12/14 Class Canceled

I'm sick, so Monday's class is canceled.

The final exam will still be Friday, December 18th, and we'll still be reviewing for it on Wednesday.

After a Word from Our Sponsors...

Here are some links on advertising and reasoning.

• The first is about the underlying intellectual dishonesty in even the most honest of ad campaigns.
  
• By the way, if you're into advertising, that entire blog is great. I'm a bit biased, though, since I used to work with the guy who writes it.
• Here's a radio interview with the director of FactCheck.org, a great website devoted to debunking claims in political ads.
• I also used to work with the guy who interviewed FactCheck's director. Yup, I'm a pretty big deal.
• I wish those fact checking websites made a difference. Actually, I just wish they didn't hurt their own cause. Silly humans and your naturally biased minds!

Wooden-Headed

Here's a little rant on that favorite topic of mine: intellectual honesty. A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we're getting better at that. But this doesn't guarantee that we'll care about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about evidence and arguments because they get us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we are presented with decent evidence for some claim, but still stubbornly disagree with this claim, we are just being irrational. Worse, we're effectively saying that the truth doesn't matter to us.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to challenge ourselves, and let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we've currently gotten something wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I read last year on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. Remember, in many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Wished Pots Never Boil

Here is a hodgepodge of links on some psychological impediments we're discussing recently:

• If you're a fan of The Secret, you should beware that it's basic message is wishful thinking run amok.
• Teachers have biases, too: we're self-serving and play favorites.
• Why don't we give more aid to those in need? Psychological impediments are at least partly to blame.
• Why do we believe medical myths (like "vitamin C cures the common cold," or "you should drink 8 glasses of water a day")? Psychological impediments, of course!
  

The Importance of Being Stochastic

Statistical reasoning is incredibly important. The vast majority of advancements in human knowledge (all sciences, social sciences, medicine, engineering...) is the result of using some kind of math. If I had to recommend one other course that could improve your ability to learn in general, it'd be Statistics.

Anyway, a few links:

• I brought up this article before, but I'll mention it again: most of us are pretty bad at statistical reasoning.
• That radio show I love recently devoted an entire episode to probability:
  
  
• Here's a review of a decent book (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives) on our tendency to misinterpret randomness as if it's an intentional pattern.
• This ability to see patterns where there are none may explain why so many of us believe in god (see section 5 in particular).
• What was that infinite monkey typewriter thing we were talking about in class?
  
• Statistics in sports is all the rage lately. It can justify counterintuitive decisions, like going for it instead of punting on 4th down... though don't expect the fans to buy that fancy math learnin'.
  

Let's Be Diplomatic: Straw Person

Here's some stuff on the straw man fallacy:

• Politicians love to distort their opponents' positions. Even Obama does it.
• Politicians aren't alone: we do it, too. Often we distort arguments for claims we disagree with without even realizing it. This is because we have trouble coming up with good reasons supporting a conclusion that we think is false, so we have a tendency to make up bad reasons and attribute them to our opponents.
  
• Hire your own professional straw man!

Also, speaking of red herrings, here's a cute cat picture:

Wait, we weren't just speaking of red her--Oh. I see what you did there.

Clever.

Possible Paper Articles

Here are some links to a variety of articles you could use for your paper on explaining and evaluating an article's argument:

1. Bad Stereotyping: race & gender = insufficient info
2. The Idle Life is Worth Living: in praise of laziness
3. In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: are some people just not meant for college?
4. Who Would Make an Effective Teacher?: we're using the wrong predictors
5. Study Says Social Conservatives Are Dumb: but that doesn't mean they're wrong
   
6. The Financial Crisis Killed Libertarianism: if it wasn't dead to begin with
7. How'd Economists Get It So Wrong?: Krugman says the least wrong was Keynes
8. An Open Letter to Krugman: get to know your field
9. Consider the Lobster: David Foster Wallace ponders animal ethics
10. Genetically Engineered Pain Free Animals: would it be ethical to make 'em feel no pain?
11. Is Worrying About the Ethics of Your Diet Elitist?: since you asked, no
    
12. Loyalty is Overrated: adaptability & autonomy matter more
13. FBI Profiling: it's a scam, like psychic cold reading
14. Singer: How Much Should We Give?: just try to think up a more important topic
15. Can Foreign Aid Work?: it has problems, but we should use it
16. The Dark Art of Interrogation: Bowden says torture is necessary
17. Opposing the Death Penalty: it's not about innocence
18. You Don't Deserve Your Salary: no one does
    
19. Against Free Speech: but it's free, so it must be good
    
20. What pro-lifers miss in the stem-cell debate: love embryos? then hate fertility clinics
21. Is Selling Organs Repugnant?: freakonomicists for a free-market for organs
22. Why I Have No Future: Strawson's intuition that death's not bad
    
23. Should I Become a Professional Philosopher?: hell 2 da naw
24. Blackburn Defends Philosophy: it beats being employed

Evaluating Deductive Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we did as group work in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

1) All humpback whales are whales.
All whales are mammals.
All humpback whales are mammals.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- valid
overall - sound

2) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
structure- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

3) Some cats can speak German.
Sean has a cat.
Sean's cat can speak German.

P1- false
P2- true! (I have two; there they are! ------------>)
structure- invalid (the 1st premise only says some can speak German; Sean's cat could be one of the ones that doesn't)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

4) All knock-knock jokes are annoying.
Some knock-knock jokes are funny.
Some annoying things are funny.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("funny" is subjective)
structure- valid (the premises establish that some knock-knock jokes are both annoying and funny; so some annoying things [those jokes] are funny)
overall - unsound (bad premises)

5) All whales are mammals.
All whales live in the ocean.
All mammals live in the ocean.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "Whales are the sorts of creatures whose natural habitat is the ocean.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living whale lives in the ocean," since some whales, like Shamu, live in SeaWorld or other zoos)
structure- invalid (we don't know much about the relationship between mammals and creatures that living in the ocean just from the fact that whales belong to each of those groups)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with your teacher Sean)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

8) All students in this room are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in this room are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- invalid (it's the same structure as argument #10 below; the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- valid (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) All women are mammals.
All men are mammals.
All men are women.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- invalid (just because men and women belong to the same group doesn't mean that men are women; same bad structure as in arg #8)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false (I'm not singing now!)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)

13) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)

Structure

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises, if they were true, would provide good evidence for us to believe that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures guarantee that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Deductive Args (Valid)
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Deductive Args (Invalid)
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://ccclogic2009.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; slandis@camdencc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Logic & Reasoning
Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 121, Section 01
Fall 2009
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Noon – 12:50 p.m. in Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://ccclogic2009.blogspot.com

Required Text
THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life, by Judith Boss

About the Course
We are presented with arguments for all sorts of conclusions all the time, on topics as serious as abortion or the death penalty and as trivial as who the Phillies best player is or whether Letterman is funnier than Leno. How can we tell good arguments from bad ones?

This course focuses on understanding and evaluating arguments. We’ll first learn how to identify the components and structures of arguments. We’ll then learn how to pick apart the bad reasoning found in some arguments by going over logical fallacies, which are the different ways an argument can go wrong. We’ll also discuss the limitations of our own reasoning abilities and the natural biases that throw us off.

Armed with these evaluative tools, we’ll then explore our arguments for what we believe, and revise or strengthen them based on proper reasoning. The course’s main goal is to develop a respect for arguments and reasoning as an important, if not the most important, tool toward figuring out the truth and gaining a deep understanding of complex issues.

Grades
900-1000 points = A
800-899 points = B
700-799 points = C
600-699 points = D
below 600 points = F.

Midterm 150 points
Final 250 points
Quizzes (2) 75 points each
Group Presentation 150 points
Group Projects (3) 30 points each
Other Homework (3) 40 points each
Short Paper 50 points
Attendance/Participation 40 points

Exams: The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will also last 50 minutes, and be held on the last day of class.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. Quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 4 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on everything we cover after the midterm. Quizzes will last 20 to 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Short Paper: There will be a short paper (300-600 words) on understanding and evaluating an argument from a newspaper or magazine article.

Group Presentation: This will be a group project presented in front of the class at the end of the semester. Each group of 3-5 students will research a topic and present a 10- to 15-minute oral presentation on it to the rest of the class.

In-Class Group Projects: In addition to the group presentation and a lot of informal group work, there are three in-class group projects due at various times throughout the semester.

Other Homework: There will be three total homework assignments.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for your attendance grade. In addition, informal group work can impact your grade.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarists. I recommend not trying it!

Excused Absenses: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury – with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Course Schedule

September 2—4
Wednesday Introduction to class | (no assignment)
Friday Critical Thinking Intro | read pages 166-176

September 7—11
Monday Understanding Arguments | read pages 177-182
Wednesday Understanding Args wrap-up | informal group work
Friday Evaluating Arguments | read pages 184-187

September 14—18
Monday Evaluating Arguments wrap-up | informal group work
Wednesday Constructing Your Own Arguments | read pages 188-194
Friday Deductive Args: Valid & Sound | read pages 238-247; Homework #1 due

September 21—25
Monday Deductive Args: Evaluating Validity | read pages 249-261
Wednesday Inductive Args | read pages 202-214
Friday QUIZ #1; Inductive Args wrap-up | read pages 216-219

September 28—October 2
Monday Inductive Args: Analogies & Causal | read pages 221-229
Wednesday Evaluating Inductive Args | Group Project #1 (in class)
Friday Scientific Reasoning (Abductive Args) read pages 371-387

October 5—9
Monday Scientific Arguments: Evaluation | read pages 387-399
Wednesday Scientific Reasoning wrap-up | informal group work
Friday Fallacies: Equivocation & Amphiboly | read pages 133-137; Homework #2 due

October 12—16
Monday Fallacies: Accent & Division | read pages 137-138; Group Presentation #1
Wednesday Fallacies: Ad Hominem & Force | read pages 139-141; Group Presentation #2
Friday Fallacies: Pity & Popular Appeal | read pages 142-144; Group Presentation #3

October 19—23
Monday Fallacies: Ignorance & Hasty | read pages 144-147; Group Presentation #4
Wednesday Review for Midterm Exam | (no assignment)
Friday MIDTERM

October 26—30
Monday Fallacies: Straw Man & Red Herring | read pages 147-150; Group Presentation #5
Wednesday Fallacies: Question Beg & Loaded | read pages 151-153; Group Presentation #6
Friday Fallacies: Authority & Dilemma | read pages 153-156; Group Presentation #7

November 2—6
Monday Fallacies: Slippery & Naturalistic | read pages 156-161; Group Presentation #8
Wednesday Cognitive Biases: Our Mental Limits | read pages 97-107
Friday Cognitive Biases: Perceptual Errors | read pages 109-119

November 9—13
Monday Cognitive Biases: Mental Biases | (no assignment)
Wednesday Cognitive Biases: Social Biases | read pages 120-125
Friday Cognitive Biases wrap-up | Group Project #2 (in class)

November 16—20
Monday QUIZ #2; Intellectual Honesty | Quiz #2
Wednesday Intellectual Honesty: Charity | read pages 1-12
Friday Intellectual Honesty: Ignorance | read pages 13-29

November 23—25
Monday Intellectual Honesty wrap-up | informal group work
Wednesday Marketing & Advertising | read pages 311-321; Homework #3 due
Friday Thanksgiving Break (no class) (woo?)


November 30—December 4
Monday Marketing & Advertising: Evaluation | read pages 321-333
Wednesday Marketing & Advertising wrap-up | Group Project #3 (in class)
Friday Mass Media: News | read pages 342-350

December 7—11
Monday Mass Media: Science & Internet | read pages 351-358
Wednesday Mass Media: Critical Consumers | read pages 359-362
Friday Mass Media wrap-up | informal group work

December 14—18
Monday Catch-up day | Paper due
Wednesday review for Final Exam | (no reading)
Friday FINAL EXAM: noon—12:50 Friday, December 18th, 2009