptable. However, one

day, perhaps by observing his slaves closely, he develops an empathetic understanding

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

of what it is like to be owned by someone else. After much reflection, he comes to see that human bondage is morally wrong. He comes to see this as clear as a bell. Asa he rejects his (general) view that slavery is morally acceptable.’

result,

For another example, suppose Jan believes strongly that capital punishment is morally acceptable, and imagine her belief satisfies the conditions on considered moral

judgments. Now, suppose she has a series of personal experiences, and as a result she forms a number of considered judgments, each entailing that capital punishment is morally wrong. Perhaps she gets to know someone who is on death row, or she witnesses an execution, or perhaps she studies the materials of the Innocence Project."* If she comes to feel more confident in her individual considered judgments than in the general principle (that capital punishment is morally acceptable), she might achieve consistency by rejecting (or modifying) the general principle while retaining the considered judgments. In these cases, a critical thinker finds it more reasonable to reject a general principle than to give up a considered judgment. Other times, however, the reverse is the case: a considered judgment stands in logi-

cal conflict with a general theory, but the person feels a stronger rational commitment to the theory than to the considered judgment. In this case, the critical moral thinker may reject the considered judgment in favor of the general principle, perhaps after going back and forth between the two poles a number of times. For example, Joe has always felt that when he shoplifts from the local grocery store, he is doing nothing immoral because (he assumes) the owner “can afford it.” For the moment at least, it is his considered judgment that his act of stealing is not morally wrong. However, imagine that one day Joe rethinks his view on stealing and comes to believe

that stealing is always wrong, no matter whom one is violating. He now faces a conflict between his considered judgment about stealing from the local grocery store and the more general moral principle (that stealing is always wrong). To achieve consistency, he must reject one or the other principle. After going back and forth, suppose he rejects the specific considered judgment (about stealing) in favor of the more general principle that

stealing is always wrong. In this case, Joe has rejected a considered judgment in favor of retaining a general moral principle. In this way, a critical thinker might find it more reasonable to reject a considered judgment than to modify a general principle. Thus, a critical thinker may experience a moral tug of war between his or her general principles and considered judgments. Reflective equilibrium—and knowledge—is reached when one has gone back and forth between general principles and considered judgments, employing critical thinking to adjust one side in light of the other, and vice versa, until no further adjustments in theories or particular judgments seems reasonable, and a “best fit” has been achieved. Moral justification, on the equilibrium view, is both bottom up and top down. In reflective equilibrium, general moral principles and singular judgments are finally in logical harmony. The most reasonable moral principles, on this view, are those principles that best explain and unify our considered judgments in reflective equilibrium. Incidentally, if achieving reflective equilibrium sounds like a lot of work, that is because it is.

373

374

UNIT

5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

This method of justification should sound familiar to you. It is the top-down and

bottom-up justification favored by the coherentist school of epistemology. We examined this method of justification in chapter 6. Epistemic justification in ethics, Talbott argues, is the same type of justification we employ in any subject, but applied to specifically moral observations. Under the conditions proper to moral reasoning, using critical thinking and imaginative, empathetic understanding of others, argues Talbott,

anyone can eliminate moral blind spots and reach a universal moral standpoint that, although fallible, can give us objective moral truths.'S In the Euthyphro, Socrates asks his friend Euthyphro for a definition of piety. Part of what the Greeks meant by piety was “moral rectitude.” As we saw, Socrates was searching for a criterion of moral rightness. Ultimately, he was doing more than this. He was seeking a general theory of morality—an account that explains what all good things have in common that makes them good, and what all right things have in common that makes them morally right. The theory he sought would provide us with a criterion—a principle that would help us resolve cases of moral conflict, a standard on which to base moral judgments. The correct standard would earn its keep by enabling critical thinking about morality.

TWO INFLUENTIAL MORAL THEORIES TODAY Over the centuries, anumber of general theories of moral rightness have been proposed and defended by moral philosophers. Many of these have been defended with one or more of the three methods of epistemic justification identified here. We have the space to look briefly at two historically very important moral theories. Utilitarianism You are probably familiar with the basic idea of this highly influential moral theory, first proposed and defended by the English legal reformer Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). During the nineteenth century, this theory was further developed and defended by the philosopher and logician John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). According to the foundational principle of utilitarianism, known as the “principle of utility,” the morally right thing to do in any situation is always that action which, among all the available actions, is expected to produce the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness, measured and summed across all moral agents affected. To illustrate, suppose I have a choice of doing one of three things: 1. ActionA

2. ActionB

3. Action C

Suppose further that I am able to reliably estimate or measure the net balance of happiness over unhappiness that will be produced by each action, summed across all the

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

moral agents who will be affected by my action. Let the result of my calculation be as follows: 1. Action A would increase the net total balance of happiness over unhappiness in the world by ten units. 2. Action B would decrease the net total balance of happiness over unhappiness by

thirty units. 3. Action C would increase the net total balance of happiness in the world by sixty units.

Utilitarianism recommends action C, since it leads to the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness overall. For a more concrete example, suppose I have some extra money and the available choices are (a) buy myself new laptop, (b) donate the money to the local food bank, or (c) give the money to a relative who is out of money due to some unwise spending habits. After careful consideration, I might decide that option (b) would produce the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness in the world, all things considered. According to utilitarianism, moral reasoning supports option (b). Bentham believed

that his theory of morality was the first entirely scientific account of morality.

Let’s now see how this general moral theory might be used to support a moral statement that could serve as a premise in a moral argument. Suppose a city acquires a large forested area, and the question is, Should the land be sold to private developers, or should a public park be developed? At the city council meeting, some citizens argue that the land ought to be made into a public park. In support of their proposal, which is a moral statement, they might offer a utilitarian argument:

1. The right thing to do is always that which produces “the greatest happiness the greatest number of people.” (This is the basic claim of utilitarianism.) 2. If the land is sold to private developers, a few wealthy families will buy it enjoy it exclusively. 3. If the land is turned into a public park, everyone in the city will have opportunity to enjoy it. 4. If everyone has an opportunity to enjoy the land, the greatest happiness of greatest number will be served. 5. Therefore, the land (morally) ought to be turned into a public park.

for and an the

In this case, a moral statement (5) is supported by a moral argument, one premise of which is a general moral theory, utilitarianism (expressed in premise 1). DIFFICULTIES

FOR

UTILITARIANISM

One obvious problem with utilitarianism, of course, is that it requires that we measure quantities of happiness and unhappiness and add them up. Can happiness and its

REASONING

375

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

absence actually be measured in an objective or scientific way? Bentham believed that

as science progresses we will discover ways to objectively quantify units of happiness.

However, such methods, if they exist, have yet to be discovered. Another problem is that the theory requires interpersonal comparisons of happiness and unhappiness. Can a quantity of happiness experienced by person A be added to a quantity of happiness experienced by B? The theory seems to require calculations like this one:

« Person A will + Person B will . Person C will 4. Therefore, the

Wn RP

376

gain 10 units of happiness. gain 15 units of happiness. lose 10 units of happiness. total net balance of happiness over unhappiness will be +15 units.

This kind of calculation seems to require a common unit of happiness experienced by different persons. Is there a measurable unit of happiness that would allow us to sum units of felicity across many people? Bentham certainly believed so. Might moral theorists someday be able to decide the right course of action on the basis of scientific calculations similar to those made in quantum physics? These complicated issues are examined in the field of moral philosophy. Welfare economists also treat this issue. The issue, however, is beyond the scope of this book.

Kant’s Moral Theory The second important theory of ethics developed in the modern period was proposed and

defended on the basis of moral argument by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Both Bentham and Kant maintained that there exists one foundational

principle of morality from which all other moral principles follow. Bentham argued that the foundational principle is the principle of utility. The foundational principle proposed by Kant differed radically from Bentham’s principle. Kant argued that the moral thing to

do is not ultimately determined by deciding which action will produce the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness summed across everyone involved. Indeed, argued Kant, the right thing to do is never determined by considering the consequences of one’s action. Rather, what matters is the intrinsic character of one’s

action, independent of any consequences that may flow from it. In place of the principle

of utility, Kant proposed, as the foundational principle of morality, a principle governing the character of actions, which he named “the categorical imperative.” All rationally acceptable moral principles, he claimed, can be logically derived from this one axiomatic principle, the way theorems are derived from axioms in geometry. Kant stated his principle in four different ways, arguing that all four statements

amount to the same basic idea. Here is one way to express Kant’s categorical

imperative:

Always treat every human being, including yourself, as an intrinsically valuable being and never merely as a means to an end."

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

What does intrinsically valuable mean? Something is merely extrinsically valuable if it is valuable only insofar as it can be used as a means to attain something else that is valuable. Put another way, something is extrinsically valuable ifit is only valued as a means to an end. A tool, such as a hammer, is an example

of an object that has extrinsic value only. Unless one is a numismatist (currency collector), paper currency is another example of something that is only extrinsically valuable. In contrast, something is intrinsically valuable if it is valuable in itself, all by itself, without serving as a means to an end.

The categorical imperative forbids using another human being merely as a

means to an end that the person has not chosen, the way we use a tool, an inanimate object, or a resource. On the basis of this moral principle, many philosophers after Kant argued for universal human rights, including the classic rights to

life, liberty, and property. Here is one way to summarize their basic argument:

1. To aggressively take an individual's life, liberty, or legitimately acquired property without that individual's consent is to use that person as a means to an end he or she has not chosen. It is to treat that individual as a tool or resource placed on Earth for your convenience. 2. It is morally wrong to use people in this way. 3. Therefore, each individual has a moral right to live free from the aggressive, nonconsensual taking of his or her life, liberty, and legitimately acquired property. DOES

CRITICAL

THINKING

MAKE

A DIFFERENCE?

John Stuart Mill argued forcefully for equal rights for women on the basis of his theory of utilitarianism. His “On the Subjection of Women” was one arguments for women’s rights. His wife Harriet Taylor Mill cated for equal rights for women. Some historians of ideas cite ings as an example of how philosophical ideas have made a

of the first philosophical (1807-1858) also advothe Mills and their writdifference in the world.

During the nineteenth century, Kant’s moral theory was influential in the antislavery movement—the first organized movement against slavery in world history.'” The moral theories of both Kant and Mill inspired a number of important reform movements. In addition to the antislavery and women’s rights causes, the ideas of Kant and Mill were influential in the first movement in history for the rights of workers and the nineteenthcentury effort to make government more representative and accountable to the people. These social movements that changed the world and generally improved the human condition were rooted in philosophical critical thinking. Slavery still exists in the world Kant’s categorical imperative: or she has not chosen, thereby your convenience. (b) Slavery

today. Here is one way to critique slavery directly on the basis of (a) It is morally wrong to use an individual as a means to an end he treating that individual as a tool or resource placed on Earth for does exactly this. (c) Therefore, slavery is morally wrong.

(Continued)

377

378

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

(Continued) Here is another argument, reminiscent of Kant’s moral theory, against slavery:

1.

Each person, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or national origin, is an intrinsically valuable being who deserves to be treated as such. 2. Slavery does not treat a person as an intrinsically valuable being. 3. Therefore, slavery is morally wrong.

ANOTHER

FORM

OF THE

CATEGORICAL

IMPERATIVE

Kant also expressed the categorical imperative in these terms: Never act on a principle unless you can at the same time consistently will that everyone in the same situation also acts on the same principle.'®

Expressed in this way, Kant’s categorical imperative has us step back from our own point of view and evaluate our principles in an impartial way, from a general standpoint rather than just from our private or subjective standpoint. In short, moral decisions

should be based on principles of action that apply to everyone equally, with no special exceptions for anybody. Kant believed that the fundamental postulate of his theory, the categorical imperative, could be fully justified on the basis of a priori reasoning alone. Kant’s categorical imperative thus forbids us from making special rules or exceptions for ourselves. It reminds us that we ought to live by rules that apply to all people

in the same way. On the Kantian interpretation of ethical theory, nobody is special. That is, nobody may justifiably act in ways forbidden to others; nobody may make special exceptions for himself or herself. The immoral person, on this view, is thus someone who says, in effect, “Let everyone else follow the rules, but I am going to make an exception

for myself because I am special.” This fundamental Kantian idea is perhaps embodied in the popular ethical question: How would it be if everyone acted that way?

Kant and Socrates Recall that Socrates treated everyone he met as an equal and believed that everyone is

capable of living an examined life. Socrates apparently believed that all human beings

are in some sense equal in worth and dignity. Recall also the reason Socrates was willing to engage anyone, from any walk of life, in philosophical discussion: each person, he believed, is intrinsically valuable. We critically examined the idea of cultural relativism in chapter 5. Many people today believe that morality is relative to culture. One reason often given for this view is that societies around the world cannot agree on matters of morality. But this is not true. A very broad-based consensus is developing around the world for the claim that each person, regardless of national origin, possesses certain basic human rights. In Which Rights Should Be Universal?, Talbott provides

CHAPTER13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

a sustained “bottom-up and top-down” argument for the claim that the following rights should be universal:

PINS

Aa

1. Aright to physical security. 2. Aright to physical subsistence (understood as a right to an opportunity to earn subsistence for those who are able to do so). 3. Aright to an education. Children’s rights to what is necessary for normal physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development. Aright to freedom of the press. Aright to freedom of thought and expression. Aright to freedom of association. Aright to a sphere of personal autonomy free from paternalistic interference.”

DIFFICULTIES

FOR KANT’S

THEORY

One of the difficulties faced by Kant’s theory is the problem of defining in sufficient

detail the notions of intrinsic value and of using people as means to an end. Here is an

illustration of how difficult it is to get clear on this key Kantian idea. The Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick (1938-2002) based his well-known defense of libertarian

political philosophy, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, on an interpretation of Kant’s categorical imperative. Nozick argued that the redistribution of wealth and income by the state (transferring wealth and income from those who have more to those who have

less) is a morally unjustified using of some people for the benefit of others. Redistributive taxation, Nozick argued, treats those who are well-off as a resource to be mined rather than as intrinsically valuable ends.

However, in A Theory of Justice, Nozick’s Harvard colleague John Rawls (1921-2002) rigorously defended a different principle of justice, known as the “difference principle,” on essentially the same Kantian grounds, namely, that the individual person is an intrinsically valuable being who does not exist to serve as a mere means to an end he or she has not chosen. The difference principle requires (in practice) that income and wealth be distrib-

uted equally unless a particular inequality improves the prospects of the least advantaged members of society. These great issues are examined in the field of philosophy known as “political philosophy.” Rawls’s A Theory of Justice is universally considered the greatest work of political philosophy of the twentieth century. The books by Nozick and Rawls are considered by experts to be among the most important works of political theory ever written.”°

Exercise 13.4 Construct a moral argument for, or against, a claim that you feel passionate about.

The following issues are just suggestions.

379

5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

Under what conditions, if any, is war justified? . Under what conditions, if any, is abortion justified? Under what conditions, if any, is it morally permissible to use aggressive force

wn

UNIT

against someone?

SOPNaANS

380

1 ll. 12.

Is it wrong to be cruel to animals? Is it wrong to destroy vital wetlands?

What is the proper way to respect the planet? Does every human being have the right to own property? Should genetically altered products be prohibited? Is terrorism morally wrong under any and all conditions? Should same-sex marriage be legal? Is price gouging during a natural disaster immoral? Is affirmative action the morally right response to past discrimination and injustice?

Exercise 13.5 Select a moral issue from the previous exercise, or choose a particular moral issue you feel passionate about.

1. Construct a moral argument pertaining to the issue from a utilitarian standpoint. 2. Construct a moral argument pertaining to the issue from a Kantian standpoint. Exercise 13.6 Questions for class or group discussion, essays, or self-reflection.

1. Does a great deal of advertising, by appealing to emotions rather than reason, treat persons as means to an end (profits) instead of as ends-in-themselves? If so, is such advertising morally wrong? Could a conflict between moral and logical values ever arise, so that it might actually be either logical to be immoral, or moral to forgo logic?

It certainly seems that moral values are the most important values of all. But what

does this mean? And is it true? Moral values are thought to be most important in the sense that they override, or take precedence over, all other values. For example, imagine that you are ina situation where you must choose between moral value and

aesthetic value. You have a chance to steal a work of art that you value highly. But you know that the moral thing to do is to respect the other person’s property. Which takes precedence? Your art collection? Or morality? In Fear and Trembling, the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) raised the question: Could there ever be a logical conflict between moral duty and religious duty? Could there be a conflict between God’s commands and the moral thing to do? He argued that when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham faced a con-

flict between his religious obligation and his moral obligation. Critically discuss.

CHAPTER13

4.

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

What is the role of imaginative empathy in moral judgment? How, if at all, does

empathy aid moral judgment? Could moral judgment be made completely without

passion and empathy? Critically discuss. Find a moral argument in a newspaper, magazine, book, or online source. Summarize the argument in your own words, and then critically evaluate it. Keep in mind the principles of charity and faithfulness (from chapter 3). Critically evaluate utilitarianism. Some questions you might consider: Does utilitarianism conflict with some of our considered moral judgments about human rights? Are there things that should never be done to a human being, even if doing

so would probably maximize total happiness summed across everyone affected?

Critically evaluate Kant’s moral theory. Some questions you might consider: Does

Kant’s theory conflict with some of our considered moral judgments? During

World War II, Dutch fishermen helped spirit Jewish people out of Nazi-occupied

countries and saved many lives. But the Nazis caught on and began stopping and searching Dutch fishing boats. Kant argued that it followed from his categorical imperative that one must never lie—even to save an innocent life. Now, suppose

you are the skipper of a fishing boat secretly spiriting nation and you are stopped by a Nazi patrol boat. The any Jews on board. If you tell the truth, innocent lives cent lives will be saved. Would lying to the Nazis in

Jews out of a Nazi-occupied captain asks you if you have will be lost. If you lie, innothis situation be the moral

thing to do? Would doing so go against Kant’s categorical imperative? What does his categorical imperative require in a case like this? Exercise 13.7

Sey

Yr

True or false?

Moral arguments have neither premises nor conclusions. A moral argument is an argument for something good. Moral arguments can be valid or invalid, strong or weak. One way some philosophers have supported a moral premise is by inductive

Yo

reasoning.

One way some philosophers have supported a moral premise is by deductive

PND

reasoning. Every moral argument contains at least one nonmoral premise.

The conclusion of a moral argument is always a moral statement.

yo

A moral statement asserts that something is right or wrong, or good or bad. Anonmoral statement asserts that something is not moral. 10. Moral arguments can be evaluated using the principles of logic. ll. The conclusion of a moral argument is always objectively a morally good thing to do. 12. Kant argued for utilitarianism. 13. Mill argued for utilitarianism. 14. Utilitarianism purports to be a scientific theory of ethics.

REASONING

381

382

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

1S. Kant’s theory supports the idea of universal human rights. 16.

One way some philosophers have supported a moral premise is by a priori reasoning.

17. One way some philosophers have supported a moral premise is by inference to the

best explanation. 18. Talbott argues that the justification of moral premises is both bottom up and top down. 19. The fact that the premises and conclusions of moral arguments are statements suggests that moral claims are objectively true or false. 20. According to the text, moral statements are neither true nor false; they are expressions of feeling. Exercise 13.8

Choose the best answer.

1. Mill argued for the moral theory known as a. apartheid b. Kantianism c. utilitarianism d. Millianism

2. Kant argued that this principle is the fundamental principle of morality: a.

Love everyone.

b.

Obey God.

c.

The categorical imperative

d. Do unto others before they do unto you. 3. Amoral argument contains a. at least one moral premise and at least one nonmoral premise

b.

only moral premises

c. all moral premises and a moral conclusion d. allnonmoral premises and a nonmoral conclusion 4. Two of the minimum requirements for an adequate moral principle are

a.

impartiality and insularity

b.

universality and purity

c. impartiality and universality d. consistency and practicality 5. A moral principle is justified a priori if a. its justification is based on the senses alone. b. its justification is based on reasoning alone, without the senses. c. its justification is prior to considering the situation in question at all. d. its justification is based on prejudice alone. 6. Amoral principle is justified inductively if a.

its justification is based on reasoning from specific cases alone.

b.

its justification is based on reasoning alone, without the senses.

CHAPTER

c. d.

13

CRITICAL

THINKING

AND

MORAL

REASONING

its justification is prior to considering the situation in question at all. its justification is based on prejudice alone.

7. Talbott advocates a.

top-down justification alone

b. bottom-up justification alone c. both top-down and bottom-up justification d. holding one’s moral beliefs on no basis whatsoever

8. The principle which states that the right thing to do is the action leading to the greatest amount of happiness in the consequences is part of this moral theory:

a.

Kant’s theory

d.

Plato’s theory

b. c.

utilitarianism Socrates’s theory

NOTES 1.

See Russ Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press,

2.

See William Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005),

3.

4. 5.

6.

2011), chapter 9.

chapter 4. It has been suggested that the invention of the novel had a huge impact on public morals, enabling many people for the first time to imaginatively project themselves into the situations of others and imagine what others are going through. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an obvious example. See James Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, Sth ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2007), 14. Often in serious discussion, we present an argument and our interlocutor asks, “Why do you believe premise such and such is true?” In such a case, we need to offer an argument for a premise of our original argument. Socrates’s student, Plato, was the first philosopher in the Western tradition to write systematic treatises of moral philosophy. His student, Aristotle, was the second Western philosopher to do so. Plato’s greatest work is The Republic; Aristotle’s major work of moral theory is the Nicomachean Ethics. Moral philosophy is one of the most fascinating, and important, fields of philosophy. It remains as active and creative today as it was in the days of Plato. An excellent introduction to moral philosophy is Russ Shafer-Landau, Fundamentals of Ethics.

7.

Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal?, 26.

*

Ibid., 63. 9. The mental faculty that is said to directly grasp moral truth a priori is sometimes called “rational intuition.”

10.

Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal?, 23.

12.

For more on discovering exceptions to general principles, see WilliamJ. Talbott, Human Rights and Human Well-Being (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), chapters 1 and 2. In Which Rights Should Be Universal?, Talbott tells the story of the moral development of Bartolomé de las Casas, one of the original Spanish conquistadors who helped colonize the Americas during

Ll. Ibid., 23.

13.

383

384

UNIT

5

MORAL

14.

1S.

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

the sixteenth century. Through acts of imaginative, empathetic understanding, Las Casas entered into the position of the native inhabitants being enslaved and placed under Spanish control, changed his moral views, and came to believe that what the conquistadors were doing to the American Native peoples was morally wrong. See chapter 4 of Which Rights Should Be Universal? See http://www.innocenceproject.org/. The Innocence Project describes itself as a “national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.” This universal moral standpoint, he argues, has to do with “considering everyone's point of view.” See Which Rights Should Be Universal?, 81.

16.

For Kant’s moral theory, see his Critique of Practical Reason, published in 1788. For a very clear exposition of Kant’s theory, see James Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, chapters 9 and 10. An excellent introduction to Kant’s thought can also be found in Fred Feldman, Introductory Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), chapters 7, 8, and 9. An important study of Kant’s

moral theory is Allan Wood, Kant’s Moral Philosophy. 17. Slavery has been practiced, and has been considered natural, on every continent, in every part of the world, since the dawn of history. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, no serious thinker anywhere defended human bondage. 18. I am paraphrasing Kant here. See Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, H. J. Paton, trans. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 70. For a classic study of Kant’s moral theory, see H.J. Paton, The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1948). 19.

Talbott, Which Rights Should Be Universal?, 137.

20.

When exploring a controversial issue, it is never good to read only one side. People who make up their mind after reading only one side of such an issue are not critical thinkers. See Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974) and John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).

KEY TERMS

ethics impartiality moral argument

moral statement universality

Chapter 14 Critical Thinking, Worldviews, and the Examined Life

IN “ALFIE,” one of her most poignant songs, Dionne Warwick sings these words:

What’s it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we live?

What’s it all about when you sort it out, Alfie? Are we meant to take more than we give,

Or are we meant to be kind? And if only fools are kind, Alfie,

then I guess it’s wise to be cruel.

And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie, what will you lend on an old golden rule? As sure as I believe there’s a heaven above, Alfie, I know there’s something much more, Alfie,

something even non-believers can believe in. I believe in love, Alfie. Without true love, we just exist, Alfie.

Until you find the love you've missed, you're nothing, Alfie ...' This classic composition, written in 1965 by the great songwriting team of Burt Bacharach and Hal David, gives musical expression to a worldview centered on the value of love. A worldview, sometimes called a “philosophy of life,” is an overall understanding of the world and one’s place within it.*A comprehensive

philosophy of life provides the context

for making sense of life as a whole. It

also contains the core values that guide one’s life and answers the question,

What things in life are most important? A well-thought-out worldview includes answers to the fundamental

questions of life, including the ques-

tion Socrates asked, What is the best

way to live, all things considered?

385

386

UNITS

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

Acritical thinker strives to achieve the most reasonable worldview possible. But how

does one go about developing a philosophy of life? And what makes one worldview more reasonable than another? How does one critically compare and evaluate different philosophies of life? These are the final questions of our conversation.

BUILDING A REASONABLE WORLDVIEW A worldview is a complicated system of interrelated beliefs and values assembled piece by piece over many years. Nothing this complex can possibly be justified logically on the basis of a single life experience, a single proposition, or a single logical argument. Working out a reasonable worldview is actually the job of a lifetime.* How, then, does one go about compiling and establishing a well-reasoned worldview? The best way is with what philosophers call a cumulative argument. This is an argument that combines and marshals many subarguments to support its overall conclusion, somewhat the way a rope combines many strands of individual fiber.

A Cumulative Argument

The Oxford philosopher Basil Mitchell (1917-2011) illustrates the concept with the following thought-experiment. Imagine that two explorers, hiking deep in a remote jungle, come upon a series of depressions in the ground. Looking at the uneven lay of the land, the first explorer thinks he sees a pattern. He proposes the following hypothesis: the depressions in the ground were left by the pillars of an ancient temple. The first explorer is doing what all human beings do—trying to make sense of the world around him. The temple hypothesis, if true, would explain the depressions. The second explorer shakes his head. He thinks the depressions are merely random dips with no significance whatsoever. For this reason, he sees no need to formulate a hypothesis. The dips are there, they are interesting, and that is all there is to it. No further explanation is needed. However, the first explorer is not content to leave the dents as unexplained, or “brute,” facts.* Something about them beckons him to look further. Something about them cries out for an explanation. After examining the area more closely, he begins to uncover additional items. First he finds a rock that looks like it might have once been part ofa pillar. Now, one piece of evidence can never prove a hypothesis like the one under consideration. Considered all by itself, this one rock does not prove the temple hypothesis. It might be only a coincidence that it is shaped like part of a temple’s pillar. However, one added item of evidence raises the probability, perhaps ever so slightly, that the hypothesis is true. The first explorer next finds a chunk of marble that looks like it broke off an ancient statue. This, too, might be a pure coincidence. Certainly, this one piece of evidence— considered in isolation—doesn’t prove that a temple once stood on the spot. However, again, added evidence makes it more likely the hypothesis is true. As he finds other

pieces, the explorer feels more and more confident of his theory.

CHAPTER

14

CRITICAL

THINKING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

Professor Mitchell observes that each item of evidence is an element in an emerging interpretation, or explanation, of the depressions first seen in the ground. In the end, after much evidence has been collected, it may be that the first explorer is right: the best overall explanation of the depressions, and all the other discoveries, is that an ancient temple once stood on the spot. It is important to emphasize that no single item, considered by itself, establishes

the hypothesis in this case. Nor will one experience ever be sufficient for building a reasonable worldview. However, evidence can accumulate, and each additional item can increase the strength of a cumulative inductive argument. Eventually, if enough

data are best explained by a hypothesis or a worldview, and if the data as a whole cannot be adequately explained any other way, then the hypothesis under consideration qualifies as the best explanation. If a hypothesis is the best explanation of all the accumulated evidence, this is a good reason to believe it is true.

Cumulative Reasoning in the Courtroom Arguments presented in courtrooms are usually cumulative in nature. Here is an ex-

ample. Let’s suppose Joe Smith has been charged with a crime. In court, the prosecutor presents his first item of evidence: a single hair matching Joe’s found at the scene of the crime. Of course, this one item all by itself does not make it certain Joe is guilty. It is not even sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe committed the crime. Perhaps it was left by someone whose hair is similar to Joe’s. Perhaps Joe left the hair there long before the crime was committed. Next, the prosecutor displays fingerprints found at the crime scene that exactly

match Joe’s. The hypothesis that Joe committed the crime would explain why the finger-

prints and the hair were found at the crime scene. However, these two pieces of evidence by themselves do not show with certainty, or even beyond a reasonable doubt,

that Joe committed the crime. Yet, although the evidence still does not show that Joe is guilty, it is now looking a little more likely that he committed the crime. The prosecutor now introduces shoeprints found at the crime scene matching those of the defendant’s. Again, although one piece of evidence by itself does not prove Joe’s

guilt, the probability is now increasing. For if Joe committed the crime, that would ex-

plain why all three items were found, and it is hard to think of an alternative explanation that would account for the facts.

It is obvious to common sense where this is going. As the evidence accumulates, it

looks more and more likely that Joe committed the crime. Why? Because it becomes

harder and harder to explain the facts on any other hypothesis. At some point, the

reasoning becomes overwhelming, and we say that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Application to Worldviews Arguments for worldviews are also cumulative in nature. A feature of the world is examined, and it is argued that this aspect of the world is best explained on a particular

LIFE

387

UNIT5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

worldview. By itself, this one inference to the best explanation will not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the particular worldview is true. Then additional features of the world are examined, and in each case it is argued that the feature is best explained

by that particular philosophy of life. Each of these features is evidence for the worldview

under consideration. At some point, if enough evidence is offered, and if the overall evidence is best explained by a particular worldview and other worldviews cannot

plausibly or adequately explain the sum total of evidence, it may become reasonable to adopt that worldview as one’s ultimate framework for making sense of life as a whole. In this way, a worldview can be reached, and supported, by a cumulative case argument. The worldview you hold need not be a matter of mere chance. It need not be something placed into your mind by other people.

HOW TO COMPARE WORLDVIEWS Many different worldviews compete for our allegiance today. When comparing them, how do we proceed? Worldviews can be evaluated on the basis of the criteria we use to evaluate any explanation, with one additional criterion. Efficacy is added to the list of desiderata since our worldview guides our life as well as helps us make sense of it. 1. Internal consistency. Does the worldview under consideration contain contradic-

tions? Or do its parts fit together in a logically consistent way? Consistency is a requirement for any reasonable worldview.

2. External consistency. Is the worldview in question consistent with already established facts about the world? Does it fit with what we already know, such as facts established by science and common sense? Or does it contradict our background information? 3. Explanatory scope. Does the worldview explain a wide range of things about life and the world? Does it tie together and relate widely different and previously unrelated phenomena? If one worldview explains a wider range of phenomena than another, the first has greater explanatory scope. The more scope, the better. 4. Testability. Is the worldview testable? Are there tests in life it can pass or fail?

. Efficacy. Is the worldview useful in coping with life’s difficulties? Can we live a fully

n

388

6.

7. 8. 9.

human life in accord with it and put it into practice? Or is it not very practicable? Explanatory power. Does the worldview make sense of life overall? Does it provide an illuminating interpretation of life as a whole? Does it provide a reasonable solution to the question of the meaning of life? Fruitfulness. Does the worldview under consideration open up new avenues of investigation that make further sense of life and lead to a deeper account overall? Conservatism: Does the worldview cohere, or fit in well, with already established facts and theories? Does it “conserve” existing knowledge? Simplicity. Does the worldview avoid unnecessary explanatory elements? If two worldviews explain the same range of data, while the first is simpler (makes fewer assumptions) than the second, this is a good reason to accept the first. However,

CHAPTER

14

CRITICAL

THINKING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

a word of caution is in order here: worldview 1 may be simpler than worldview 2, but worldview 2 will be rationally preferred if it can explain important aspects of life that are left unexplained by worldview 1.

When you decide, on the basis of the criteria for the best explanation, that one worldview is more reasonable over-

all than another, you rely ultimately on your own judgment. Your judgment in this case will be partly a function of your total life experiences. This is why there is no exact way to calculate which worldview makes the best overall sense of life. However, your judgment in favor of a worldview need not be baseless or arbitrary, or established purely on feelings, biases, or chance factors. You can make a reasoned judgment, based on criteria—the criteria you use to decide ifany hypothesis is reasonable. In other words, your choice of a worldview can be rooted in critical thinking.

YOUR PHILOSOPHY

OF LIFE

Your worldview includes your basic beliefs about the world. It also includes your core

values. Because it is so foundational, your worldview cannot help but affect the way you generally think and act. In this way it forms the basis for your general attitude toward

life. It also forms the basis for the answers you give to the traditional “big questions” of life, questions philosophers have traditionally dealt with, such as Who am I? What am I? Why do I exist? Where am I going? What is the meaning of life? And the question that Socrates thought every critical thinker ought to ask, What is the best way to live, all things considered? These questions are not just for the purpose of mental gymnastics.

They are not just for philosophers. They are vitally important. For the answers you give to these questions have consequences for the type of person you are and for the way you live your life.

“Our argument is over no chance matter but over what is the way we ought to live.’—Socrates, The Republic, 1, 352d “Ofall investigations, Callicles, this is the noblest—about those things on which you reproached me: What sort of man should one be, and what should one practice and up to what point, when he is young and when he is old.”—Socrates, Gorgias 487e-488a.

CONCLUDING REFLECTION Some people put little thought into their worldview. The picture of the world that underwrites their general attitude to life and that guides their actions is, to a large extent,

LIFE

389

UNIT

5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

composed of beliefs and theories they received from other people. That picture may also include beliefs that are simply due to the circumstances they happened to have been born into or the social milieu they happened to have found themselves in. But none of these sources of belief is a guarantee of truth. For this reason, critical thinkers choose not to outsource responsibility for their beliefs and values, even though doing so certainly requires less mental effort. Instead, they seek a worldview that makes the best

sense of life overall—one worthy of an examined life.

If we are critical thinkers, we have another reason to take responsibility for our

minds. To the extent that we have not critically examined our core beliefs and values,

they are due to others, or to external circumstances, or to chance, and we are not self-

directed persons, and we are not truly free.

Exercise 14.1 Questions for class or small group discussion, essays, or self-reflection.

PYeNr

390

How has the study of critical thinking affected your life? What is a worldview? Does everyone have one? Describe some of the main tenets of your worldview. Summarize two major worldviews that compete for our attention and allegiance

today. 5. Briefly characterize two opposing worldviews, and state why you find one to be more reasonable than the other. 6. Write an argumentative essay in support of your worldview.

7. Discuss ways in which your life experiences have increased your confidence in your worldview. Then discuss experiences that have challenged your worldview.

Have any experiences caused you to doubt your worldview?

8. Have any life experiences caused you to significantly change your worldview in the past?

9. How has your worldview changed over the years? In what ways does it differ from

10.

the worldview of your childhood? State an argument that you believe bolsters a key element of your worldview. How might a critical thinker object to that argument? How would you defend it against that objection?

11. State an argument that you believe counts against a key element in your worldview. 12. 13.

How do you respond to that argument? Could two people assent to identical factual descriptions of the world yet react to these facts with radically different moral evaluations and life paths? Does Socrates’s claim that the unexamined life is not worth living fail to recognize the intrinsic value of all human life? Is it arrogant?

CHAPTER

14

CRITICAL

THINKING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

14. Are some people simply not able to critically examine their lives? 1S. Does the idea of critical thinking presuppose that people have free will? It would seem that if your thoughts and actions are not free, in some sense of the word, then

they are not really up to you or under your control. But if your thoughts and actions are not up to you, it would seem to follow that real critical thinking is not

possible, and you are not responsible for what you do. What do we mean by free will? Does the idea of critical thinking presuppose it? Discuss critically. This is an advanced philosophical question!® 16.

Henry David Thoreau wrote these words about his life on Walden Pond:

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see ifI could learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what is not life, living is so dear...” What is significant about this passage, from the standpoint of critical thinking? 17. Describe a scene in a movie in which a character changes his or her mind on an important moral issue on the basis of empathetic experience. Exercise 14.2

Further questions for class or small group discussion, essays, or self-reflection. Is a person’s life really not worth living if the person does not, or cannot, critically examine his or her life in a Socratic manner? Or is Socrates just wrong when he says that the unexamined life is not worth living?”

a

ae}

Is the life of critical thinking for everybody? Or only for some?

Is an examined life more worthwhile than an unexamined one? How does critical thinking contribute to personal freedom? How would you define and explain critical thinking, if you had to explain it to someone who had never heard the term? Why is critical thinking important? Does your worldview contain an internal contradiction? For instance, does your view on free will conflict with your view on moral responsibility? Do your actions contradict your moral theory? How do reason and emotion work together in critical thinking? Evaluate this statement from a critical thinking perspective: “I don’t want to be a passenger in my life; I want to be behind the wheel.”

Exercise 14.3 True or false?

1. A cumulative argument is a type of deductive argument. 2. Arguments in the courtroom are often cumulative in nature. 3. Everyone has a worldview, whether they realize it or not.

LIFE

391

UNIT

5

MORAL

REASONING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

LIFE

4. This text argues that critical thinking cannot be applied to a worldview because worldviews are too “big.” 5. This text suggests that if you do not examine your own beliefs and values, then you are not truly self-directed. 6. According to the text, worldviews are best chosen on the basis of feelings rather than reasoning. Consistency is a desirable feature of a worldview. Explanatory scope is a desirable feature of a worldview.

yo PN

392

Background information plays a role when we evaluate a worldview.

10. According to the text, worldviews can be compared and evaluated on essentially the same criteria used in the evaluation of large-scale scientific theories. Exercise 14.4

Choose the best answer. 1. Which of the following is not necessarily a desirable feature of a worldview? a. Itis internally consistent. b. Itis externally consistent. c. Ithas explanatory power.

d. It makes you feel good. e.

Ithas explanatory scope.

f. g.

It satisfies the principle of simplicity. Itis testable.

b.

inductive arguments

c.

categorical arguments

d.

cumulative arguments

a.

theory of meaning

c.

philosophy of life

a.

your judgment

b.

reason

2. The text argues that worldviews can be supported by a. deductive arguments

3. According to the text, a worldview is also called a b.

theory of the universe

d. hypothesis of existence 4. According to the text, your worldview can be chosen on the basis of c. your total life experiences d. all ofthe above

CHAPTER

NOTES L Burt Bacharach

14

CRITICAL

THINKING,

WORLDVIEWS,

AND

THE

EXAMINED

once said that, of all his compositions, “Alfie” was his favorite. Amazingly, Dionne

Warwick recorded the song in one take. My source for these lyrics is “Alfie Lyrics.” Lyrics.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. www.lyrics.net/lyric/7119338.

2.

The noted philosopher Wilfrid Sellars once defined philosophy as the attempt “to see how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term.” My attention was drawn to Sellars’s wonderful characterization of philosophy by Laurence BonJour, Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses, 2nd ed. (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010), 1. See Wilfrid Sellars, Science, Perception, and Reality (London:

Routledge &

Kegan Paul, 1963), 1. 3. A critical thinker’s job is never finished. Reflective people are examining their lives and learning things and making improvements even in their retirement years. 4. In philosophy, a fact that has no explanation, or that can be given no explanation, is called a “brute fact.” If an aardvark suddenly popped into existence in front of you, out of absolutely nothing, and 5.

nothing caused it to be, then its existence would be a brute fact. As Ihave suggested, when researching a controversial issue from scratch, it is best to read two or more sides of the issue. It is never a good idea, from a critical thinking standpoint, to read one side

only and then make up your mind. Two excellent works on the question of free will from opposing standpoints are Daniel Dennett, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press, 1984) and Peter Van Inwagen, An Essay on Free Will (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1986).

6. Henry David Thoreau, Walden (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 1. Originally published in 1854. 7. Surely there are people who have lived good lives without engaging wholeheartedly in rigorous Socratic critical thinking. However, as professor Larry Stern (emeritus professor of philosophy, University of Puget Sound) pointed out to me in conversation, the compelling examples (Saint Francis of Assisi, for example) are all individuals who were already living in a humane social environment. Someone living a simple life without engaging in any critical thinking, in an environment such as Nazi Germany, likely would not be living a very good life.

KEY TERMS

cumulative argument worldview

LIFE

393

This page intentionally left blank

Epilogue

History shows that an expansion of individual freedom—of thought, speech, and

action—accompanied by widespread critical thinking, leads to a general improvement in the human condition. When people their minds, and act of their own free under a government they consented to, all blossomed, and the general human

have been free to think for themselves, speak will under laws they had a say in making and creativity, inventiveness, and productivity have condition has improved. Correlatively, when

individuals have not been free to employ their critical faculties, the conditions of life have at best stagnated and at worst deteriorated. Perhaps nothing more need be said as a testament to the value of critical thinking. Whether this is, or is not, one of the

lessons history teaches, I leave to your thoughtful consideration.

395

This page intentionally left blank

Answers to Selected Exercises

Many of the exercises in the text call for essays and personal responses that will vary from student to student. Answers to these exercises are not provided here. CHAPTER1

10.

Exercise 1.4

iT

LE

5.

7

10.

T

20.

T

1d

soe Exercise 3.5 1. theoretical 5S. Plato’s definition of man 6. a. lexical e. stipulative k. lexical

Exercise 1.5 ld 5. d 10. b

2

1. intensional 5.

5. F T

1S. 20.

T F

is too broad.

Exercise 3.6

Exercise 2.3 10.

;

Exercise 3.4

1s. F

CHAPTER

F

extensional

10. intensional Exercise 3.7

1. The definition employs too many negative characterizations. 5. The definition is too figurative.

Eaescee 2

1. b

10. The definition employs too many negative

Sc

characterizations.

cusPTER< Exercise 3.3 1. sT S. T

Exercise 3.9 1. conclusion 5. premise 10. conclusion

397

ANSWERS

TO

SELECTED

EXERCISES

Exercise 3.10

1. The premises are: (1) Government ... drive. (2)... government... reliable. The conclusion is “...if you are... drive.” Premise indicator: Since. Conclusion indicator: It follows that.

. The premise are: (1) All differences ... luck. (2) ... nobody deserves... luck. The conclusion is: “... all... undeserved.” Premise indicator: Since. Conclusion indicator: It follows that.

Exercise 3.11

1. S. 10. 15. 20. 25.

inductive deductive deductive inductive inductive deductive

Exercise 3.12

1. valid S. invalid 10. valid Exercise 3.13 1. strong

S. strong 10. weak Exercise 3.14

1. S. 10. 1S. 20. 25.

strong

valid valid weak strong

Exercise 3.19

lb

Sie

CHAPTER

4

Exercise 4.2

1. availability bias confirmation bias or selective attention bias selective attention bias

§. 10.

Exercise 4.3

1. S. 10. 1S.

F T F F

Exercise 4.4

ld Sia

CHAPTER

5

Exercise 5.3 1. subjective objective

S.

Exercise 5.4

1. F S. F 10. 1S. 20. 25.

HmyHd

398

Exercise 5.9

valid

Exercise 3.18

1. S. 10. 1S. 20.

T T F T T

Exercise 5.10 lic

5.

a

10.

¢

ANSWERS

CHAPTER 6 Exercise 6.3

(Coherentists may argue for an answer of “both” on some or all of these.) 1.

a posteriori

S$. a priori 10.

a priori

T T T T

7

1.

equivocation

$. 10. 1S.

division division equivocation

20.

composition

CHAPTER

F T F T F

9

Exercise 9.7

1. 5. 10. 18.

Exercise 7.4

&F F T F

Exercise 9.8

ld

ld

Sia

Sie

8

Exercise 8.1

1. hasty generalization S. false dilemma 10. ad hominem 15. begging the question 20. begging the question

1&F S. T

accident

Exercise 8.5

Exercise 7.3

Exercise 8.2

false dilemma

15.

¢

CHAPTER

Exercise 8.3 lic

10. false cause (“post hoc, ergo propter hoc”)

S$. b

1. S. 10. 18. 20.

F F T

S.

le

CHAPTER

EXERCISES

Exercise 8.4 1. slippery slope

Exercise 6.5

10.

SELECTED

S.c¢

Exercise 6.4

1. S. 10. 1S.

10. 15. 20.

TO

CHAPTER

10

Exercise 10.1

LI 5. V 10. I 1S. I Exercise 10.3

1. valid 5. valid

ANSWERS

TO

Exercise 10.5

1. modus tollens 5. none none

10.

Exercise 10.7

1. 5. 10. 18. 20.

T F F F T

EXERCISES

CHAPTER

11

Exercise 11.5

1. $. 10. 15.

method of difference method of correlation joint method method of difference

Exercise. 11.7

1.

Exercise 10.8 lia

Sie Exercise 10.9

1. F S. T 10. F

S. 10. 1S. 20. 25.

Exercise 11.8

lb S. d CHAPTER

Exercise 10.10

le

12

Exercise 12.1

LA S. I

Exercise 10.13

1. T S. F 10. T 18.

SELECTED

MHamya7

400

T

Exercise 10.14 lias

10.

Exercise 12.2 1. a. All drops of seawater are salty entities. 2. a. No irrational persons are persons who accept criticism calmly. 3. a. Some warriors are moral beings. 4.

b.

s

c.

Ss

d. w ew f. s

E

a.

Some politicians are not honest persons.

Exercise 12.4

1. T S$. T 10. F

ANSWERS

Exercise 12.5

la S$. b

T

18.

F

SELECTED

EXERCISES

Exercise 12.8 1B

Exercise 12.6

1.

10.

TO

A

1.

a

sm

r

8

Exercise 12.9

ae

a

c

"D>,

invalid oO

Exercise 12.7

NY,

1.T

5.

F

invalid

>

A

10.

“)