The Process of Argument: An Introduction 9780367425340, 9780367425258, 9780367853310

Citation preview

The Process of Argument

The Process of Argument: An Introduction is a necessary companion for anyone seeking to engage in successful persuasion: To organize, construct, and communicate argu­ ments. It is both comprehensive and accessible: An authoritative guide to logical thinking and effective communication. The book begins with techniques to improve reading comprehension, including guides on navigating through fake news and internet trolls. Then, readers are taught how to recon­ struct deductive, inductive, and abductive presentations so that the logical structure is expli­ cit. And finally, there is a step-by-step guide for responding to these texts via the argumentative essay. Along the way are current examples from social media and elsewhere on the internet along with guides for assessing truth claims in an ever-complicated community worldview. Throughout, are carefully selected reading questions and exercises that will pace readers in order to ensure that the text is securely grasped and successfully applied. Key Features • • • • • • • •

Offers guidance on how to read a text through self-analysis and social criticism Provides a step-by-step procedure for allowing the student to move from reading to reconstruction to being prepared to write an effective argumentative essay Presents truth theory and shows readers how they can helpfully acquaint them­ selves with a version of realistic, foundational epistemology Offers guidelines and helpful tools on how best to structure an argumentative, pro or con, essay Includes expansive coverage of inductive logic through the use and assessment of statistics Covers abductive logic as it applies to the analysis of narrative in argumentative writing Has up-to-date examples from the media, including from blogs, social media, and television Includes a helpful glossary of all important terms in the book

Michael Boylan is Professor of Philosophy at Marymount University in Arlington, Vir­ ginia. He is the author of 37 books, most recently Fictive Narrative Philosophy (2019), The Origins of Ancient Greek Science (2015), and Natural Human Rights: A Theory (2014).

The Process of Argument

An Introduction

Michael Boylan

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Michael Boylan to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-42534-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-42525-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-85331-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK

This book is dedicated to my children: Arianne, Seán, and Éamon.

Contents

List of illustrations Preface Acknowledgments Introduction

viii

ix

xii

1

PART 1

Reading the Text

11

1 Confronting the Text 2 Critical Reading: Worldviews, Fallacies, and the Common

Body of Knowledge 3 Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

13

21

39

PART 2

Reconstructing the Text

59

4 Outlining Deductive Logical Argument 5 Outlining Inductive Logical Argument 6 Abductive Logical Outlining

61

82

100

PART 3

Responding to the Text 7 Finding Out What You Believe 8 The Con Essay 9 The Pro Essay Appendix: The Big Picture Glossary Index

115

117

129

134

139

149

156

Illustrations

Figures

0.1 0.2

Sample Baseball Argument The Relationship between the Elements of Logical Persuasion 3.1 Posts to Website 4.1 Contradictory Opposites A.1 Macro- and Micro-Arguments

5 6 40 78 140

Table

5.1 Joint Method

89

Preface

This book is, in one way, the third edition that began as The Process of Argument (Prentice Hall, 1988). However, it is more than just a third edi­ tion but an entirely revised project that is supported by a new publisher, Routledge. The first book was designed to be an informal logic text with the intent that it would be used in classes centered around critical thinking—then a nascent field. In fact, the American Association for Higher Education had a session on critical thinking shortly after publication and featured The Process of Argument, among a few other texts, as examples of how this new field might develop. The second edition sought more realworld examples while this third edition has extended coverage of induct­ ive logic, including some material on probability and on inductive logic. After thirty years of continual classroom adoptions, it seems to me that there is good reason to again update and reorient the book. The new emphasis is upon how to read and respond critically to argumentative texts. In this way the text has transformed into one that emphasizes crit­ ical inquiry through the three r’s of reading, reconstructing, and responding to argumentative texts. This is an important skill that is necessary in the cur­ riculum of many courses. For example, in philosophy all the texts pre­ sented are argumentative, so this book can instruct the student in achieving the requisite skills needed to read and analyze texts. But these skills are not confined to philosophy. In literature classes it is common­ place to teach two sorts of essays: (a) The expository (or research) essay and (b) the argumentative essay. This book would be most useful for courses in the latter domain. It might also be useful for upper-level litera­ ture courses that want to incorporate critical theory. This is because the bounds of critical theory are the logically acceptable categories of deduct­ ive and inductive reasoning (both represented here). Also, the presenta­ tion of fictive narrative philosophy represents an overlap of the two disciplines. Students of composition classes as well as upper-level theory classes could profit from exposure to a succinct handbook on argument— including rules on understanding, reconstructing, and responding to the same.

x

Preface

Other classes in the curriculum, such as politics, economics, and business, also require facility in confronting argument successfully. The crossover between disciplines respecting argument is very high. For twenty-five years I have led a faculty seminar on ethics and logical argu­ ment to professors across the disciplines. This book reflects my experi­ ences. I have also used this method of teaching argument when I was first an English literature teacher in 1976 and, later, a philosophy teacher from 1979 onward. So, this book also represents thirty-two years of classroom experience. The book is divided into three parts: Reading the Text, Reconstruct­ ing the Text, and Responding to the Text (the three rs). In Part I, Read­ ing the Text, students are presented with critical tools so that they might not simply accept the text as given. Instead, students are encouraged to go through some self-examination that will enable them to understand their own critical standpoint. This is essential in order that they might be able to ascertain what the speaker is saying and subsequently whether the presentation is correct. I should point out that in the first two sections of the book there is a presentation of how to confront media claims as well as those from the traditional written word. In Part II, Reconstructing the Text, the student is presented with a self-contained system of informal logic. The rules are few and focused on the practical outcomes of enabling the student to confront an argu­ mentative text and to reconstruct the important arguments contained within. These reconstructed arguments are formally presented according to the rules of the system. By making students go through this process, they are forced to give an interpretation of the logical argument con­ tained within. This constitutes another level of understanding that will facilitate better critical inquiry via this connection to the process of argu­ mentative presentation. Finally, there is Part III, Responding to the Text. In this case the stu­ dent is enjoined to write a clear pro or con essay. The point of making this clear decision is to promote straightforward argumentative thinking. This is always best achieved when students must make difficult choices. Many students want to be fence-sitters and avoid taking a stance, but this mars their ability to create clear arguments. This text thus sees itself as promoting the three rs: Reading, recon­ structing, and responding to the text. If this book can better facilitate stu­ dent outcomes in creating argumentative essays, then it will be a success. Key features of this book include: • Guidance on how to read a text through self-analysis and social criticism • Tools on how to reconstruct logical argument in a structured manner

Preface

xi

• A step-by-step procedure to move from reading to a reflective packet that allows the student to be in the position to write an argumenta­ tive essay • Guidelines on how to structure an argumentative, pro or con, essay It is the intention of this book to assist the student in this process from the point of opening the book to the time when he or she turns in their essay.

Acknowledgments

In addition to those noted in the first and second editions, I would like to thank Andrew Beck, my editor and Marc Stratton (his assistant), who have helped me put this new project together along with others on the Routledge team. My thanks also to the professors who took my faculty ethics seminars where I employed many of the techniques found in this book. Their feedback helped me clarify my thoughts and see what might work in a variety of disciplines. I would also like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their comments that have improved this edition. Finally, I would like to thank those who have been my students over the past forty plus years. There is no better way to find out what works and what doesn’t than through direct interaction with students.

Introduction

Critical inquiry begins by recognizing argument. Argument—what is it? Does it mean someone is angry with someone else? Is it something to avoid? Many people are unacquainted with argument as the logical means of persuasion. It is obvious to everyone that the power of persuasion is valuable. In ancient Greece people spent large sums of money to possess this rare commodity; with the power of persuasion they felt they could become successful. Other, less mercenary philosophers, such as Plato and Aris­ totle, extended the study of argument, developing it from an art into a science. Indeed, today similar attitudes toward persuasion exist. Executive sem­ inars offer training in the art of leadership, sales, and positive thinking. These really amount to methods of getting your ideas across to someone else. The motivation for these seminars is success and financial gain. Likewise, in our universities, the disinterested study of persuasion pro­ ceeds under the titles of philosophy, rhetoric, and composition. Both their practical and intellectual exercises have one point in common: They both aspire to construct rules whereby one can properly persuade others. A full-scale treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this volume. Instead, this text will act as an initiation that will supplement and enrich various courses of instruction. Be that as it may, a few things should be noted about the methodology adopted for this present volume and how it intends to aid the student in acquiring the skill of analytic reading and reasoned evaluation. The first point is that the purpose of argument, persuasion, is not a commodity that exists in isolation. One seeks to persuade within a context. This context can be described by the following elements: Speaker’s audience Point of contention argument Common body of knowledge

2

Introduction

An example of all these elements working together follows: Sam wants to persuade Kathy to go to the movies. Kathy smiles but doesn’t reply, so Sam lists the great reviews and modestly hints at the advantages of going with him. After all, they’re both in the same English class, love literature, and could have so much to talk about! In this example the speaker is Sam, the audience is Kathy, and the point of contention is whether Kathy will go to the movies with Sam. The argument addresses both the movie’s quality and the scenario of a good time; the common body of knowledge is their shared aesthetic value system. The reader is encouraged to identify these same elements within the context of arguments he or she may encounter. Familiarity with their separate roles is useful for acquiring competence in the process of argument. Several points about argument can be made using the simple structure outlined above. Perhaps the most difficult of these three elements to understand is the common body of knowledge. This is because this elem­ ent consists of a collection of facts and shared assumptions about what counts as a proper way to relate facts to each other and to commonly held social norms. These assumptions form a set of logical rules or pro­ cedures and without them, no conclusions can be drawn from the facts. To show some of the difficulties that can occur in even the simplest cases, let us examine the following four examples of common facts: 1. 2. 3. 4.

John is 6 feet tall. It is uncomfortably hot outside today. General Electric is ripe for a corporate takeover. Big oil companies are evil because they gouge ordinary people for their excessive profits.

The above examples differ in several respects. In the first one, presum­ ably, we have an objective fact. But what makes it objective? It is because (1) we have an agreed-upon unit of measurement and (2) John is set against this standard. The first statement refers to an agreed-upon standard by which measurements can be made. This is generally unproblematic, but disagreements are possible even at this level. For example, someone who opted for the metric system might disagree that measurements should be taken in the English system of weights and measures. (Some awkward cases have arisen over just this issue between the United States and the International Track and Field Federation concerning standards of measurement and world records in the high jump and pole vault.) Con­ version tables are available, of course, but the point is that even with very

Introduction

3

straightforward cases, one must make certain assumptions that, themselves, are not subject to dispute. Without these assumptions, no resolution is possible. The second statement refers to the use of the measurement standard. Suppose we agree to the English system of weights and measures. Then (1) is about the actual measuring of John against a calibrated yardstick. Again, this seems uncomplicated, but problems can arise. It is possible to set up an agreed-upon standard and yet disagree about whether the object in question is most appropriately subsumed under it. Such disputes are not uncommon. For example, legal authorities often are at a loss to decide under which statute to try a criminal. Although the law is clear, its application is not. Thus, even in such straightforward examples as the first common fact above, there are some possible grounds for disagreement. In order to ana­ lyze the dispute, we need to make exact distinctions that can point to where the disagreement lies. Once this is known, a reasoned response and dialogue are possible. In the second common fact, there is an added factor to be con­ sidered: The value judgment of what constitutes “uncomfortably hot.” One might agree to a temperature scale and how to read it and still dis­ agree about when to judge a day to be uncomfortably hot. To some this may be seventy-five degrees, while to others it may be ninety degrees. In other words, various theories of what constitutes temperature and how to measure it might be agreed upon, but a value judgment about these facts may also be required. In this case, agreement must be reached before the argument may continue. The first two examples refer to theory. Theories contain standards and often sanction judgments connected to these standards. The third example adds one more level to our model. We may agree about what constitutes a corporate takeover, how to measure the circum­ stances (as in the first example), and when, in theory, this is a good course of action (the judgment entailed in the second example), but still disagree on whether or not General Electric is in such a position at present. Thus, the judgment necessary to put a theory into practice constitutes the third stage of accepted common facts. This stage deals in particulars because it is directed toward judgments to act. These judgments cannot be considered apart from real circumstances, because the circumstances, together with the relevant theory, are necessary to determine what is to be done. The fourth example confronts the normative element in the common body of knowledge. A theory of distributive justice is introduced (impli­ citly). It suggests some range of what is an appropriate and an inappropri­ ate level of corporate profit within the social realm—especially in the case of the economically crucial commodity of oil. One might imagine various communities reacting differently to this example. A laissez-faire capitalist

4

Introduction

group might believe that there is no such thing as too much profit so long as no laws were broken. A socially concerned capitalist, on the other hand, might demur by saying that the community interests are not advanced by allowing too much profit to go to one company when there are others in the society who are in want. This fourth example is the most robust of all in demonstrating how all the various layers of the shared community worldview might work together.1 All four examples present sequentially as stages that work together to describe the environmental context of the argument. It is hoped that these brief illustrations will inspire the reader’s appreciation of the import­ ance of these stages in the process of argument. A second important area of inquiry concerns the internal structure of the argument itself. One aspect of this structure is the interdependence between the point of contention and the premises. The argument’s entire existence—indeed, its reason for being—is solely to put forth the point of contention (called the conclusion when it stands in a finished argument). Because of this singular mission, the argument’s character must mirror closely that of the point of contention. This creates a mutual dependence between the two so that knowledge of the argument will allow us to know the point of contention, and knowledge of the point of contention will aid us in discovering the argument. It is true that for any point of contention several arguments may be constructed that will demonstrate that point, but this does not alter the fact that, as stated, the relationship between the two is very close. One way to explain this is that the argument’s premises and the point of con­ tention mutually imply each other as cause and effect. Such causes have to do with the form or structure of the argument (what the philosopher Aristotle called the “formal cause”). For example, if one wished to make a claim about the all-time best hitter in baseball, one might put forward the following point of conten­ tion: “Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby were the all-time best hitters in American baseball.” The premises to prove this point cannot have an arbitrary character. They must establish criteria upon which one can judge a hitter to be the best hitter. In this way, the genesis of the prem­ ises is an effect arising from the point of contention. We began with “Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby were the all-time best hitters in American baseball.” In order to be accepted, this point of contention needs sentences that logically support it. These sentences are called premises. These premises come to be in order to prove some point of contention (also called a conclusion). Whatever comes to be for the sake of something else, in one sense, can be said to be caused by its ori­ ginator. The order of genesis refers to the mode through which some­ thing comes to be. In this order, the point of contention (conclusion) causes the premises.

Introduction

5

To set out a simplified example of such an argument we first need to establish a standard. Obviously, as we have seen, setting such standards is controversial. Let us say that the Triple Crown leader is the most adequate test of an all-around hitter. The Triple Crown measures the three primary categories of hitting: Batting average, runs batted in, and home runs. Only two players have ever won the Triple Crown in their leagues more than once: Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby. The argument could be set down as displayed in Figure 0.1. Premises 1 through 3 come about from our search to prove point 4 (conclusion). However, seen from the perspective of the finished argument, point 4 is itself the effect of premises 1 through 3.2 That is, if we assent to premises 1 through 3, we must agree with point 4. The conclusion is the effect of premises 1 through 3 being true. Thus, in the order of logical presentation, the conclusion is the effect and the premises are the cause. This arrangement is just the opposite of the order of genesis. This relationship is set out in Figure 0.2. The consequence of this is that the premises and the point of con­ tention (conclusion) are seen to be interdependent so that each affects the character of the other. Thus, the argument in Figure 0.1, “Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby are the all-time best hitters in American baseball,” and the three premises that precede it can influence each other as cause and effect in the manner suggested in Figure 0.2. The direction of this influence depends upon what perspective we take: From the order of genesis or from the order of logical presentation. The sense of “cause” here is what Aristotle called a formal cause and what moderns call entailment.

premise

1. The Triple Crown title is the best measure of all-around hitting in American baseball.

premise

2. Whoever, over a career, wins the Triple Crown the most times is the best all-time hitter in American baseball.

premise

3. Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby are the only players to win the Triple Crown more than once in their careers.

conclusion

4. Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby are the best all-time hitters in American baseball.

Argument

Figure 0.1 Sample Baseball Argument

6

Introduction

ORDER OF GENESIS

ELEMENTS

ORDER OF LOGICAL PRESENTATION

Effect

Premises

Cause

Cause

Conclusion

Effect

Figure 0.2 The Relationship between the Elements of Logical Persuasion

When we construct our own arguments, we are most concerned with the order of genesis. We begin with a statement we’re trying to prove and then create premises that will prove it. However, when we are read­ ing or listening to another’s argument, then the order of logical presenta­ tion is primary. Keeping these purposes and relationships in mind may help later when we try to engage in each process. The third point is a note of caution: Sometimes people try to per­ suade without employing logical argument. For these individuals, logical argument is supplanted by logical fallacy. The difference between logical argument and logical fallacy is the use of illicit means of persuasion. Now why would one wish to do this? In the first place, it is often more successful in persuading large numbers of people in a shorter period of time than logical argument. Thus, if one is selling advertising time, either using traditional means or on the internet, they may receive a quicker return on each dollar by employing logical fal­ lacy rather than logical argument. This will be explored further in Chapter 3. The trouble with fallacies is that they depend upon tricks and illusions —they persuade illegitimately. This does not mean that everyone who employs a fallacy could not have constructed a persuasive message using logical argument. In most cases, the use of fallacy merely indicates the rhetorician’s preference. For example, Acme Widgets may try to persuade the public to pur­ chase their product by placing it between a pair of young and attractive male and female models attired in evening clothes. The force of the per­ suasion is the fact that everyone wants to be young, rich, and attractive. The Acme Widget is associated with this pleasing picture by the advertiser, who wants us to think that we too can become young, rich, and attract­ ive by purchasing the Acme Widget. However, anyone who was pointedly questioned about this connection would surely demur, as no natural, scientific connection can be found between the purchase of the advertised product and the age, economic

Introduction

7

status, and attractiveness of the buyer. Everyone would agree to this, but still the ads are successful. Why? Because people often do not consciously question what they are seeing. If they did, they would feel insulted that the Acme company thinks it can sell its widgets without telling us rele­ vant information, such as how its product’s features compare with those of its competitors. It is this unthinking, subliminal reaction that proponents of logical fal­ lacy depend upon. When we fall into their trap, we become slaves to their tricks. Fortunately, there is a way out. The tool is logic. The power is the mind. One of the beneficial by-products of learning the skills set forth in this book is that you will be less likely to be hoodwinked by such illogical shenanigans. By applying reason properly we acquire a power of self-determination. This free autonomy is inherently desir­ able, and yet it does not come without some training of our natural mental faculties. This will be discussed further in Chapter 2. The fourth point concerns a further incentive for understanding the structure of argument. We all wish, at times, to offer opinions on various questions. Someone sets down an argument such as the one previously discussed on baseball batters. Perhaps you disagree with the argument. What response are you to make? One thing you might say is, “That’s all wrong!” or “You’re crazy!” But such responses don’t convey any specific content other than the fact that, upon hearing the argument, you were put into a negative state of mind. Unless we can get beyond that point, no discourse is possible. Also, it may be that there is no real disagreement at all but merely a problem in the way the sentence was expressed. The tool that allows one to make real progress is logical analysis. Ana­ lysis literally means “to break up.” Therefore, when presented with a composite whole, one must isolate the various parts: Speaker, audience, point of contention, argument, and common body of knowledge. Once analysis has revealed the structure and relationship of these parts, one can look at each part separately and make individual evaluations. It is possible, for example, that one may agree with every premise except one. In this case, all discussion should be focused upon that single point, for if this point can be resolved, then accord is possible. Using our baseball example, such a process might look like the following:

A Dialogue between Sue and Tom TOM: Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby are the greatest hitters of all time.

SUE: No way.

TOM: It’s true.

SUE: How do you figure that?

8

Introduction

Tom then provides the argument from Figure 0.1. SUE:

Now I see why you think Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby are so great, but I disagree with your point that whoever wins the Triple Crown the most times in his career is the all-time best hitter. TOM: You got a better idea? SUE: Sure. Home runs. It’s obvious. Every fan knows the hardest thing to do is to send the ball over the fence. TOM: Well, I don’t know. If that’s true, then Barry Bonds and Henry Aaron would be the greatest hitters of all time. SUE: Exactly! In this dialogue the single point upon which they disagree becomes the topic of discussion. Space does not allow a full investigation of the merits of the point at issue, but it is important that Tom and Sue realize where their disagreement lies: The definition of the all-time best hitter. (The disagreement concerns which measurement standard to use—see our dis­ cussion under the first point.) Finding the crucial point is what analysis is all about. It allows one to see the structure of the argument. Just as scientists search for the critical experiment to prove or disprove their theories, so also the logically minded person searches for critical premises in the argument. Chapters 1 and 2 will present ways to read critically in order to discover which premises are crucial to the argument. Chapter 3 examines how arguments and pseudo-arguments are presented to us in contemporary society with a special emphasis upon the internet. In Part II, Chapters 4–6 discuss out­ lining deductive, inductive and abductive argument. A method for recon­ structing each of these modes is put forward. In Part III, Chapter 7 will discuss how to prepare for writing a critical, argumentative essay. An exercise to help identify one’s argumentative position is set forth as well as how to augument one’s approach through the use of statistics and fic­ tive narrative. Then, in Chapters 8 and 9, the “con essay” and the “pro essay” are set out so that the reader might be able to be most effective on the style chosen. The general principle we’re operating under is this: One cannot offer a meaningful and defensible opinion on a point of contention unless he or she has first engaged in logical analysis. Otherwise, the reaction will be hopelessly vague and of no value. For example, if someone asks you how you liked a movie and you reply, “It was good” or “It stunk,” you are giving very little meaningful information. Perhaps your measurement standard for judging movies depends upon how many characters are killed in the plot: More than ten killings rates a positive response; less than ten a negative one. Obviously,

Introduction

9

then, without knowing the measurement scale and the value judgments made from that scale, any response given is almost meaningless. In these brief remarks I have touched upon some of the basic features of logical argument and why it is of such importance to become compe­ tent at it. Throughout our lives we are constantly bombarded with points of contention—whether it is an agreement to buy a car, negotiating a raise, responding to a business memo, writing a letter to the editor, or just being an articulate, autonomous human being. There is power in understanding the rules and structure of argument. This potent capacity has been recognized since the time of the ancient Greeks. They sacrificed much to gain these mysterious gifts because they believed them to be of enduring and inherent value. These pages seek to initiate the reader into an acquaintance with this power.

Reading Questions 1. What are the elements that make up the context of argument? 2. Give an example of all these elements working together. 3. Name the four ways by which facts may be disputed via the common body of knowledge. 4. How do the orders of genesis and logical presentation differ? 5. Why do people employ logical fallacies? 6. How should one confront logical fallacy?

Notes 1 I set out the structure and consequences of the common body of knowledge in more detail in A Just Society (Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman and Lit­ tlefield, 2004), Ch. 5; cf. my exposition in Natural Human Rights: A Theory (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), Ch. 6. 2 Premises and conclusions are really abstract ideas whose truth is independent of what we believe or assent to. However, beliefs and motives are crucial to the way we construct arguments (order of genesis), and they provide useful tools for describing the order of logical presentation.

Part 1

Reading the Text

Chapter 1

Confronting the Text

The first step to confronting the text is actually to open the book or click on your e-book file. For some this is a tough measure, but you cannot begin to confront a text that you do not engage with. From that moment onward, you must pay heed. Reading is not all that easy. This chapter will be a primer on how to confront and engage the text. I will give acknowledgment of various learning styles and how they might best be accommodated. The second step is to read your given selection from beginning to end without stopping (presuming that the argumentative selection assigned is 30 pages or less). The reason shorter passages work better is that reading argumentative texts is very difficult and involves multiple readings. When assigning an entire book to read, I try to break it up into chapters that are more manageable. If a student has a 30-page assignment for class and has to read it four or five times, then it’s really a 120- to 150-page assign­ ment. Since argumentative texts require a high comprehension level, reading them in smaller chunks at a time is more manageable. (This is doubly true for students reading a text that is not their first language.) The third step is to ascertain what the general point is and where the text might be parsed into sections for analysis. If you read with a pencil, you can make the markings in your text. (Most e-book readers have a way to mark text in an analogous way.) If you are an auditory learner, then you might consider dictating to yourself the principal divisions in the text. At the end of the third step, you should have some general ideas about what the text is arguing and how it is structured. This generally takes at least two readings. The fourth and final step in the reading phase is to uncover the point of contention (conclusion) and the premises that support it (including adding suppressed premises necessary to make the argument complete). More discussion of the formal reconstruction of the argument will be presented in the next part of the book. Here we are concerned with detecting where the conclusion and supporting arguments are. When confronting texts,

14 Reading the Text

beginners often have problems identifying the conclusion and its support­ ing material. Here are some suggestions based upon learning style: A. For traditional learning styles, try underlining, highlighting, or anno­ tating the text, so that you might better interact with it to ascertain its principal meaning and how the point of contention is supported. B. For students who are more social learners, you might consider form­ ing a study group to go over this fourth step in a social setting (with peer interaction). What follows are practical suggestions for overcoming difficulties you may be faced with when confronting the text.

Identifying Conclusions and Premises The most common problem in reconstructing arguments in the form of a logical outline is determining just what a premise is and what a conclusion is. Often the text appears opaque and you have to struggle to find its structure. As mentioned earlier, you must first discover the conclusion. The best way to do this is by becoming sensitive to the thematic context: Ask yourself key questions after reading a passage, such as “why did the author write this? What was the author’s intention? What was the author trying to prove?” If these questions do not point you to something immediately, then try the following two tricks: A. Pretend you are a reporter writing a story on the author’s ideas. What would make a good headline for your feature? B. Pretend you are an attorney in a trial. The author is the opposing attorney and is making a case before the jury. You must discover the main point of the opposing argument so you can respond. Those of you in study groups can set yourselves into dramatic situations (such as a courtroom drama within the study group) to try to make this clearer. I have also had students who were very artistically visual and who were able to sketch pictures of the argument’s conclusion and the support of the same. One student drew me a picture of a rose garden with the rosebuds being the conclusion, and the stems, leaves, and soil being vari­ ous aspects of the argument’s support. The parts of the sketch were then annotated with sentences or sentence fragments that translated back to the original text. These questions and imaginary situations are merely devices to help the reader become sensitive to the thematic context. This context, including

Confronting the Text

15

what comes before and after, can place you in the proper interpretive position to ascertain with confidence the point of contention. From the thematic context the conclusion should readily become clear. It is the point of the passage. Once the point has been determined, you can ask questions such as “how is this point being supported? What is the proof?” The answers to these questions should supply the premises of the argument, providing the reasons for accepting the point of the passage. All of the above suggestions merely represent ways to get at the main point of an argument and its accompanying support. The reader is encouraged to think of other methods that might work with her/his/ their particular learning style. Try these out in the exercises that follow this section of the chapter. In short, the following method is preferred. Thematic Context—Plan A

A. The point of the passage = conclusion B. Reasons for accepting the point of the passage = premises Word Clues—Plan B

If you are still baffled by a passage, then you may want to see if any verbal clues exist. Verbal clues are key words that often signify conclu­ sions or premises. These words are signals that can be useful when all else fails. For example, the following box gives examples of words and phrases that are often used to indicate a conclusion.

Word Clues for Conclusion therefore, hence, thus, consequently, so, it follows that, it must be that, we may infer that, necessarily, now we can see that, it is now evident that, shows that, indicates that, proves that, entails that, implies that, establishes that, allows us to believe that What follows these words is generally a conclusion. If these words occur near the beginning or end of a paragraph, it is likely that you have reached the conclusion of the argument contained within the entire para­ graph. (Of course, some arguments continue for several paragraphs or pages.)

Word Clues for Premises The following words and phrases generally signify the presence of a premise:

16

Reading the Text

because, so, since, in order to, for the reason that, for, assuming that, is shown by, is indicated by, is proven by, is entailed by, is implied by, is established by, in that, due to the fact that, given that, may be concluded from, inasmuch as What follows these words is generally a premise or a group of premises.

Word Clues for Both The word so can tip off either a conclusion or a premise depending on how it is used, as in the following: “So” as premise indicator: We’ll buy eggs today so we don’t have to go the store tomorrow, which is a holiday. “So” as a conclusion indicator: It is raining. We hate getting wet, so let’s take an umbrella. Mixed Mode—Plan C

In many passages the thematic context is not clear but there are no verbal clues from the list. What do you do then? Resort to Plan C. One final way to determine the argumentative structure when the first two plans fail is to engage in calculated guessing by trying to insert words from the two word clue groups at the appropriate spot in the text (before the suspected conclusion or premise). Does the result make sense? If it does, then it is very likely that you have uncovered the argumentative structure of the text. Your hypothesis is either confirmed or disconfirmed. For example, consider this passage: Maggie became skinny. She had suffered an emotional loss over the death of her father, and food no longer tasted good to her. Guess at the conclusion: Maggie became skinny. Confirmation with word clues: “Because” after the conclusion should indi­ cate premises. Thus, Maggie became skinny because she had suffered an emotional loss over the death of her father and, as a result, food no longer tasted good. The new paragraph makes sense and, therefore, the hypothesis is confirmed.

Confronting the Text

17

Resulting outline: 1. Maggie suffered an emotional loss over her father’s death—(fact) 2. Food no longer tasted good to Maggie—(fact) 3. Maggie lost weight—(1, 2) This last approach is called the mixed mode. It is used when one cannot fully determine premises and conclusions by the thematic context method, and there are no word clues. A summary of these three methods follows: Plan A: Thematic Context. The point of the passage is the conclu­ sion. The reasons for accepting the point of the passage are called the premises. Plan B: Word Clues. These are various words and phrases that often signal the presence of premises and conclusions. Plan C: Mixed Mode. In difficult passages in which the context does not help to positively identify premises and conclusions, and in which there are no word clues, try substituting some of the word clues in cru­ cial sections of the text. If the sense remains the same, then the inserted words will help you identify premises and conclusions. The first level of confronting the text is to obtain a general overview of what is in the given selection (first reading). The next level is to search for the general point of the passage and discover the point of contention that is at the heart of argumentative passages (second reading). Once one has discovered the point of contention, it is now requisite to ascertain what body of the text supports the conclusion. These reasons why consti­ tute the premises. Let’s stop for a moment and practice these skills.

Exercises Directions: Identify the conclusion and the premises. Group A 1. China is the largest country in the world. The United States can use all the allies it can get. Thus, the United States should cultivate China’s friendship and support. 2. “The road less taken” has made all the difference because I am not a man whose nature it is to follow the crowd, and the other road

18 Reading the Text

represents the direction that most people choose. It makes all the dif­ ference when you are true to your nature. 3. Tom Brady, quarterback for the New England Patriots, will be one of the top quarterbacks in NFL history, assuming that he remains as productive in the future as he has been in the past, and that the quar­ terback rating system is a true indicator of a quarterback’s relative talent. Up to now, Brady is near the top of the NFL’s quarterback rating system. 4. Terrorists, by definition, are murderers, since they prey upon inno­ cent civilians who are not directly involved with their dispute. People who kill innocents are murderers. Al Qaeda continues to sup­ port terrorists, and those who support a group must take some responsibility for that group’s actions. Consequently, al Qaeda’s lead­ ers must share in the responsibility for terrorist incidents.

Group B 1. Brad Pitt is a great film star. He has starred with famous talents such as Angelina Jolie and George Clooney. His films have always made money and have drawn critical acclaim. Who would deny the attrac­ tion he holds over women of all ages? These are the markings of a true star. 2. High-tech expertise is the highest demonstration of human know­ ledge. Today, civilization has achieved a level of high-tech expertise that is unmatched in history. Truly, we are the most brilliant group of humans in history. (Declaration of a former student.) 3. No one wants the world to end. But just as true, no one wants our country to be conquered by military force. Disarmament talks involve a difficult balancing act. The stakes are high but something must be done to represent both poles of opinion. 4. Most of the interstate highway system has roadways that were designed to handle traffic going 80 mph. We should raise the speed limits on the interstate highway system. What a waste to drive 65 mph on roads designed to be navigated safely at 80 mph! The gas savings at 65 mph are minimal. Besides, no one obeys this law anyway. And laws that no one obeys breed disrespect for law in gen­ eral. Nobody wants that—to paraphrase a popular argument.

Using Suppressed Premises The next step after one has mastered finding the conclusion and the premises is to confront the text in a different and subtler way. This involves questioning the author on the premises provided and whether

Confronting the Text

19

they are sufficient to generate the conclusion for which he or she is argu­ ing. Often it is the case that the premises that are actually set down on the page are insufficient to generate the conclusion. In these cases, the reader is meant to supply the missing premises automatically as he or she is reading. These suppressed premises, or enthymemes, exist because it is often cumbersome to set out each and every premise in a prose argu­ ment. Certain points that seem trivial or are easily supplied by the mind are generally omitted. If, for example, a mayoral candidate said, “Experience counts; vote for John Doe,” the suppressed premise would be that John Doe has experi­ ence. Without this premise the argument is invalid, but the suppressed premise is easily supplied by the mind. However, as we will see in Chapter 2, the possibility of logical fallacy requires an active level of vigilance. It is easy to be fooled when the stated argument becomes complicated. Thus, there is a necessity to be exact in the reconstruction of persuasive argument including suppressed premises. Sometimes people express anxiety over the fact that they feel they are pulling suppressed premises out of “thin air.” They feel that such a procedure is too random and undermines the objective character of the argument. To these people I reply that not every additional premise will be allowed, but only those that (a) meet a formally observed inferential gap, (b) are in the spirit of the general argument, and (c) do not contradict any other avowed position of the author. By observing these three cau­ tions, one can avoid misrepresenting the author by substituting one’s own argument for the author’s. In trying to meet these three requirements ask yourself the following: What is necessary to complete this argument? If you can make the substitu­ tion observing the above cautions, do so. It is only by representing complete arguments that we can accurately determine whether or not they are correct. Note: As a matter of form, put suppressed premises into brackets so that others will understand that these are your additions. Our above example would thus be reconstructed as: 1. Experience counts—(assertion) 2. [John Doe has experience—(fact)] 3. Vote for John Doe—(1, 2) In order to develop your skill at finding and inserting suppressed premises (enthymemes) when they are needed, complete the following exercises. (Please note that sometimes what is suppressed is not a premise but the conclusion itself.)

20 Reading the Text

Exercises Directions: Supply the missing sentence whether it is a premise or a conclusion. Put your missing sentence in brackets.

Group A 1. No enthymemes are complete, so this argument is incomplete. 2. Ezra Pound made fascist broadcasts. Therefore, after the war he was imprisoned. 3. I have two tickets for the game tonight. We like each other, and we like basketball. 4. Only members may use this tennis court. You will have to go away. 5. You can’t borrow my car. I only lend it to good drivers. 6. Abortion means you have killed a fetus. Abortion is impermissible. 7. Abortion means a woman has made a choice about her body. Abor­ tion is permissible.

Group B 1. “Lovers may never possess all of another’s love, for to be a lover is fervently to desire possessing all of another’s love. But the heart daily grows in its capacity to love.”—Adapted from “Lovers’ Infinite-ness” by John Donne. 2. Fred says that he believes every word in the Bible exactly as it is written. Further, Fred claims that every Christian must serve God. One thing that is written is that “Man cannot serve both God and Mammon.” It follows that Fred is not a Christian. 3. “Orestes: You don’t see them, you don’t—but I see them: They are hunting me down—hence the soul cannot be possessed of the divine union until it is divested itself of the love of created beings.”— Adapted from Sweeney Agonistes by T. S. Eliot. (Hint: Orestes’s soul is not divested of the love of created beings.)

Conclusion The point of this chapter is to help the student formally confront a text with the purpose of finding first the conclusion and then the support of that conclusion—the premises. This process includes adding premises (or the conclusion) in the spirit of the argument as you understand it via sev­ eral readings of the text. Various suggestions about confronting the text from different learning styles were also put forth. At this point, we have been engaged in a rather formal exercise. The next step is to bring you into the picture. Enter Chapter 2!

Chapter 2

Critical Reading Worldviews, Fallacies, and the Common Body of Knowledge

Once a person has read an argumentative text and decided on the point of contention as well as the support for the same, the next step is to begin the critical process of evaluating the argument. How does one do this authentically? The answer requires a return to the reader’s own per­ sonal worldview (the sum of his or her normative and factual understand­ ings of the world). It is this author’s contention that one of the most important ways that any of us can assess truth claims is via our worldview perspective, which is formulated in normative terms but also applies to our epistemological duties.1 I see two sorts of imperatives by which each of us is constrained as we formulate who we are and how we are to exist in the world. The first of these is the Personal Worldview Imperative: “All people must develop a single comprehensive and internally coherent worldview that is good and that we strive to act out in our daily lives.”2 This imperative has four parts. First, it exhorts completeness. Theories of ethics or theories about truth must be complete. That means that they must deal with all possible cases brought to them in such a way that an answer can be generated mechan­ ically from the system adopted. If a case could be brought forward in which no answer could be formulated (in principle), then it would invali­ date the system. Second, coherency is required. This means that no internal contradic­ tions are allowed.3 If one were to criticize an author from two inconsistent standpoints, this would violate this dictum on the basis of deductive logic. One must take some time to ascertain where their critical position comes from—what it allows and what it forbids. This is important both from an ethical and from an epistemological (theory of knowledge) perspective. Third, there is the issue of connection to a theory of good. Theory of good refers to one of the accepted moral theories: Intuitionism, non-cognitivism, contractarianism, virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology.4 It is import­ ant to have some sensibility about what you believe to be good because the good and the true overlap in many respects.

22

Reading the Text

Fourth is the condition that the principle involved applies to the world. In the terms of theories of truth, this is an exhortation of some pragmaticism. This does not commit the student to hold pragmaticism as his or her principal theory, but it does require an affirmation of some connection to the world in which the alleged truths are said to apply. The Personal Worldview Imperative acts like a tune-up to the engine of our minds, to make sure that the engine is running properly—meaning that we have given assent to what we hold to be true and good. These two dispositions are crucial in order to formulate a critical standpoint. However, there is one more role that we must consider: Our role as a member of various communities. The smaller micro-communities are the ones we must think about first because they affect us proximately in our daily living. These communities include our family, our friends, our school, our sports team, our church/mosque/synagogue, and so forth. Generally, the size of this community comprises of a maximum of 500 people. It is the size of a group with whom we can be personally acquainted. We also belong to various macro-communities, such as our city, state, nation, hemisphere, and the world. The community standpoint also requires some direction. I call this the shared community worldview imperative: Each agent must contribute to a common body of knowledge that sup­ ports the creation of a shared community worldview (that is itself complete, coher­ ent, and good) through which social institutions and their resulting policies might flourish within the constraints of the essential, core, commonly held values (ethics, aesthetics, and religion). This imperative is analogous to the Personal Worldview Imperative. It exhorts one to affirm openly their community membership and to be an active, tolerant, and facilitating member.5 When one reads an argumentative text, it is important that, in addition to one’s thoughtful and clear personal worldview, he or she includes membership in various communities so that a more rounded understand­ ing of the individual comes forth. From these two standpoints, the reader is in a better position to formulate a critical perspective that resonates. For example, take Angela Ayala (an immigrant Latina philosophy stu­ dent). She may have to sort out issues in her personal worldview between what she held to be true in her birth country and in the United States. There may be some cultural dissonances she needs to work out. Until she does this, her critical perspective will not be as effective as it might be. Jamal provides another example. An African American student who has lived in an impoverished section of society that looks at the television and the Internet and sees everything that is denied to him. He must come to terms with his community worldview perspective before he can confront his personal worldview (though both interact). Then there is Mary Smythe. She is a privileged person of European descent who is from a family that has been in the United States since the

Critical Reading

23

Revolutionary War. She doesn’t see people like Angela or Jamal; they are invisible to her. But they might not be invisible were she to undergo the personal and shared community worldview imperative challenge. What is necessary is that each individual examines his or her personal and community worldview perspective, in order to ascertain whether it is what they really believe (and not some artifact of his or her scattered per­ sonal development). The following exercises are designed to go a little way in that direction.

Exercises Group A: The Personal Worldview 1. What are your most deeply held moral convictions? (List no more than five points.) 2. How would you describe the natural world as you understand it? (List no more than seven points.) 3. What are the greatest challenges to you personally in living the good life? (List no more than ten points.) 4. How do your convictions affect the way that you judge others?

Group B: The Community Worldview 1. List the three most important (micro-) communities in which you feel attachment. 2. How active are you in your communities? How much do your com­ munities allow you to be involved? 3. How would you revise these communities if you had the power? 4. What is your relationship to larger (macro-) communities? (List at least three macro-communities.)

Logical Fallacies Once one has considered his or her worldview standpoints, it is important to become aware of the various false claims for recognition. These are generally called logical fallacies. Most books on persuasion contain some catalog of logical fallacies, however, there is no uniform agreement upon which fallacies ought to be introduced or upon how to group them— even the exact definition of a particular fallacy may vary from text to text. There is no unanimity. That aside, several things can be said about logical fallacies. First, a logical fallacy is an argument. As an argument it can be outlined. Second, logical fal­ lacies are powerful persuaders—they shouldn’t be but they are. These

24

Reading the Text

arguments should not persuade because they are bad arguments. But what makes them bad? The reason logical fallacies are bad is that they pretend to be logical. Reliance upon logical persuasion is essential to our human nature. When we consciously choose to use fallacy to persuade others, we degrade ourselves. When we negligently allow ourselves to be duped by logical fallacy, we similarly degrade ourselves. As said earlier, we have a duty to defend ourselves in our autonomous acceptance of our personal and community worldview. Thus, it is of critical importance that we acquaint ourselves with the most important logical fallacies. Logical fallacy is quite prevalent. As we will see in the next chapter, many of the instances of “fake news” and controversial presentations on the Internet and in social media have to do with people who put forth logical fallacies as if they were proper logical arguments. Much can be and has been written on logical fallacy. My purpose here is to provide a mere glimpse of the operation of this pretender. What will be presented is just enough to prepare the student for encountering this all-too-frequent form of persuasion in order that he or she may be able to combat it through an appropriate evaluation. Like logical argument, logical fallacy seeks to persuade. The problem is that its means are not legitimate. It uses tricks and sleights of hand to dis­ tract and confuse while the audience is being manipulated. To be manipulated by another is to become that person’s slave. None of us would prefer to be slaves. Thus, a few remarks on the types of fallacies and how to uncover them with an outline are instructive. Here is one classification of the logical fallacies.

Shifting the Grounds This first classification of logical fallacy has to do with rearranging the grounds of the premises. A case is assembled on a premise that is not dir­ ectly relevant to the conclusion. This kind of fallacy has several variations.

Argument against the Speaker (Argumentum Ad Hominem) Let us assume for our example a situation in which the Allied command­ ers in World War II were discussing the invasion of Normandy. In the interests of historical accuracy we will not identify the interlocutors, such as General George Marshall or General Alan Brooke. Rather, we will just say General A, General B, and so on. When set out in this way, the stupidity of premises 1 and 4 becomes clear, but often this form of fallacy is persuasive. An audience can quickly forget the topic at hand when an attack has begun against the speaker. It is perhaps for this reason that argumentum ad hominem is a favorite among politicians.

Critical Reading

25

Example One General A I think an invasion of France near Bayeux might be a good idea. It would afford the least resistance and militarily would be the most defensible.

General B You Yankees don’t know anything about it. You’re from across the Atlantic. Besides, you’re always hot for harebrained schemes—it’s that gambling blood inherited from all those cowboys of yours. Comment: General B has not offered a proper, logical evaluation of Gen­ eral A’s argument. Instead, General B has tried to shift the grounds of the argument away from General A’s plan to the general himself. Unless a person’s character or circumstances are functionally relevant to the argu­ ment at hand, they should not be raised. This can readily be seen when we try to outline General B’s argument. 1. To know geographic facts relevant to a military operation requires one to have lived near the site in question—(assertion) 2. General A has not lived near France—(fact) 3. General A should not opine about a military operation in France—(1, 2) 4. A person’s ability to make a rational decision is dependent on the clear thinking of all that nation’s people—(assertion) 5. Some American cowboys were not clear thinkers—(fact) 6. No American should be trusted to make a rational decision—(4, 5) 7. No American should consult on a European invasion—(3, 6)

Argument by Coercion (Argumentum Ad Baculum) From the outline it is clear that Britain’s acceptance of the D-day pro­ posal as the best plan comes not from the proposal’s military merits, but from the United States’ threat. The grounds of argument have been shifted to a point of power leverage. This blackmail is common to the various forms of argumentum ad baculum. It is not a logical form of per­ suasion and depends upon the idea that “might makes right.” Similarly, the other fallacies that involve shifting the grounds of argument may be outlined and found logically irrelevant to the stated point of contention. The reader is invited to construct his or her own outline to prove this. Below are brief descriptions of other logical fallacies that fit under the general classification of shifting grounds.

26 Reading the Text

Example Two General A If you don’t think our plan is the right way to invade the continent, remember we can take our support elsewhere. And without our support, you’ll be invaded in a week. Comment: This argument contains a fallacy. It becomes apparent after outlining. 1. Above all else, Britain does not want to be conquered by the Nazis— (assertion) 2. At the time of speaking, the only thing stopping the Nazi invasion is the presence of U.S. forces in England—(assertion) 3. U.S. presence is contingent upon Britain accepting the Americans’ D-day proposal as the best plan—(assertion) 4. Britain will accept the U.S. D-day proposal as the best plan—(1–3)

Argument from Ignorance This fallacy rests on the notion that a proposition is true simply because it has never been proven false, and vice versa.

Example Three No one conclusively has proven ESP false. Therefore, it must be true. Comment: Just because there have been no successful proofs that extra sensory perception (ESP) is false does not demonstrate that it cannot be proven false. Maybe we have not been inventive enough in our examin­ ations of ESP. The premise only shows that it is still an open question. Appeal to Pity

The vehicle of persuasion here is emotion. The functional facts are disre­ garded in favor of overpowering sentiment. Thus, a lawyer or senator may make his case on the basis of some irrelevant plea.

Example Four You should not convict my client because he has led a difficult life full of disappointment.

Critical Reading

27

Or, We should save the Heritage Clock Company because it has been a part of all our lives since we were children. How can we allow a fixture of our past to go under? Comment: Neither of these arguments addresses the facts. They depend upon specious, suppressed premises, such as whoever has many disap­ pointments may be excused from living according to the law, or all cher­ ished institutional fixtures of our past should be preserved. When outlined with all the requisite premises, these illogical premises become obvious. Those who do not engage in outlining may very well find themselves hoodwinked by this powerful mode of persuasion. Social Identification

This is one of the forms most frequently used in advertising. It is some­ times called “keeping up with the Joneses.” If the persuader can convince an individual that everyone is doing something, then haht individual is drawn to conforming. Perhaps this natural tendency comes from some deep, biological origin rooted in our being social animals. But this, of course, says nothing about what logically ought to be the case. One can include in this type of fallacy all non-logical identifications based on a “me too” principle. An example might be the association of a product with a well-dressed model in front of a Rolls-Royce. Yet no one would agree with the premise that anyone who purchases product x will drive a Rolls and be successful and happy. It is ludicrous when stated as such. Still, this fallacy is based on some social identification akin to this. The source of this feeling is similar to one everyone knows: When the entire room rises to give a standing ovation it is difficult to resist joining in— even if you don’t agree that the performance deserved it. Social identifi­ cation is one of the most powerful primitive forces that influence human behavior. Since it is so powerful, it is even more important to try to out­ line such forms and expose this sort of fallacy when it occurs. Authority

There are two forms of this fallacy: Disconnected and connected. Disconnected authority refers to authorities in one area being used to support a position or product in an area foreign to their expertise. Thus, a baseball player might be used to promote a breakfast cereal, or a rock star might be used to support a political cause. In each case, the force of persuasion is that someone who knows something about one area

28

Reading the Text

will know something about all areas. This is obviously false. One’s respect for an authority’s expertise is not logically transferable. Connected authority occurs when one accepts a point of contention merely because an authority says so. As we will see in the next chapter, some arguments depend upon the presentation of scientific facts and others upon normative assessment of facts. For example, in the first case, a weather forecaster, who is trained in metereology, might comment with authority on the probable track of a hurricane. The general public ought to take such advice very seriously because these individuals are in the best position to predict the near future in this way, due to their scientific training. In the second case, even if the source is an expert in that field, one should not accept a conclusion just because an authority asserts it. For example, Mr. Smith may be an expert in ethics, but one should not accept his judgment that abortion is moral or immoral just because he says so. What is required is an argument along with it. It is the argument that should persuade, not merely an authority. Now, it is true that not every point can be traced to its origins. Some­ times we must accept certain points without thorough analysis. In these cases, connected authority is generally more reliable than unconnected authority or no authority, but it should always be accepted that the use of an authority creates a contingent chain that is open to question. The longer the chain, the greater the possibility for error. This caveat should always be kept in mind when using argument from connected authority. Begging the Question

One effective way to shift the grounds of the argument is to beg the question. Traditionally, this has been defined as assuming what you are trying to prove.

Example Five Opium produces sleep because of its dormitive powers. (Molière poking fun at Aristotelian science.) Comment: What is at question is why opium causes people to sleep. But the reason given is that opium has sleep-producing powers. This is pre­ cisely what is at issue. The premises do not prove the point of conten­ tion. Thus, begging the question is an illegitimate type of argument. What tips one off to begging the question is the presence of premises that, instead of causing the conclusion, actually depend upon the conclu­ sion for their own veracity. Beware of premises that seem to be merely a restatement of the conclusion.

Critical Reading

29

Changing the Question

In this form you shift the grounds of the argument away from the issue under discussion and to another issue that you can answer. For example, if someone asked a vice-president for marketing why sales were down, the vice-president might reply by detailing the advertising campaign used in the past year. The question was not about the ad campaign but about the dip in revenue. Thus the grounds for the argument have been shifted. The shift in attention can occur in the premises or in the conclusion itself. When it occurs in the premises, the speaker redefines the question into an entirely different issue (as in the above case). When the change occurs in the conclusion, the conclusion does not follow from the prem­ ises. (This is often called irrelevant conclusion.) Often someone employing this type of argument fallacy rambles on and on, hoping the audience will forget the original point of contention. They then draw their conclusion. Upon outlining such an argument, it will be found that the inferences are loose and the premises do not interlock. Outlining will make the shift apparent.

Example Six STUDENT: You can’t flunk me, Ms. Hightower.

MS. HIGHTOWER: Why not? You flunked all your assignments.

STUDENT: You can’t flunk me because I need a good grade to stay on the

volleyball team. Besides, I really liked your class. Comment: The premises in this case have nothing to do with the conclu­ sion. The student has changed the question from what he deserves to what would be convenient.

Dilemma Question

This fallacy focuses attention away from the principal issue by offering a false choice. Because the choice appears to be exhaustive, it makes an insinuation that it has no business making. A classic example is the old joke: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Either answer of yes or no is misleading. The same is true of the slogan, “Would you rather fight the war on terrorism here in the United States or in some foreign coun­ try?” There is no logical reason why these are the real alternatives. For example, there might be a Senate debate about sending U.S. troops to some foreign country to fight terrorism. An advocate of the deployment might ask an opponent, “Would you rather have terror­ ist attacks in the United States or are you willing to fight for your free­ dom?” The implication is that unless troops are deployed, the country

30

Reading the Text

in question—and eventually the United States—will be the victim of countless acts of terrorism. This shifts the emphasis away from whether this particular deployment is prudent and will, in fact, do what it is claimed it will do. The focus of the argument should be on the means of attaining the objective that all would agree upon, however, the argument is shifted away from that focus and onto the goals themselves. The means are assumed and linked to general goals to which all agree by creating a false dilemma. The attention of the argument is focused away from where it should be. Repetition

The truth of a proposition is not affected by the number of times it is asserted—even though repetition may psychologically make it seem plaus­ ible to the audience. Each assertion of a proposition is an independent event and should be evaluated as such. The last three fallacies in this section primarily have to do with inductive argument. The reader is encouraged to skip ahead and read Chapter 5 for more details on inductive argument.

Example Seven POLITICIAN A:

If you elect my opponent, Politician B, you will receive end­ less tax increases that will cripple the economy. INDEPENDENT MEDIA: Politician B only calls for tax increases on the top 5% of wage earners so that we might balance the budget. POLITICIAN A (AD INFINITUM—OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACTS): If you elect my opponent, Politician B, you will receive endless tax increases that will cripple the economy. Comment: Politician A does not care about the truth of his assertion. In the example, his statement is false (as corroborated by the independent media). Instead, Politician A seeks merely to repeat his attack over and over again in order to take advantage of the psychological phenomenon that gives credence to repetition. Many repetitions of any assertion do not alter the truth of the assertion at all. Each is an independent event. This is a very common fallacy among politicians and advertisers. Generalization Hasty Generalization

This fallacy comes about when a generalization is formed from an atypical sample. Instead of properly following the rules of induction, the author

Critical Reading

31

considers the cases improperly. The practitioner of this fallacy can be said to “jump to conclusions.” Three of the most common reasons for doing so are: (a) The sample isn’t large enough; (b) the sample isn’t varied enough; and (c) the practi­ tioner has been psychologically swayed.

Example Eight Mr. Johnson concluded that Mrs. Smith would win the election for U.S. senator because most of his friends favored Mrs. Smith. Comment: In this case, Mr. Johnson formed a generalization based upon an atypical sample; the sample is too small and it is not varied enough. Thus, the conclusions may not be correct. There are, of course, times when a small sample causes no difficulty. If someone wanted to test the boiling point of water or the melting point of lead, a large number of tests would be unneces­ sary. For more on the correct procedure of induction see Chapter 5. Sometimes a person may be swayed in one direction even though the facts point in a different direction. For example, Joan might acquire all the relevant information on buying a station wagon. As a result, she decides that the Ford wagon is the best, but later she demurs when a friend at work tells her that the Ford wagon he bought turned out to be a lemon. In this case, Joan allows herself to be swayed from a sound judgment by the immediacy of the situation—a situation that represents an atypical case. Improper Analogy

This fallacy results from improperly shifting grounds from properties belonging to one statement to those of another. Generally, the former is well-known and the description beyond dispute. The latter is controver­ sial. The use of the analogy represents an attempt to fix the character of the latter. For example, one might rightly agree to the saying, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” This is generally a true statement. However, even if one agrees to the saying, he or she might disagree with various applications of this, such as indicating that wrongdoing has occurred whenever there is a climate of negative innuendo. Another example can be found in Plato’s Crito. According to Plato, Socrates defended his acceptance of the state’s punishment partly because he likened the state to his father. The reader, in such an instance, must decide whether analogy is fulfilling its proper role or is merely acting as a figure of speech to illustrate the author’s point—which has no real logical content.

32 Reading the Text

Incomplete Evidence

Often we must make judgments without having all the possible evidence before us. This is a practical necessity but sometimes can lead us into error.

Example Nine The president of the United States is not listed in the Washington, D.C., phone directory. Therefore, he must not have a private landline phone. Comment: The Washington, D.C., phone directory is quite comprehensive, but it does not list the phone number of every private telephone—some are unlisted. The inference in Example Nine is based upon incomplete evidence.

Shifting the Terms In this second classification of logical fallacy the focus is on shifting the terms themselves, in various ways, so that what appears to be a tight inference really is not. It is an illusion created by ambiguity or by false inference. Each of these divisions, in turn, has three subclasses. As with shifting grounds, the best defense is to set out a clear outline and examine it closely. Ambiguity

A. Equivocation creates ambiguity by using one term and assigning two different meanings to the term. Comment: These arguments are not logically valid because in the first case the word mad is used in two senses. There is no logical connection between the two premises because there are no common terms by which an inference may be drawn. The same is true of the two senses of balloon in the second example. Logical inference requires some common ground by which it may create a new proposition. (Mediate inference requires at least two premises; immediate inference requires only one.) In the above examples this appears to be the case, but upon examination of the logical outline, it is seen not to be. In equivocation, ambiguity is created since multiple meanings legit­ imately exist. Unless the exact same meaning is maintained throughout, illogical conclusions may be drawn. To guard against possible equivoca­ tion, try substituting synonyms for the disputed terms and then test for validity.

Critical Reading

33

B. Amphiboly creates two distinct meanings from a poorly formed grammatical structure. Likewise, the second statement is caught between the two mean­ ings implied by the dangling phrase with a shotgun. The effect is that the dangling phrase may attach to the manner of the stockbroker’s death or to the manner of his affectionate farewell. The third statement suggests that ordinary tape (colored red) is materially making a new bridge secure, while the fourth statement suggests that the Court will kill the defendant by gunfire. Though these examples seem comic, the amphiboly can cause very serious effects. Documents released from World War II suggest that the Japanese sent a message that was an invitation to discuss surrender before our dropping of the atomic bomb. The message was misread due to amphiboly. Think how history has been changed due to this single instance of logical fallacy! Proper grammatical structuring should alleviate this difficulty. When reformulating another’s argument and two possibilities obtain, one should, by the principle of fairness, always choose the stronger interpretation. C. Accent owes its multiple meanings to an unusual context. The sen­ tence as literally read has one meaning, and the context creates another, unstated meaning. For example, if you wrote on an employ­ ee’s work report, “Harris was sober today,” you would not literally be saying anything harmful, but the context could be interpreted to mean that though Harris was sober today, on other days he was not. Quoting out of context, or other alterations of the context, may create this fallacy. The way to uncover this difficulty is to outline it and supply the proper context as background conditions (perhaps via suppressed premises).

Example Madmen One 1. should be put in a nuthouse—(assertion) 2. My father often gets mad—(fact) 3. My father should be put in a nuthouse—(1, 2)

Example Two 1. The president controls a ballooning budget—(assertion) 2. Balloons are controlled by hot air—(fact) 3. The president is full of hot air—(1, 2)

34

Reading the Text

Example Three “Those who ice fish often catch colds.” “The stockbroker killed himself after an affectionate farewell from his fiancee with a shotgun.”

“Red tape holds up the new bridge.”

“Juvenile Court to try shooting defendant.”

Comment: In the first statement it is unclear whether the word often attaches to ice fish or to catch colds. The sentence’s meaning is different in the two cases. False Inferences

A. False cause occurs when there is no good evidence by which to infer a causal relationship. This may be the most dangerous of all the groups of fallacies as it may appear to many to represent a proper inference. Part of the reason for this is that often the problem is not merely a general, structural methodology, but instead is a particular misapplication. Compare these two instances from the following example: What is needed is more than knowing that one group of actions followed another group to assert causation. More cases need to be examined to determine whether or not a constant conjunction occurs. Such research would require all the controls of modern scien­ tific method. Yet, even at that, there will be controversial cases such as the alleged cause-and-effect relationship between pornography and sexual violence. In the second statement, statistical correlation is the vehicle of inference. As with the first example, there are proper and improper usages of this principle. It was statistical correlation that established the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. This was a valid implementation of the technique, but it is obvious that such a method can easily be abused. The best way to steer clear of failures from either of the above modes is to endeavor to connect the usage in question to some body of established scientific theory. Such a strategy is called pro­ jection. It dictates that one be able to project the unknown or dis­ puted causal relationship into an entrenched paradigm. This amounts to finding the mechanisms and placing those mechanisms into an accepted common body of knowledge. In most cases such a projection works. However, when whole bodies of scientific knowledge change, it is useless (as with the change from Ptolemy to Copernicus in astronomy). These cases, however, are rare. In

Critical Reading

35

general, careful scrutiny and projection are one’s best tools against false cause. B. Composition is less intricate. This fallacy states that properties prop­ erly assigned to the part may also be assigned to the whole. For example, one could have very sturdy bricks (parts) and yet construct a very flimsy building (whole) with those bricks. In this case the whole has a different property than the individual parts have when they are examined separately. C. Division is just the opposite of composition. This fallacy states that properties properly assigned to the whole may also be assigned to the part. Untangling this relationship is too intricate for our present purpose and is an issue of dispute among philosophers of language. However, it is clear that in general the fallacy of division occurs when we examine nonessen­ tial traits and distribute them to each member. Thus, Joe is not a part of the federal bureaucracy by virtue of his being efficient or inefficient. The defining characteristic has to do with who pays his salary. Therefore, inef­ ficiency is an accident and does not necessarily distribute among the members of the class. Likewise, being extinct is an accidental property of lions. Therefore, no necessary link can be made to one of the parts. Much of this analysis applies to composition as well, except that in the case of the fallacy of composition, we are talking about a synonymy between the essential traits of the parts and those of the whole. Where there is no synonymy, or when the traits are accidental and not essential, the fallacy of composition may result. Failure to distinguish these differences can lead to false inferences. Throughout, the student should familiarize him or herself with logical fal­ lacies as aids for creating correct evaluations. The purpose of studying fallacy is that it might inform upon personal worldview to make it more critical of what is presented to it. We must treat presentations of argument with mitigated skepticism that is grounded in analytic tools that can point out where the problem lies. By under­ standing these relationships, we are empowered to be more critical readers and consumers of popular media. These skills help us to engage in the modification of the common body of knowledge.

Example Four 1. More students go to college today than in 1915, and the country is filled with more violence today than in 1915. Therefore, sending young people to college causes a rise in violence. 2. Of all cocaine addicts, 98% started out drinking coffee before their drug use, and later they moved to cocaine. Therefore, drinking coffee leads to cocaine addiction.

36

Reading the Text

Comment: These two statements operate on different principles. In the first, the conclusion is justified by post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact). This is an improper justification. Just because something happens after something else does not mean that a causal relationship has been established. Yet, the standard definition of cause as the constant conjunction of temporally contiguous events seems, structurally, to be very similar to the fallacy.

Example Five 1. The federal bureaucracy is inefficient—(assertion) 2. Joe works in the federal bureaucracy—(fact) 3. Joe is inefficient—(1, 2) 1. Lions are virtually extinct—(fact) 2. Simba is a young lion—(fact) 3. Simba is virtually extinct—(1, 2) Comment: These examples both demonstrate that the individual does not necessarily share in the properties of the whole. It is perfectly coherent to have a very efficient Joe and a very healthy Simba. The whole and its properties may be of a different level of logical description than that of the part. This is because the class is a different logical type than the indi­ vidual. When we ascribe properties to the class, we do so in a different way than when we ascribe properties to an individual—for example, no one would claim the class of redheaded men to be redheaded.

The Common Body of Knowledge We all live in communities. Each community accepts a common body of knowledge that defines how facts are understood and what values are to be endorsed. As this concerns the community and not the personal worldview, there will be, by definition, more diversity and compromise. This entails a range of necessary toleration. The critical point for students of critical inquiry is how much toler­ ation is enough and how much is too much. In the United States, at the writing of this edition of the book, there is some dispute about how to teach secondary school biology concerning evolution. Virtually every single biologist, qua biologist, believes in one of the major theories of evolution. Each of these theories suggests that Homo sapiens came about through a process of gradual change that has a material account. For many in the Abrahamic religious traditions (Christians, Jews, and Mus­ lims), this account differs from that of the book of Genesis (found in the Torah). This creationist account suggests that the world was created in six

Critical Reading

37

days (the seventh being a day of rest). On the face of it, these two accounts seem to be in variance; they appear to be logically inconsistent. If you are a school district superintendent, what are you to say if your community demands that you (a) teach creation-ism instead of evolution, or (b) teach creationism alongside evolution? (For the purpose of this example, remember that virtually 100% of all practicing biologists, and graduate programs in biology, believe in evolutionary theory and require facility in evolutionary theory in order to perform research.) This is a real test of toleration. Clearly, from the practitioners’ perspec­ tive, evolution is the only theory to be taught in secondary school science classes. But what of the people who live in the school districts? In some cases they are the majority, and they demand either choice (a) or choice (b) above. Is truth a popularity contest? What about the rights of the sons and daughters of these creationist advocates who aspire to careers in biol­ ogy or medicine? Another example is the notion that the Mumps, Measles, and Rubella shots for children and the standard DTP (Diptheria–Tetanus–Pertuussis) shots may actually do more harm to children than good—such as the idea that they may cause autism.6 It is true that out of a million children given these vaccinations a small number—like 1/3 of 1%—might have severe deleterious reactions (though not autism), however, by doing nothing those same children are put into a severe risk pool (3%) of getting the measles or one of the other diseases covered by the vaccination (and these consequences can mean death). Thus, cost–, benefit calculation should dictate that every child receives his/her vaccinations. In addition to only thinking about the well being of one’s own child in situ, there is the fate of other children who did get vaccinated but whose bodies did not pro­ vide them full immunity to consider. These children require the normal environment to be 94% vaccinated in order for them to be safe. There­ fore, parents who feel they are comfortable making their children a net 2.97% less safe by not vaccinating in the above example, they are also harming others by their irrational calculations. In this case it seems that the non-vaccinating crowd is strongest in two pockets of the country: Around Seattle and within certain groups in New York City.7 These groups create a common body of opinion that is not based upon sound reasoning (see the next chapter). Therefore, it is the case that what we call the common body of knowledge can, in some instances, not reflect “knowledge” at all, but rather points of contention that are contrary to accepted science and, therefore, may bring about harm. These sorts of questions put to the fore an important issue concerning toleration that the community must ask itself. In reality the actual playing out of these questions will probably involve multiple communities: Fam­ ilies, churches, synagogues, mosques, school districts, states, the scientific

38

Reading the Text

community, the nation, and so on. Wherever the question plays out, the issue of the common body of knowledge is crucial and requires social dis­ cussion. But just because some proposition is accepted does not mean that it should be accepted. For more on that we will have to set out some principles governing what we should and should not accept and why (see the next chapter). The reason this is relevant to you, the developing critical reader, is that you need to understand how to think about social, political, and religious issues as you evaluate arguments. It is important to have these sensitivities and critical skills at your disposal as you engage in the hunt for truth.

Exercise Access a source of news—newspaper, radio, television, or Internet home page—on an issue that is somewhat controversial within the community. Set out what you believe to be the community worldview conflicts at stake, and use your personal worldview standpoint to argue for where the limits of toleration should be.

Notes 1 This was a lynchpin of my friend, the late Roderick Chisholm. He held that there were normative duties to establishing sound, reliable epistemological pro­ cedures that might free us from error and enable us to embrace all that is true. See Theory of Knowledge (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966). My own take on this issue is set out in The Good, the True, and the Beautiful (London and New York: Continuum, 2008): Ch. 4 and 5. 2 Michael Boylan, A Just Society (Lanham, MD, and Oxford: Rowman and Lit­ tlefield, 2004): 21. 3 Contradictions can be understood deductively or inductively. I am glossing over this only quickly here. For a more complete treatment see Boylan, A Just Soci­ ety: Ch. 2. 4 The exposition of these from this author’s perspective are set out in Basic Ethics, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009): Part 2. 5 Boylan, A Just Society: Ch. 6. 6 For a discussion of this see: Johan C. Bester, “Not a Matter of Parental Choice but Social Justice Obligation: Children are Owed Measles Vaccin­ ation” Bioethics 32.9 (Nov, 2018): 611–619; and www.historyofvaccines.org/ content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements (accessed 09/15/19 ). 7 For a discussion of two groups located in Seattle and in New York on this subject see: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/us/when-parents-say-no­ to-child-vaccinations.html (for Seattle) and https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ danger-zones-of-parental-vaccine-refusal/ (for New York City) (both accessed 09/15/19).

Chapter 3

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

Though the common body of knowledge is essential for putting forth an argument to an audience, one must be attentive to what we accept as fac­ tual and normative about the world. This constitutes a personal obligation that all people must accept. I call this obligation The Personal Worldview Imperative and its categories and their connection to deductive, inductive and abductive logic are set out in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Since this section of the book has to do with receiving information, this chapter will concern itself with how we should process the information that we receive: Which information should be included in the common body of know­ ledge and which should be rejected and thrown into the dustbin.

“Fake News” and How We Can Protect Ourselves 1 During the 2016 election one of my students came up to me in early October and excitedly said to me, “Have you heard the news? The Pope has just endorsed Donald Trump for President!” I tilted my head and replied, “What makes you think this is true?” The student presently turned his smile into a pursing of the lips. “Why I heard it from a link on Facebook. I pulled it up and it cross-referenced three other sources.” Then I replied, “The Pope, by policy, never endorses any political can­ didates—anywhere.” I opened a spiral notebook (old school) that I use to keep track of trivia and I gave the student the webpage of the Vatican where he could see for himself. “But what about the three sources?” asked the student. “Let’s look at this in my office hours.” When the student came, I had cheated. I had contacted a colleague of mine who specialized in Internet fraud. He told me that in this particular case, if you went to each of the sources you would find that each of them inter-referenced one another, so it was probable that they were one and the same person putting out the false story with three different avatars (computer personae). Then Mr. X poses as Organization Y and posts the fake news, citing the three sources to convince others.

40

Reading the Text

ORGANIZATION Y’s WEBSITE

φ

φ

Avatar-1

Avatar-2

φ

Avatar-3

Mr. X Posts φ Figure 3.1 Posts to Website

Step one: Mr. X posts ϕ (a knowingly false piece of information via three avatars created by Mr. X). Step two: Mr. X (posing as Organization Y) claims ϕ as true, citing ava­ tars 1, 2, and 3 as sources. Step three: [More advanced cases] Mr. X hires an Internet Analytics Company to find out who (through their Internet use) might be open to considering ϕ—call these potential adopters. Then Organization Y contacts the potential adopters (who by analytics of their Internet usage seem to be part of a “target group”) asking them merely to follow their website. Once they do, they become aware of ϕ backed-up by three independent “sources” (avatars 1–3). Step three: Others on social media claim ϕ to be true because of Organ­ ization Y’s Internet posting; this grows exponentially over a short time with cross-referencing making ϕ seem increasingly true. In this particular example of the Pope supposedly endorsing Donald Trump for President, I suggested that we go outside this particular nested source material, to the Vatican itself, and to its website that offers a wealth of information—including the practice of the Pope not to endorse political candidates. The student was surprised. He had used the practice advocated by his freshman seminar class of using multiple sources before believing in any particular fact or value claim that was set out over the Internet. What he didn’t take into account was that for the multiple source rule to work, each source must be independent. In this case,

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

41

Mr. X was a deceiver who wanted to make his own willful designs look as if they were really the result of independent news organizations who came to a common conclusion after having gone over empirical data in a professional fashion. This could not have been further from the truth. There are other designs of fake news but mostly they have in common the fallacies mentioned in Chapter 2, particularly argument against the speaker or the speaker’s circumstances, a generated social identifi­ cation, dilemma question, and repetition. These work primarily by innuendo to an audience already inclined to believe in the truth of the false statement. Assessing Information Sources

In order to insulate oneself from traps such as the one set out in Figure 3.1, we must go over several key concepts that will assist the reader in not being duped by those who employ the very powerful tools the Internet provides of monitoring personnel. Of course, as a basic first step, one could go to the website of the supposed news organization and see whether they list the background of their reporters: Where they got their education and other jobs they have had in journalism. This is, of course, assuming that the website is telling the truth and not “exaggerating their resumes.” On the face of it, having journalists with masters degrees in journalism is a good sign, and a background with legitimate, long-standing news organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, are examples of national exposure. How­ ever, there are also many fine local news organizations that specialize in print, radio, television, or e-publications. Some effort is needed in order to ascertain a real news source (whether it is “right” or “left” leaning in edi­ torial content) as opposed to a pretend news source that does not follow accepted rules of gathering and reporting on the news. Some key “red flags” can be seen below. Facts and Opinion

Traditionally, news organizations separate the reporting of facts and edi­ torial content. In principle, the facts should be the same for all the news organizations. For example, let’s say there is a mass shooting (4 or more people dead according to the F.B.I.’s terminology). It happens in City-X on a particular time and date. In the reporting of the facts of the event there should be unanimity on: (a) The number of reported dead and wounded; (b) the time and circumstances of the attack; (c) the number of shooters captured, killed, or at large; and (d) whether there is a clear motive—although this is somewhat speculative and it is best to rely upon law enforcement here who often have an official spokesperson that sets

42

Reading the Text

these facts out for the public. These are some of the essential facts of the incident. In principle, disagreement on any of these details should be able to be adjudicated by the governmental investigating agencies.2 In principle, opinions (aka value statements) are different from facts and should be separated out from a recitation of facts. This is sometimes diffi­ cult to do for some news sources. For example, sticking with our example of the mass shooting, one might mix the ethnicity, race, gender, or religion of the shooter with the facts of the event. For example, in the United States (at the writing of this edition) there is a significant amount of prejudice against African Americans and Latino Americans (as examples of race and ethnicity). There is also prejudice against LGBTQ+ individ­ uals. Finally, there is prejudice against Muslims in the United States. So, in the reporting of the mass shooting if one of these marginalized groups is the shooter or the target of the investigation for the shooter, then the reporter should refrain from making opinionated remarks that are designed to encourage a targeted rage that will lead to hate. Using group prejudice can get you viewers and boost advertising dollars, but it is not the right way to do it and by merging facts and opinions together the reporter is creating a psychological basis for justifying one’s unfounded prejudices.3 This may result in serious social harm to the marginalized group and to the society at large. The takeaway is that though there can be difficult cases involving facts and opinions (values) being separate, one ought to try to keep them sep­ arate, both from the vantage point of the reporter and from the vantage point of the consumer of information—you. The Online Dimension

How one receives their information is a question of platform. Different platforms communicate differently. For a simplified version of this let’s consider a simple contrast between reading a print newspaper and receiv­ ing information on either (a) social media or (b) a blog. In the first case the platform is delivered to you either by a home delivery of the physical collection of printed pages folded together, or the purchase of the same from a vendor or sales box. The consumer possesses a physical object, a printed newspaper. Depending upon the time of delivery or purchase, the newspaper is between 5 and 8 hours old. The articles were finished 3 or 4 hours earlier and then edited for publication. The time between an event and when the client can read about it is, at best, 8 to 12 hours. The publisher of the newspaper accepts that the client may dip in and out of the paper over the next half-day—and some­ times longer. Response to ads is prompted by phone call replies and planned action. For the most part, the disposition of the consumer is deliberate. Response to calls for political action is prompted by response

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

43

either by e-mail or physical snail mail. The entire process is laid back and reflective. It has also gone through several layers of editorial review. In the second case, the platform is one’s smart phone or computer. In the former case, one can be appraised of breaking news almost as it is happening. The lag time from event to a video of the event can approach instantaneous, but these “in-the-moment videos” are often very context­ ual (see below). What we have is one person’s camera footage from one angle that started and stopped when the cell phone owner felt like starting and stopping. Much can be missed of the totality of what’s going on by such amateur footage.4 Because of the immediacy of the platform and its raw footage many observers can draw differing conclusions about what is in front of their eyes. This is why it is always preferable to have a film team with an onsite editor to construct a pictorial account of what happens during a particular event, in order to avoid the fallacy of presenting a misleading angle on the event. Because the platform is delivered in the moment it creates a sense of urgency: See x now, judge x now, become outraged about x now, share your feelings about x now with all your online “friends.” The entire pro­ cess encourages visceral, un-reflected reactions. It has been this philosopher’s life experience that when we are forced to hurry in our assessment and reaction to any particular event that the possibility for mistake in interpretation and reaction increase exponen­ tially. Thus, platform that encourage frenetic interactions will structurally encourage error. This is an important caveat to consider. Professionalism and Conflicts of Interest

In the sub-area of professional ethics one of the most important principles is to avoid actual and apparent conflicts of interest. When one engages in any task, especially someone who is a member of a profession,5 s/he should concentrate upon the task at hand when performing a service within that profession, and should consider how a prudent fellow practi­ tioner would behave according to the standards of that profession. Because of dedication to an agreed standard of professional conduct, there is a given interest for solving a problem in the subject area of the profession in a particular way. This professional interest must concern itself in a single-minded manner that is solely professional in its nature. This is the way that proper professional conduct should occur. However, sometimes the process becomes perverted so that another interest arises that conflicts with the professional interest. Generally, this new interest is a personal regard by the practitioner for his or her own prudential well-being. Most often, the professional who tries to satisfy

44

Reading the Text

two different interests will find herself/himself in a sure loss contract (see Chapter 6).6 The take-away of this from the reader’s perspective is that whenever you find yourself regarding a professional who exhibits either explicit con­ flict of interest or the appearance of a possible conflict of interest, you should be wary. The professional may not be performing at the standard of the profession and his/her judgments ought to be subject to skeptical assess­ ment. An example of this in my own life happened when I consulted with a neurosurgeon about a potential medical procedure. During my consultation the neurosurgeon was interrupted twice by a phone call from his stock broker that he took in my presence. It seemed that the doctor’s stock portfolio was underperforming and that was presenting itself to him as the most important issue for his intellectual attention. It was a conflict of interest. I decided to go to another doctor. Another common instance of conflict of interest is fiduciary responsi­ bility. When one is in a particular role that allows them to possess powers relative to that role, then has the said individual put their charge (the party/parties), to whom there is a responsibility, first, over the profes­ sional or office holder’s own gain?. For example, if one were a financial professional offering investment advice to a client, then the adviser should view their client’s interest as primary. Various options that might have positive commission rates for the financial adviser would be seen as a conflict of interest: The interest of the client versus the interest of the financial adviser. Professionalism dictates that the interest of the client should be primary. A third common example of conflict of interest concerns political fig­ ures. Their professional interest should be for their political constituency, but this often gets confused with acting in their own self-interest.7 In a democracy, voters believe that the candidates they elect to office will have their best interest in mind and not what will enrich the politician. However, it is too often the case that politicians look after themselves over the interests of their constituents. Whenever you perceive that a professional or a politician is engaged in a real or perceived conflict of interest situation, then we must subject their judgments, opinions, and actions to a high level of skeptical scrutiny. This is one important way to evaluate the news that bombards us every day. The “Web of Belief” 8

In the history of philosophy “reason” and “belief” were often separated. Plato, in the Republic, famously separated the doxa-philists (lovers of belief) from the sophia-philists (lovers of wisdom).9 Most people on earth, how­ ever, are driven by their beliefs because these dispositions guide us in our

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

45

lives: The energy they provide to our decision-making process is similar to an automobile battery that allows a car to get on its way. We all have beliefs about what is true and good, but how did we get those beliefs and how might they be changed? This is a critical question that we will very briefly address in this sub­ section. To begin, let’s distinguish between disbelief and non-belief. Disbelief means that one encounters proposition A and says that it is false. Thus, disbe­ lief is a belief about the untruth of some proposition (a factual state of affairs or a normative judgment). Non-belief refers to an epistemic state that is in suspension. It has not been determined. For the ancient Greeks, this was the meaning of skepsis (the modern cognate for skepticism). In modern English the phrase “I don’t know” captures this sense of suspension. It is certainly important to distinguish two phrases: (1) “I know” and (2) “I believe.” In the case of the former, one needs some sort of system­ atic approach that aspires to be the criteria for knowledge. For example, the scientific method claims to set out a method for acquiring data in order to evaluate whether the present dogma or a new claim is more cor­ rect. When initial empirical results are correct for 95% of the time it is said that a “p-value” has been achieved and that one is permitted to explore further in order to determine, by empirical methods, whether the hypothesis is rational.10 In the second phrase, beliefs often hover over us because we don’t have a contrary claim that challenges it. Sometimes, we need to be pre­ sented a situation that presents a contradiction in order for us to move toward some sort of evidence that will resolve the contradiction. The way to create such a resource is to start out with non-belief and then seek to bring forth evidence that will move one toward embracing a position on the question at hand. Chapters 4–6 provide various models to do this. It begins with self-observation of facts and values in the world as we personally encounter them. Next, we should gather the testimony of others and try to adjudicate these two realms via induction, analogy, and intuition (see Chapter 5). Normatively, we owe it to ourselves to only believe those propositions that are true and to disbelieve those propositions that are false. Because of this epistemic duty we need to work on constructing a worldview model that is justified by some broad and general causal principles. Examples of this might be the received science in any one era (since these often change over time). Even though we know that science may change over time, in any one given era the received account is more probable of being true so it exhibits the best available explanation (see Chapter 6). One generally begins her or his epistemic journey with what one takes as self-evident truths, such as group 1—“the sky is blue,” “water is wet,” “it’s cold outside just now.” These constitute atomic empirical reports that we individually experience. These reports seem to

46

Reading the Text

constitute the foundation of our empirical belief structure. However, there are other self-evident truths that attach themselves to our experience in the world, though they may go through some developmental or social lens. These are primitive normative truths, such as group 2—“all men are created equal,” “democracy is the best political system because it maxi­ mizes social expression of autonomy,” “education and opportunity should be open to all based upon merit.” These atomic statements are acceptable to most people living in representative democracies. However, there may be greater controversy in totalitarian states. It is likely that there will be more agreement on group 1 propositions then group 2 propositions, how­ ever, the building process of the common body of knowledge is the same for both. For the initiate one must observe greater care in bringing in group 2 propositions. Because of their social nature, they might exhibit prejudice that the group falsely endorses, such as group 3 “people of x-type are inferior to the rest of us (due to ethnic, racial, gender, genderidentity, or national identification).” When one is confronted with such possible group 3 propositions that seek inclusion into the common body of knowledge, each of us must ask for a mechanism that would explain the biological origins of such asserted inferiority. The burden of proof is a detailed account of origins (not effects, which can be self-reinforcing11). Lacking such a detailed mechanical account the proposition must be ren­ dered to either disbelief (most likely) or non-belief (at a minimum). Of course, there are some beliefs that are neither factual nor normative in a general sense (i.e., held to be true over a given population as part of the common body of knowledge). These beliefs are aesthetic in nature and exhibit individual taste. Examples of this sort of belief include “Mar­ garet Atwood is a superior novelist to William Faulkner,” “it’s better to live in the United States than in Australia,” and “Spanish cuisine is super­ ior to Irish cuisine.” Individuals will have their personal reasons for these beliefs but, because of their anecdotal origins, they only apply to the people who exhibit these judgments. Logical Contradiction within an Entire Presentation as a Source of Truth

When we are confronted with a presentation of fact or value that pur­ ports to be true, one effective way to assess such a claim is to evaluate the claim for logical inconsistencies. We may make the general assumption that logical inconsistencies are the mark of falsity and not of truth. When we receive an account that seems likely in some regards but exhibits contradictions, then we should move into the mode of non-belief and examine the claim further to ascertain whether the apparent contradic­ tions are real or not. This is a very important tenet in forming beliefs that may turn out to be knowledge claims.

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

47

Why Is Logical Contradiction so Important?

The principle of non-contradiction works like this: ~ (p & ~p). It reads, “Not the conjunction of p and not-p.” There are two sorts of opposites: Contradictory and contrary/sub-contrary opposites. In the case of contradictory opposites, when we know the truth value of a variable (p), then the complement of that variable (~p) will have the opposite truth value. An example of this would be pregnancy. It is always the case that any given person is either pregnant or not. If one declares she is pregnant then she cannot be non-pregnant at that same time and in the same manner. Likewise, to declare that one is not pregnant means one cannot also be preg­ nant. Opposites that work this way are called contradictory opposites. The other class of opposites is contrary/sub-contrary opposites. For contrary opposites it can be the case that both are false but they cannot both be true. An example of contrary opposites would be “All the New England Patriot football players are all stars” and “None of the New Eng­ land Patriot football players are all stars.” These two propositions can both be false, but they cannot both be true. For sub-contraries it works in reverse: They may both be true but they cannot both be false. For example, “Some New England Patriot football players are all stars” and “Some New England Patriot football players are not all stars.” These may both be true but they cannot both be false. More details in Chapter 4. Now the reason why I’ve highlighted a recognition of a commitment to the principle of non-contradiction is because I believe it to be extremely important in forming effective, ethical action decisions.12 When we put aside the idea that we cannot have everything and that the choice of x may preclude the choice of y, then we are giving ourselves over to logic in an important way in our lives—both for our own deci­ sion-making processes and the actions that will follow from these. Therefore, when you confront something on the Internet or from social media that seems to be inconsistent with something that you have believed before, such that a contradictory opposite situation presents itself, then it is requisite that you discard one. This is called the law of the excluded middle (which follows from the law of non-contradiction: (p or ~p)). We read this as either p or not-p is true. You must make a choice in order to satisfy the Personal Worldview Imperative which governs authentic choice in the world. Complete versus Out-of-Context Presentations

One of the most frequently used devices for disseminating false informa­ tion is by selective cutting of data—often videos from smart phones to set forth the case that the advocate is predisposed to set forth. One case

48

Reading the Text

recently analyzed by Shankar Vedantam on National Public Radio con­ cerns an incident on the Washington, D.C. Mall:13 A story from earlier this year [2019] perfectly encapsulates how out­ rage captures our minds. In January, a short video taken at the National Mall in Washington went viral. It showed an older Native American man surrounded by teenage boys, nearly all of whom were white. Many wore hats that said Make America Great Again. One take on the story was that the journalist covering the story wanted to make the teenage boys, who were from a Midwest Catholic High School, with their Donald Trump hats into hovering bigots against a senior native American. However, it was not so simple. One viewer of the cell phone video, Julie Zimmerman, who lived locally in Ohio to the school became outraged at the video and protested to the school, how­ ever, when put together with other videos of the situation it showed that it wasn’t as simple as it first appeared. The native American man was part of another group who was mutually harassing the teenagers. Both groups were being obnoxious to each other. Because of Ms. Zimmerman’s a priori bias she initially only looked at one source, which fueled her out­ rage. However, within hours after her first response Ms. Zimmerman dis­ covered further information that revealed a more complicated picture. This new information caused Ms. Zimmerman, a journalist, to write an article in the Atlantic describing her journey to the complete account as emblematic of new problems of getting the whole story in order to pre­ sent all the dimensions of an event (in order to present a more accurate picture of what happened). In this case, we are fortunate that Ms. Zim­ merman’s passion for truth outweighed her pre-event inclination to her “favorites” (native Americans over private Catholic school teens with “Make America Great Again” hats). It’s my guess that Ms. Zimmerman is an outlier. Most others in her situation would not have pursued a complete vision of the situation. Another well-known case that follows this form of “out-of-context” presentation happened in 2010 with the editing of a speech by Shirley Sherrod, the rural development director for the Agriculture Department in Georgia, to the NAACP.14 In the speech Ms. Sherrod went through her personal story about the murder of her father in 1965 by white racists in Georgia. The killers were never tried in court. Ms. Sherrod had dedi­ cated her life to not giving in to the reciprocal culture of hate. (Her hus­ band is the Reverend Charles Sherrod, a Civil Rights leader and pastor.) Well, one viewer of her speech to the NAACP was Andrew Breitbart. He was predisposed to see Ms. Sherrod as a racist working in her role at the Agriculture Department to disadvantage white farmers in favor of black farmers. As a result, Mr. Breitbart created a highly edited video that

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

49

made it appear as though Ms. Sherrod was a bigot working against poor white farmers in Georgia. Then Mr. Breitbart made the highly edited video available to news organizations and the Internet. At least one national news organization ran the video without checking its veracity against the full video of the speech, which was available from the NAACP’s website. The result was a furor that cost Ms. Sherrod her job. Even after the full video had been seen by others who rightly said that Ms. Sherrod’s speech was for equal rights, regardless of race, the national news outlet that initially ran the story never ran a retraction. Ms. Sherrod sued Mr. Breitbart in court for libel.15 Setting aside the legal issues in the case, it is clear that Mr. Breitbart wanted to emphasize what he thought was most important from his per­ sonal worldview perspective. But in doing so in a public document he left out important material that might have allowed others to better make up their minds. This is because in every case, when given the choice of receiving a complete account of some event or of receiving some version highly edited by some other party (with a possible personal bias or inter­ est), the former is superior to the latter.

The Internet and Social Media Assessing the Way the Internet and Social Media Work

The CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has contended time and again that Facebook is merely a platform of communication (like a telephone) and is not to be regarded as a source of information (like a newspaper). This is a controversial claim and has brought Mr. Zuckerberg before Congress in testimony.16 It is true that Facebook and other social media outlets allow people to contact each other for an exchange of informa­ tion. Part of this exchange of information, however, is often the exchange of attachments or links that give other information that purport to be either factually or normatively true about the world. These can have sub­ stantial effects. If these social media platforms are merely devices for com­ munication, then they bear no responsibility if false information is conveyed that contributes to deleterious outcomes. If these platforms are like a newspaper, then like a newspaper, they can be sued for libel if false information is conveyed—regardless of the negative effects. Also, the way that the Internet gathers information on its users allows a computer analytics firm, such as Cambridge Analytics, to target particular users for various personal information that identifies them as members of particular groups. This, in turn, allows for indi­ vidualized messaging, for example for the selling of products, to indi­ vidualized messaging for influencing outcomes, such as that of the democratic process. In the 2016 election, for example, African

50

Reading the Text

Americans were purportedly targeted with false anti-Hilary Clinton messaging with the goal of suppressing the African American vote that was critical in electing Barack Obama. This worked.17 Because of the efficacy as a tool of influence in commerce and in politics, it would seem that social media is more than merely a platform of communica­ tion (like the telephone). Users should keep this in mind as they go through their daily social media routine. Anonymity and Its Effects

How does anonymity affect people’s behavior? This question is at least as old as Plato’s Ring of Gyges story.18 In that story a shepherd finds a magical ring that can make him invisible (anonymous) so that he might commit any action he pleases without fear of retribution. The shepherd uses this power to kill the king and marry the queen. The question that Plato raises (and is the general theme of The Republic) is whether there are intrinsic reasons for being moral. This is sometimes termed ethical egoism.19 Plato thought that even with the Ring of Gyges a person should be ethical because it would be to their advantage: It would bring about contentedness and flourishing (eudaimonia). However, even though Plato may be prescriptively correct, it is doubtful whether he is descriptively correct for the majority of people. Concerning the Internet, and particularly social media, it seems that many people create avatars who are fictitious entities who can spew forth a fog of evil, particularly because of the anonymity that the platform allows.20 When people feel anger, jealousy, or other emotions that are negative towards others, then the emotional reaction for many is to strike back, however, when everything is out in the open then one must be measured in their response, or else there might be consequences: Libel or criminal threaten­ ing behavior. Either of these can result in the law intervening against the person wishing to strike back. The First Amendment (in the United States’ Constitution) has limits so that so long as one’s identity is known, one is accountable for one’s actions. If, therefore, one can hide their identity and take on a false identity, then they are acting anonymously. Now there will be no perceived consequences to the action. Therefore, if one were inclined to lash out against another person with the cloak of anonymity (that the Internet and social media can provide), that check against false and hurtful comments would be gone. The only thing stop­ ping someone from engaging in this viciousness would be intrinsic good­ ness of character. Unfortunately, it is this author’s experience in the world that not everyone possesses an intrinsically good character. Another example of this in the pre-Internet world can found in the book review publication, The Times Literary Supplement. Prior to 1974 the book reviews were unsigned (i.e., they were anonymous) and they

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

51

were legendary for their viciousness. Then, under the editorship of John Gross, they gradually became all signed reviews. People writing reviews had to take responsibility for what they said. The result was that the tone of the reviews was much more humane. Gone was the hateful overstatement. These examples suggest that in ordinary circumstances our Internet identities should be, at least in principle, transparent. This might lead to greater accountability and less fake and hateful behavior. One caveat to this commitment toward transparency is a venue for whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are those individuals who work in an organization in which wrong doing is occurring. The whistleblower steps forward and makes public the wrongdoing. This can range from the small issues in a professor who does not keep his office hours to the big picture in which politicians and businessmen, who break the law, are exposed. Because those in power will most often punish those who speak truth to power, many organizations and political entities try to protect whistleblowers from retribution. The first step in this process is to provide the whistleblower with anonymity while the truth of their claim is being examined.21 Argumentum Ad Populum

Ever since the structure of Facebook highlights numbers of followers or “friends” and how many “likes” one can get from a particular post, social media promotes following the crowd (argumentum ad populum—see Chapter 2). The typical goal is to produce a post that becomes a “meme” that is sent to others according to the terminology of the social media involved. In this way, the originator feels he or she has created something that is popular and that gives the original sender and the re-senders a sense that they are on the positive side of opinion, an unexamined good. However, as we saw in the statement of the fallacy in Chapter 2, being popular has no logical connection to being either true or good. For example, during the Jim Crow era in the United States, it might have been popular with many sub-groups in the population to openly exhibit racist comments, jokes, and oppressive de jure and de facto behaviors. Just because it was popular, however, does not mean it is true or good. In fact, most people looking backwards would say that such sentiments were false and bad. What lies behind the problem of argumentum ad populum is that there is a thread of a genuine dream that is proper to possess: Recognition for excel­ lent work. The difficulty here is what to emphasize: (a) Recognition or (b) excellent work. The late Andy Warhol is reputed to have said in an art exhibit, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”22 The idea here is that culture (perhaps the United States’ culture) emphasizes

52

Reading the Text

being known by others more than anything else. It doesn’t matter for what one is known for. You can be John Hinkley (who shot President Reagan) or Jonas Salk (who invented the first vaccine for polio)—all the same. All that counts is to be known by lots of people. It seems to me that social media drives such a force that, if Warhol is correctly cited, has been (at least) an inclination among many in the USA for a long time. If this is correct, then we must decide whether this is a tendency of human nature (applying throughout the world) or is regionalized to particular Western Cultures. Since I’m not a sociologist or an anthropologist, I will not speculate on this, but it seems to be a feature of most social media platforms from Facebook to Tik Tok. However, I will speculate on the human inclination to be a part of a group, and the bigger the group the stronger the pull. This exhibits itself in tribalism: By nation, by religion, by race, by gender, by gender identity, and so on. This is a source of division and leads to the false ideal of homogeneity.23 Thus, there are practical, social deleterious consequences that are asso­ ciated with argumentum ad populum that may follow from social media platforms: Their high popularity is both their strength and weakness. The strength is that we are social animals and like to communicate with other homo sapiens. The weakness is that a value can be placed upon numbers of followers and drive both our input and the way we react to input we receive, and this may give rise to argumentum ad populum in which the truth and value are judged by numbers rather than by their logical con­ tent. This can be potentially dangerous for balanced, informed, rational discourse, which is a necessary condition for a thriving, free society. Trolls and Bad Guys

There are various definitions of Internet trolls. They are generally avatars so their identity is not known. They seek to harass and disrupt. They will often enter a social media group and attack certain individuals for a purpose. By engaging in ad hominem attacks, they seek to discredit through their outrageous statements. Generally, the target is some indi­ vidual who holds a particular position, but it may be a position taken by the group. An example of political trolling that occurred in the United States 2016 presidential election was undertaken by people unknown (rumored to be agents of the Russian Republic) against Hilary Clinton, the Democratic candidate.24 In one set of posts to targeted websites and social media by trolls, Hilary Clinton was depicted as harming and traf­ ficking children in the basement of a popular pizza restaurant on Con­ necticut Avenue in Washington, D.C. These false messages prompted a man in North Carolina to get a gun and drive to D.C. to stop it. Of course, there was nothing to find. The restaurant didn’t even have

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

53

a basement. But when the man was taken away after firing shots, he told officers that he didn’t know how they hid the door to the basement. In another trolling incident false messages were given to social media and websites frequented by African Americans to slander Hilary Clinton by falsely claiming that she was making racist comments against African Americans. The object was not for these individuals to vote for Trump, but to suppress the vote that had been so essential to the Obama victories. Trolling is also used in the patent industry via frivolous harassment. Often the troll will buy a related patent and then sue patent holders for non-existent patent infringement. In many cases it is easier to settle with the trolling company than to have it out in court. The backdrop of the patent troll is a disinformation campaign that is often carried out on social media and posts to popular, related blogs. On a smaller level, there are trolls who exist in high schools and colleges who want to discredit popular students and teachers with their false claims. By using clever graphics that grab attention in their own rights, they often get forwarded to others and the troll’s nefarious purposes are achieved: To harm the reputation of another by false innuendo. E-Commerce

Internet commerce has great potential. It is the modern version of cata­ logue sales which were the first threat to brick and mortar stores. Today, many people do most of their banking and non-food shopping online. Bill paying is very convenient by setting out when your bills will be paid without writing out a check or licking an envelope. Online consumer shopping promises to be faster and more cost efficient than traditional modes of shopping. The Way It’s Supposed to Work

The way it’s supposed to work is that the promise of the internet— quick, private, and free—will allow us to spend less time in the process of shopping and more time on activities we enjoy. If we’re willing to give up a little privacy to browsers that sell our internet activity, then we can also be winners. If we were thinking of taking a vacation to New York City and did a little investigating on our own, then that information is sold to hotels, restaurants, theaters, and so on, in New York and they, in turn, e-mail us back about the opportun­ ities they afford. With many options, the consumer is in a position to make an informed, economical choice: Multiple vendors competing in the online marketplace for your business.

54

Reading the Text

This looks like the wave of the future. Already one of the giants of brick and mortar stores, Sears, is gradually phasing out of business. But like everything else there are glitches that have to do with twisting truth for financial gain. Phishing and Illicit Commerce

There is trouble in paradise. Though many of the benefits of e-commerce remain, those same features can drive thieves to try and separate us from our money and our good names. The first form of criminal activity is called phishing. One simple form works like this: Dear Maria, Congratulations! You are the winner of a random Internet lottery that is sponsored by Fortune 500 companies to draw new interest in their products. For more information about your prize, click on the follow­ ing link: http://[email protected]. Next screen: Congratulations! In order to claim your prize of $100,000 you need to provide the following information: Name: Address: Name of Bank: Account Number: Any Password: Social Security Number: (We are required under law to report your earnings to the Internal Revenue Service.) Comment: The actor W. C. Fields used to say in his movies, “You can’t cheat an honest man,” even as he was playing a rogue who ran con games. Phishing (a form of spam intended to defraud) requires its respondents to believe that there is a gravy train a comin’ round the bend and that Lady Luck will someday make their lives wonderful! This sort of personal worldview delusion makes gullible clients among a small percent of the population. All the phishers need is a positive response from a few percentage points of the population that receives their spam message. Of course, this is a hoax. Of course, they can use the information you give them to access your bank accounts and take

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

55

what little you might have there. As a personally directed message, the shared community worldview is not in play, however, the common body of knowledge maxim that Lady Luck is just around the corner and life can turn around again is a force behind this phony presenta­ tion. These personal worldview tenets, if examined critically, will be seen as irrational. Most recipients make this connection, but not all. It is that difference that can make these crooks rich. Here is another example: Dear Valued Customer, Microsoft has noted severe problems in your computer’s operating system that could lead to the crash of your machine and the loss of important data. Please call our toll-free number 1-800-555-1212 immediately to avoid this catastrophe. When you call the number you get a person who wants to “fix” your problem by taking control of your computer remotely. Even though you get to stay on the line to talk to an “expert” that individual goes through a narrative of bogus word speak while obtaining information on your passwords and bank account, etc. By the end of the call you may not have any money left in your account—but your computer will be working (because it was never broken in the first place). Comment: All computers will exhibit problems sooner or later. We all sit back waiting for that event to occur. When someone tells us that now is the time, then a “fight or flight” emotional reaction is triggered so that many are inclined to do something to prevent disaster. However, most computer users also have protection from one of the national firms (such as Norton or McAfee). These devices will tell you whether you have a problem or not. The watchword is not to act precipitously but to con­ sider the source. If you are in any real quandary you could contact Micro­ soft directly and ask them if they sent you such a message. Don’t use the number given to you on the false alert but one you get off your search engine. Here is a final example: Dear John Doe, I am Sargent Marco Perez from the Internal Revenue Service. We have determined that your 202x tax return was incorrectly calcu­ lated. You owe additional monies. Please contact me immediately at 1-800-555-1212 so that we can work out a payment schedule. Failure to act within the next 10 days can result in arrest and imprisonment.

56 Reading the Text

Comment: Taxes are a source of great consternation for us all. They are complicated and the rules are always changing and even if we use one of the online tax filing systems, there is still a great susceptibility for unintentional error. And the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collec­ tions are not known for playing “nice.” It would not be an understate­ ment to say that such threats will trigger an even stronger “fight or flight” emotional response than was elicited in our last example. Of course, what they want you to do is to pay some moderate amount 200–500 dollars in one or two payments (these thieves don’t want to get caught and the fewer payments that go out, the better their chances). They will give you a PayPal account or a direct deposit from your bank account in their plan to fleece you. Just as in the previous example, the journey to truth may require you to contact the IRS directly via a phone number that you obtain from your internet browser. Do not call the number that the solicitor sent you. You will discover that the IRS only contacts individuals who have potential tax problems via snail mail (aka The U.S. Postal Service). If you have not received a snail mail letter, the inquiry is FALSE. Note that in all three cases the crooks are making assumptions about human nature and how we react to information—even uncorroborated information. It is not too far from the skewing of factual and normative information set out earlier in this chapter. It is important to acquire a measure of skepticism and mix it with another measure of sensitivity to logical fallacy (Chapter 2) in order to bring forth a meal that reason confirms will be for our general health. Exercises

1. Create a multi-level flow chart that depicts the creation of avatars and/or websites and/or organizations that will try to fool social media users to accept a ridiculous proposition. 2. Go onto the Internet and find a website, blog, or purported news organization that you think is sending out fake news. Then distribute this to your class along with your own assessment on why you think its fake. This will be used in class discussion (either face-to­ face discussion or in a class-structured chat room). 3. Find an instance of where anonymity on social media has caused a problem. Describe the facts of the case and whether an identifying marker might have avoided the problem.

Assessing Degrees of Certainty and What It Means

57

4. What is an example of argumentum ad populum that you have encountered recently? How have you reacted to it? How should you have reacted to it? 5. Find an example of troll activity and set out what the negative conse­ quences were. How might these negative consequences be mitigated? 6. Find and present a case of internet phishing.

Notes 1 Much of the material from this chapter relies on the work of Deni Elliott and Edward H. Spence, Ethics for a Digital Era (Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018) and Dean Cocking and Jeroen Van Den Hoven, Evil Online (Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018). 2 Of course, there are some who distrust the government. In some countries such distrust may be more justifiable than in others. In general, countries that have active democracies are more likely to allow press outlets considerable space for reporting facts and commenting on them (editorial). However, there are some who distrust their governments even in stable democracies. 3 I talk about this community dynamic in greater length in Michael Boylan, A Just Society (New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004): Ch. 6. 4 I note that a life-long friend of mine, Chuck Taylor, went to graduate school, USC, to get an MFA in news television camera work. He spent 40 years perfecting his craft before retiring in the year I’m writing this new edi­ tion. I appreciate what he says when he talks about the craft of taking video footage in a professional way. An amateur with no training or professional experience is very likely to present a partial picture that may not give an accurate account of what happened. 5 By “profession” I mean a defined practitioner who is trained specifically to deal with a certain range of problems. The training makes the practitioner able to act in a way that ordinary people cannot. Sometimes the potential for harm renders this knowledge as “potentially dangerous.” Because of this risk, most professions create organizations that define acceptable and unacceptable practice that give rise to legal exposure to “malpractice.” For a longer discus­ sion of this see Michael Boylan, Basic Ethics, 1st ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000): Ch. 7. 6 CI call such sure loss contracts in decision-making as instances of “inductive incoherence” with reference to my Personal Worldview Imperative. See: Michael Boylan, A Just Society (New York and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004): Ch. 2. 7 Several arguments on this sort of conflict can be seen in Plato’s depiction of Socrates and Thrasymachus’ debate on whether “justice is the rule of the strongest.” See: Republic I, 339c–354a. 8 Some parts of this sub-section on what constitutes rational belief come from the book W.V. Quine ad J.S. Ullian, The Web of Belief, 2nd ed. (New York: Random House, 1978). 9 Plato, Republic, 474c–479e. 10 The standard for p-valuation of statistical data is longstanding at 95% (or the complementary null set at 5%). However, some have recently called this standard into question. Two key examples of the current debate are Colin F. Camerer et al., “Evaluating the Replicability of Social Science

58

11

12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24

Reading the Text

Experiments” Nature Human Behavior 2 (September, 2018): 637–644; and Ronald L. Wasserstein, Allen L. Schirm and Nicole A. Lazer, “Moving to a World beyond ‘p < 0.05’” American Statistician 73, supplement 1 (2019): 1–19. A self-reinforcing effect happens when a group assumes the inferiority of some other group and treats them badly. This limits the persecuted group so that they will underperform the majority group because of this lack of oppor­ tunity and active harm caused to that group. Even when some in the perse­ cuted group break out and shine, the majority group will exhibit confirmation bias and declare the successful individuals to be statistical “outliers.” Michael Boylan, “‘On Pain of Contradiction’: A Key Moment in Deductive Agency Arguments” in Gewirthian Perspectives on Human Rights, ed. Per Baum (London: Routledge, 2016): 30–46. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768489375/how-outrage-is-hijacking-our­ culture-and-our-minds (accessed 10/9/19). For a discussion of this case from The New York Times see https://www. nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html (accessed 10/14/19). For the details of the libel (defamation) lawsuit see The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shirley-sherrod-defamation-case­ faces-blogger-free-speech-challenge/2013/03/17/f4c19046-8f45-11e2-bdea­ e32ad90da239_story.html (accessed 10/14/19). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/09/face book-chief-executive-mark-zuckerberg-to-captiol-hill-it-was-my-mistake­ and-im-sorry/ (accessed 10/21/19). https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-campaign-and-rus sian-government-are-apparently-on-the-same-moral-plane/2019/10/11/ 3b6fa978-eb84-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html (accessed 10/21/19). Myth of the Ring of Gyges: Plato, The Republic: 359d–360b (compare to Socrates’ reply 612b). For a discussion of this see Michael Boylan, Basic Ethics, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009): 41–45. For a thorough discussion of this by experts in the field see Dean Cocking and Jeroen Van Den Hoven, Evil Online (Malden, MA and Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2018): Ch. 2. Of course, even whistleblowers can be controversial. One such case is Wiki­ leaks. Some have said that they are brave whistleblowers while other say they are just criminals. For a contemporary discussion of this see The Guardian story: https://www.theguardian.com/media/wikileaks (accessed 10/22/19). A discussion on the accuracy and meaning of this alleged quotation can be found at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/andy-warhol-prob ably-never-said-his-celebrated-fame-line-180950456/ (accessed 10/22/19). For a discussion of my argument for heterogeneity as the basis of forming communities see Boylan (2004): Ch. 5. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/russian-trolls-pushed-graphic­ racist-tweets-american-voters-n823001 (accessed 10/24/19).

Part 2

Reconstructing the Text

Chapter 4

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

There are three recognized argument types: Deductive argument, in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; inductive argument, in which the conclusion follows contingently from the prem­ ises on the basis of probability; and abductive argument in which the conclusion is meant to be the most plausible possibility. The accepted ter­ minology is that deductive arguments are valid if the acceptance of the premises necessarily entails the conclusion. In cases in which the premises are also assented to be true, then the entire argument is categorized as sound. Sound arguments should be accepted by all people (by virtue of the synonymy between agent and argument being rational). Inductive arguments follow by probability. The conclusions are contin­ gent, meaning there is some room for possible doubt—albeit in many cases very small. More on this in the next chapter. Abductive arguments are most likely to be true according to the uni­ verse in which they are presented, such as fictive narrative philosophy (see Chapter 6). The next term to be explained is outlining. Outlining is a process by which the reader reconstructs the presentation of the premises so that they entail the conclusion. There are various ways this is presented in formal logic. For the purposes of this book, an informal system of logical entailment is presented with the end purpose of making the reader demonstrate his or her understanding of the mechanical presenta­ tion of the argument. This is a very technical chapter. Thus, I will put key terms necessary for grasping these concepts in italics. If you make it through this chapter you will be empowered to confront deductive logical argument wherever it confronts you with powerful tools of analysis.

Topical versus Logical Outlining The method of logical analysis taught in this volume is that of logical outlining. A logical outline is different from the style of a topical

62 Reconstructing the Text

outline, which is the outline most of us were taught. The topical out­ line provides a summary of all that occurs within a given passage. It is a condensed presentation that allows one to skim over the key points of a given work. In contrast to a topical outline, the logical outline seeks only to present arguments and points of contention. Any other material, such as classifica­ tory remarks and various enumerations, is omitted from the logical out­ line. For example, consider the contrasting outlines that can be constructed from the following passage: What sort of person makes the best high-level manager? We all know that many kinds of people enter management. They range across the spectrum of human nature—from the timid, sniveling, and spineless to the aggressive, high-powered motivators. But surely, we all know that the future of our companies depends upon the quality of upper-level management. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask what quality is inherent in the best of these leaders of industry. In three words, it is that each is a “calculated risk-taker.” This can easily be seen from the fact that initiating bold new action, which is a toplevel manager’s job, involves taking risks. The policies of the past have to be reexamined and, if found wanting, then bold, new, risky paths must be explored. Obviously, though, one cannot go off willy­ nilly. Some savvy and calculation are required, since these risk-takers are more often than not the winners at the end of the day. This is what has made American industry great, and it must continue if we are to remain strong. Logical Outline

1. A high-level manager must be able to boldly lead a company away from policies of the past—(assertion) 2. To move away from policies of the past is to take a new direction— (fact) 3. Initiating bold new directions involves taking risks—(fact) 4. High-level managers must be risk-takers—(1–3) 5. Calculated risk-taking is more successful than un-calculated risktaking—(fact) 6. High-level managers must employ the most successful strategies open to them—(assertion) 7. High-level managers must be calculated risk-takers—(4, 5, 6)

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

63

Topical Outline

I. Types of managers A. Timid 1. Sniveling 2. Spineless B. Aggressive 1. High-powered 2. Motivator C. Similar to cross sections of humanity II. Future of industry A. Lies with upper-level managers B. Quality managers make good companies 1. Risk-takers 2. Bold new action 3. Reexamine policies of past 4. Tempered with savvy and calculation III. Past success of American industry A. Depends upon risk-taking managers B. Must continue for the future Let us consider, in reverse order, some of the differences between the top­ ical and logical outline and then highlight the strengths of each. The topical outline can give you a summary of what is contained within a book or lec­ ture. By condensing the material, through the use of key words and phrases, the reader can recall the flow and order of the text. Such an outline might be useful for creating an encapsulated reconstruction or for boning up on a large amount of material at a glance. It is for this latter purpose that topical outlining is usually taught in grammar school. The logical outline, in contrast, is not a summary. It is an exact recon­ struction of the argument contained within a given passage. Some textual material is omitted. It does not use the classification found in logical out­ lines unless it is directly relevant to the argument at hand. Thus, in the above example, the classification into the two types of managers is not included. Also omitted are various side remarks. In the above example the depic­ tions of “sniveling,” “spineless,” “high-powered,” and “motivator” are all side comments. The remarks on the future of American industry are also side comments, since these remarks are not accompanied by an appropriate argument.

64

Reconstructing the Text

What remains is an exact depiction of the internal structure of the sen­ tences meant logically to persuade us to accept some point of contention. This outline admittedly misses certain parts of a passage; thus, it is not comprehensive. It is, however, a more detailed and useful tool for under­ standing an argument than the topical outline. If one wanted to formulate an objection to this argument, the topical outline would not afford the reader the same view of all the logical relationships among sentences that the logical argument does. For this reason, the logical outline can be viewed as a specialized form of outlining—it has a precise mission—but if one wishes to be comprehensive in note-taking, then this form could be supplemented with a topical outline.

The Purpose of an Outline Inasmuch as many (if not most) books and articles seek to be persuasive rather than merely descriptive, the logical outline becomes the single most important form of reaction. It forces one to come to grips with exactly what is being said. We have all heard people say, “I know what the author is saying; it’s just that I can’t form an outline of it.” This state­ ment is misleading. What the speaker means is that he or she has a general, vague idea of what is going on in the passage. It is for this reason that an outline cannot be formed, since logical outlining requires more precision than he or she currently possesses. When the speaker claims an understanding of the text but is unable to outline it, he or she is really saying that more than C percent but less than A percent is under­ stood (assuming a five-level scale, A, B, C, D, F, with A being the high­ est—just like grading in school). However, it is the contention of this book that unless one has acquired a mastery of a text of at least B to A percent, a sufficient level of competence has not been met. Therefore, one advantage of logical outlining is that it demands a higher level of understanding from the reader. It has been my experience in the classroom that most students are searching for opportunities to work in depth and really master the mater­ ial. Often, in an effort to be comprehensive and broad in scope, the stu­ dent is burdened with so many pages of reading that all he or she can hope to achieve is C percent. This breeds not only frustration but an entire framework of mediocrity. There is a very limited benefit if most of one’s courses require a surface, facile level of comprehension in exchange for large, survey quantities of processed material. At the very least, people should be given the opportunity to work in a depth that encourages multiple readings and slow, painstaking inter­ action with the text. I suggest that in the beginning you ask your instructor to flag the most important arguments after you have read them once (see Chapter 1). This will provide some further structure from

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

65

which to create your outlines. As the course progresses, you will develop toward identifying the arguments yourself and creating your own recon­ struction from these judgments. It is at this final stage that you can justifi­ ably feel that you are getting the most out of the argumentative prose.

Fairness in Reconstruction One final word must be added on fairness in reconstructing arguments. Often when encountering a logical argument, one is faced with what seems to be a very simple-minded mistake or superficial flaw. One response to this discovery is to pounce on it and use it to reject the entire argument. However, I think such an approach is not useful. This is because the author needs merely make a slight alteration concerning the supposed flaw and the argument will be saved. It is better to note the alleged error and then make the alteration your­ self. In this way you are operating on the principle that you desire to evaluate the strongest version of the argument. Finding superficially weak interpretations is like finding “straw men” who are easy targets. It proves very little when one defeats a straw man. It is better to give the author every benefit of the doubt and view the case in the best possible light. We can state this principle of fairness as follows: Always reconstruct an argument in its strongest form, even if it requires correcting trivial errors (though these may be noted elsewhere). An example of this might be derived from our earlier sample on the qual­ ities of the high-level manager (see pages 62–63). Now it is possible that one might read this passage and find the following points to disagree with: 1. There are no timid, spineless managers. 2. Risk evaluation is a much more complicated field than the passage suggests. 3. More traits are needed in a successful manager than simply calculated risk-taking. Much more could be said, of course, but these three reactions typify a large group of possible responses. Point 1 may be true, but what effect does an incorrect classification have on the argument’s point of conten­ tion? None. This point can easily be conceded without weakening the argument at all. Therefore, under the principle of fairness outlined above, it would not be an appropriate avenue for evaluation. Point 2 may also be correct, but unless one could show that the simplification engaged in

66

Reconstructing the Text

distorts the force of the normative background condition of which it is a part, then it will have no significant impact upon the conclusion. The distinction in point 2 may be one of degrees. If this is the case, the student may feel some alteration of the premise is necessary. Under the principle of fairness, the student is obliged to do so after duly observ­ ing in a note that such a change is required to make the argument valid. Finally, in point 3 we have a statement that does indeed affect the con­ clusion. If calculated risk-taking was a sufficient condition for high-level management, then we would only have to go down to the racetrack to hire the next batch of senior-level officials. Rather, the student must make the charitable assumption that the author intends to highlight neces­ sary rather than sufficient conditions. By illustrating a necessary condition, the rhetorician only needs to show that the manager must have this particular trait. It says nothing about what else might be needed. To attack the writer because sufficient conditions have not been offered as well would be to require the writer to provide material beyond the purpose of the writing. This is surely unfair—unless you also wish to attack that purpose itself. The reader of goodwill approaches a passage and decides that some­ thing important is missing. But then it must be judged whether the alleged error is one that is (a) really important to the conclusion, and (b) not able to be rectified by relatively minor means (such as assuming a necessary rather than a sufficient condition). Such restrictions are important to observe, both out of fairness to the writer involved and to save one’s attention for those parts of the argu­ ment that are essential to the view being put forth. For it is really this essential point of view that lies at the heart of the argument. Finding and zeroing in on is a much more productive use of one’s efforts.

Reading Questions 1 2 3 4 5

What is a topical outline? What is a logical outline? When is it appropriate to use a logical outline and when a topical outline? How does logical outlining affect reading comprehension? What is the “principle of fairness”? Why do we need it?

The Mechanics of Outlining Now we are ready to go about the business of actually creating an outline of a deductive logical argument. Both the orders of logical presentation and genesis will be discussed. In addition, a few items of specialized

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

67

interest are included at the end of the chapter. The student is encouraged to read the following example closely and then to refer to it while read­ ing the rest of the chapter. Editorial in the Hometown Gazette

Residents of fair Hometown, we’ve got a problem—a big problem. This problem must be addressed now! What I am talking about are potholes! Yes, you have seen them arise and grow each spring when the winter thaw leaves its debris behind. At first, they were only fis­ sures, but now they threaten road safety and the general condition of our automobiles. Do you know what can happen to your car when you hit one of those potholes at 40 miles per hour? Your axle gets bent out of shape. And axles are expensive to replace. It’s therefore time for a change! The city needs to fix its potholes. Oh, I know the mayor says there is no room in the city budget for any more costcutting in order to fix potholes. And he’s right. The budget is tight as a drum. Therefore, we must raise taxes to pay for the repairs. We can’t delay. Write His Honor today. The city needs to raise taxes to fix those potholes! Logical Outline

[1. The city’s residents prize their automobiles’ general condition and their own safety—(fact)] 2. There are many large potholes in the city—(fact) 3. Large potholes harm the condition of automobile axles as well as gen­ eral driving safety—(fact) 4. The city needs to fill its potholes—(1–3) 5. The city is presently operating with a budget that cannot be trimmed —(assertion) [6. Filling potholes costs money—(fact)] [7. The only way a city can find money for a project is by cutting spend­ ing or by raising taxes—(assertion)] 8. The city can fix potholes only by raising taxes—(5–7) 9. The city needs to raise taxes to fix potholes—(4, 8) Now let’s pause a moment in order to see how one moves from text to outline. Step one—As mentioned in Part I, the beginning of the process upon the second reading of a text is to try to discover what the principal point of contention is. In the editorial above, the point is to exhort the

68 Reconstructing the Text

raising of taxes in order to fix potholes. This then becomes the conclu­ sion of the argument. One must always begin an outline with the con­ clusion (more on this later). Step two—After the conclusion is established, a common technique is to analyze the conclusion in its component parts. In this case the conclusion has two parts: (a) The city needs to fix its potholes (the need), and (b) the city needs to raise taxes (the solution). If we were to create an argu­ ment with these two subconclusions, we’d be done. Subconclusion1: The city needs to fix its potholes. Subconclusion2: The city needs to raise taxes. Conclusion: The city needs to raise taxes to fix its potholes—justifica­ tion is subconclusion1 and subconclusion2. Step three—After the subconclusions have been set out, the next step is to find the justification for each sub-conclusion. For example, in the first subconclusion the passage mentions all the potholes that have occurred in the city streets as a result of the difficult winter. These damage the citizens’ cars. The text leaves it like that. However, a missing link exists: The citizens value safety and their cars’ overall condition. This might seem commonplace, but without such a premise the first subconclusion could not be attained. This requires the addition of a suppressed premise (enthymeme) (see Chapter 1). We place square brackets around suppressed premises to show the reader that we understand that these have been added by the reader of the text in recon­ struction in order to make the inference tighter. The result is as follows: [1. The city’s residents prize their automobiles’ general condition and their own safety—(fact)] 2. There are many large potholes in the city—(fact) 3. Large potholes harm the condition of automobile axles as well as gen­ eral driving safety—(fact) 4. The city needs to fill its potholes—(1–3) = subconclusion1 A similar reconstruction can be made for the second subconclusion (see above). At the end of the process, an argument should result that looks like the argument reconstruction presented above. This is a shorthand description of how to create a logical argument. In order to provide more details we need to introduce additional terms in the context of those already set out.

Vocabulary for Reconstructing Deductive Logical Argument (For other terms see also the glossary at the end of the book.) Dividing the text. The text may be divided into three parts: Argument, classification, and side comments.

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

69

Proposition. A declarative sentence with truth-value. Premises. These are the building blocks of argument. The individual sentences of an argument are called premises. In the sample on page 67, the sentences numbered 1–8 are all premises. Collectively, the premises cause one to accept the point of contention; they logically imply the conclusion. Conclusion. The point of contention. It is what the argument aims for. In the above example, sentence 9 is the conclusion. The justification of a conclusion is always an inference. A line (such as that under sentence 8) or three dots—…—are used in logical outlines to set off the conclusion. Argument. An argument consists of at least two sentences, one of which logically follows from the other. The statement said to follow is the con­ clusion and the supporting statement is the premise. The vehicle that allows one to move from premise to conclusion is called an inference. In this book we present arguments that generally consist of at least two premises, since these are the most common arguments. Therefore, the rules of argument put forth in this chapter will primarily be directed at these arguments. There are three broad classes of argument: Deductive, inductive, and abductive. Chapter 4 concentrates on deduct­ ive argument; Chapter 5 is about inductive argument; while Chapter 6 is about abductive argument. Classification. This is one of the three divisions of the text. It is a mode of analysis in which classes are created on the basis of a division made in the common body of knowledge (see Introduction). Side comments. This is another of the three divisions of the text. Any­ thing that is not an argument or a classification will be labeled a side comment. This label does not imply that these comments are of no value. However, they are not the primary focus of this book. Justification. A justification comes after a premise and is the proximate reason for accepting the premise. Three kinds of justification are used in creating an evaluation. They have been divided in this way for their util­ ity in constructing essays. The three types of justification are assertion, fact, and inference. Assertion—This is the weakest justification. It means that the premise is true simply because one person has said it. The truth-content of the proposition involved may be doubted. In the above example, premises 5 and 7 are supported by assertion. Fact—This is the second strongest justification. It means that most listen­ ers would accept the given truth put forth as objectively correct. When

70

Reconstructing the Text

outlining historical texts one should make reference to the beliefs of the time, such as “the Earth is the center of the universe,” which might count as fact for speakers before the seventeenth century. In the above example, premises 1, 2, 3, and 6 are justified as fact. Inference—This is formally the strongest justification. It generally con­ sists of at least two premises. (In some special cases one premise might count as an inferential justification in a deductive argument. This is called an immediate inference. Also, if you find that you have more than four premises listed as a justification, check your work! Chances are that you have compressed two inferences that should remain separate.) The force of the inference arises from the combination of premises with our common sense. For example, if one accepts premises 1–3 in the example, then they must also accept premise 4. Thus, the justification for accepting premise 4 is simply our having accepted premises 1–3. When this connection is such that it cannot be doubted, the inference is called tight. When one can still doubt the inference, it is called loose. For example, in the following argument: (a) dropping a water balloon from the second-story window causes the passerby to become wet, but (b) a water balloon was not dropped; therefore, (c) the passerby did not get wet (a, b) and the inference at (c) is loose because it can be doubted. It is possible the passerby got wet via another means, such as a rainstorm; thus, the inference at (c) is loose and unacceptable. Suppressed premises (enthymemes). These are premises that are needed to make an inference but are not explicitly made by the writer. In the sample, example 1, 6, and 7 are suppressed. To show their special status these premises are placed within brackets. One important caution: When adding new premises, be sure the added material is in the spirit of the author’s other positions; you would not want to add something that the original author would not have supported. Interlocking premises. Interlocking premises refer to a property of an argument that obtains when all the premises are represented directly or indirectly in the conclusion’s inference. In the sample there are eight premises. Premises 4 and 8 are found directly in the conclusion. Premises 1, 2, and 3 are found in premise 4. Since premise 4 is directly in the con­ clusion, 1, 2, and 3 are indirectly in the conclusion. Likewise, premises 5, 6, and 7 are found in 8, so that premises 5, 6, and 7 are also indirectly in the conclusion. Thus, in the sample all the premises are found directly or indirectly in the conclusion. This means that the sample argument pos­ sesses interlocking premises. Valid argument. An argument is valid when all the inferences are tight and all the premises are interlocking. In a valid argument, if one were to

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

71

accept all the premises, he or she would have to accept the conclusion. Be careful to observe that nothing is said here about the truth of the premises themselves. All that is asserted is that if we accept the premises, we must accept the conclusion. Thus, the following argument (a) all cats drink beer and (b) all beer drinkers are good bowlers; (c) all cats are good bowlers, is valid, though both its premises are false. But if we accept them, we must accept the conclusion. Thus, we can see that validity is strictly a formal relationship between premises and conclusion. Under­ standing validity in this way will help with writing evaluations. Sound argument. An argument is sound if it is valid and all its premises are true. Thus, in the example above about cats and bowling, though it is valid, it is unsound. When an argument is sound, we must accept the conclusion. Chain argument (also called sorites). A chain argument occurs when the conclusion of one argument becomes a premise in a later argu­ ment. If we assume interlocking premises, then the truth of the chain argument depends upon the truth of all its constituents. The arguments thus become interdependent; their fates are tied together. Often sorites consist of a number of these arguments built into a long chain, all dependent upon each other. The whole is only as strong as its weakest link.

Concise Guide to Reading and Reconstructing Deductive Logical Argument The Order of Logical Presentation Rules for Assessing Another’s Argument

I. Finding the argument and outlining it A. Preliminary readings 1. First reading. Define a section of text, such as a chapter, and read it rapidly. Don’t stop. Don’t take notes. Just read. Go quickly, almost skimming. After this reading, mark down the key points you remember. 2. Second reading. With your sketchy first reading notes in front of you, go through the text again. This time, take a pencil and make a check in the margin each time you feel an important point is being made. Read in your book at a normal pace. After you finish, go back and decide whether any of your checks can be combined with any others. Divide your text into sections according to these notations.

72

Reconstructing the Text

B. Outlining 1. Titling and labeling. Take each section of text you have demarcated above and assign a title to that section. This title should reflect the point of the passage. Next to your title indi­ cate whether this section of text is an argument, classification, or side comment. 2. Argument reconstruction. Take all the sections that are argu­ ments and compare titles. Combine any sections that are essen­ tially identical. Then take one of the titles and concentrate on that portion of text. Your title will become the conclusion of the argument. Next, determine what material in that passage might be used to logically support the conclusion. List these points. Put each statement into the form of a succinct proposition using your own words. Now set your text aside and try to combine the various propositions into inferences that eventually will cause your conclusion. You may have to add premises of your own creation in order to do this. Remember, all premises are to be in your own words. Bracket all suppressed premises (the ones you add). Once you have completed the reconstruction, you can test the argument for validity and soundness. II. Testing for validity A. Interlocking premises 1. Determine whether the proper argument has interlocking premises. If not, alter the argument so that it has interlocking premises (adding suppressed premises when necessary). To determine whether an argument has interlocking premises: a. Begin (step one) with the conclusion and note which prem­ ises are directly present in the justification. b. Next (step two), note which other premises are associated directly with those already noted as being in the conclusion. Follow this procedure again until all direct relationships are accounted for. c. Finally (step three), make a list of all premises noted and compare this list with the numbers of premises. If they are identical, then there are interlocking premises. If they are not identical, then reformulate the inferential to bring the argument into compliance with the principle of interlocking premises (every premise must be represented directly or indirectly in the conclusion).

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

73

2. From the potholes example: Step one shows that premises 4 and 8 are the justification of the conclusion. Step two shows that premises 1, 2, and 3 are directly in premise 4, and prem­ ises 5, 6, and 7 are directly in 8. Step three shows that the sum of direct and indirect premises tied to conclusion, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, is equal to the premises of the argument, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the sample argument has interlock­ ing premises. B. Tight inferences 1. Determine whether the argument has tight inferences. If not, alter the argument so that the inferences are tight (adding sup­ pressed premises when necessary). 2. To determine whether the argument has tight inferences, begin with the inference in the conclusion. Read the two to four premises used in the inferential justification. Then read the conclusion itself. Does the conclusion follow from those premises exactly? You may have to try this several times before you are sure. 3. Think critically: Is there any way you could accept those premises and deny the conclusion?1 If there is, then the con­ cluding inference is loose and must be corrected. 4. Next, repeat this procedure for each of the inferences found among the premises. In each case the inference must be tight. If you engage in any corrections, the entire process should be repeated lest your correction of one premise involves the weakening of another inference. For instance, in the example, first one would read premises 4 and 8 and then determine whether the conclusion must be accepted. Finding the answer positive, premises 5, 6, and 7 would be read to determine whether premise 8 must be accepted. Finally, premises 1, 2, and 3 are read with premise 4. After going through this process, one can deduce that the inferences are tight. C. Judgment of validity After the premises have been found to be interlocking and tight, one may judge the argument valid. III. Testing for soundness After judging an argument to be valid, then examine: A. Truth of premises

74

Reconstructing the Text

1. Assertions. Begin your investigation of the truth of the premises by examining those premises whose justification is an assertion. Since the assertion is the weakest form of justification, it is most probable that any disagreements will occur here. When you find a disagreement, list the general points you have against it in order to help you write an evaluation (see Part Three). 2. Facts. After surveying the assertions, determine whether you would wish to challenge any of the facts as being incorrect. Caution must be used when evaluating historical arguments. One cannot gener­ ally blame an historical audience for having accepted some scien­ tific truism (such as the earth being the center of the universe). Any evaluation of an argument made by an historical figure should be charitable with respect to the “best available evidence.” 3. Inferences. Since these have been checked for validity, no investigation is needed here. B. Judgment of soundness After completing steps one and two during your examination of the truth of premises, one can conclude that all the premises are true. If they are, then because you’ve already judged it to be valid, the argument is sound. IV. Testing for accuracy A. After having set out the argument and tested it for validity and soundness, it is wise to return to the passage outlined. Have you cap­ tured the intention of the text? Are all additions to the argument in accord with the author’s overall viewpoint? Has your wording of the premises been faithful to the meaning that the author intended? B. If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you must return to the passage and make your corrections. Afterward, repeat items II, III, and IV. V. Assessment of the argument A. If the argument is judged to be valid, sound, and accurate, then the conclusion is termed true and must be accepted. B. If it is found wanting in validity, then decide whether this can be recti­ fied by some small change. The principle of fairness dictates that you make any changes that can save an argument’s validity so long as (a) the change is not contrary to another position taken by the author, and (b) you duly note that you have made such a change to save the argument. After completing items I-V, you are now prepared to begin an evaluation.

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

75

The Order of Logical Genesis Rules for Creating Your Own Arguments

I. Begin with the conclusion A. Find out what you want to say. Your thoughts may be fuzzy (see Chapter 7 on this). B. To aid in clarifying them, set down a thesis statement in the form of a succinct proposition. II. Create a supporting argument This consists of the following four steps: A. Listing and titling. Make a list of all the reasons you believe support your thesis. When the list is complete, try to combine your various sentences into groups. Then assign a title to each group. The title should be in the form of a proposition. B. Inferential combinations. Next, formulate the other sentences in the group into propositions as well. At any point you may add or subtract further sentences. Finally, arrange your titles so that some kind of inferential arrangement exists among them. Remember, your overall goal is to prove your thesis. C. Finalizing the argument. Add or subtract various premises in order to formulate your argument. Keep in mind the rules for assessing the argument. The object here is to fine-tune your effort so that it conforms to the logical rules. D. Assessment. Assess your argument according to the manner pre­ scribed in the order of logical presentation. When you find an error, correct and reassess the whole. III. Review the final product Congratulations, you have created a logical argument that may be used as a guide for constructing an entire essay. Each of the inferences in your supporting argument can count as a paragraph. The inference itself is the topic sentence for that paragraph. The supporting sentences in the infer­ ence become the body of the paragraph. Of course, an outline is the bare skeleton for your prose essay. Other sentences will be needed to create a smooth effect. These other elements might include classification for clarity and side comments that will expand and develop the point you are trying to get across.

Common Mistakes in Outlining Deductive Logical Arguments 1. Too many premises cited in one inference It is a typical mistake for students to cite all the premises in the

76

2.

3.

4.

5.

Reconstructing the Text

conclusion of the argument. This confutes the structure of subconclu­ sions (described above). Stilted sentences that do not really fit together This is another common mistake. It is caused by students trying to stay so close to the text that they quote passages of the text in their outline. This is a problem. When you are outlining, you are recon­ structing the text. Therefore, you should use your own words. By doing this, the inferences that you draw will follow from your own worldview and will be tighter. I would suggest that you should read around the passage containing the critical premises and then close the book (marking your place). Write down as many premises as you can. When you can think of no more or when you think you’ve lost your way, then reopen the book. Read the passage again. Then shut the book and give it another go. Long premises Many students create long premises that go on for several lines. These hyperpremises actually contain more than one premise and mar the atomic process of inference combination. Except for classifi­ cation premises (which parse a topic into several parts and tend to be longer for that reason), try to make your premises read on one line as much as possible. Weak inferences Some students just mechanically create an inference every three or four premises without checking to be sure that the inference really follows. I believe this to be an artifact of haste. Be careful in setting out inferences. Make sure that when you read aloud the supporting premises to the inference, the subconclusion really is inferred in such a way that it cannot be doubted (the hallmark of deductive argument). Improper mechanics The last common error is when students leave out justifications. The whole process is about justifications. Without these, the outline is incomplete and will not be serviceable for creating a pro or con essay.

Appendix: Indirect Argument (Especially for Readers of Plato) A special category of argument should be mentioned in this chapter—the indirect argument. This form of deductive argument varies from the stated form in one major way: Instead of having the point of contention proved positively, the logical complement is disproved or the possible choices are narrowed to one. Thus, indirect argument can work in two

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

77

ways: (a) Through logical complements (reductio ad absurdum) or (b) through the principle of remainders. Logical Complements (Reductio Ad Absurdum)

This type of argument works on a very simple principle: If you want to prove a point, first assume its opposite and then show how that opposite leads into an absurd (false) state of affairs. Since the opposite leads to an obvious falsity, the original point must be correct.

Example “Very good, Cephalus,” I said. “But what is the definition of Justice? Is it to tell the truth and to pay your debts? No more? And is this definition even correct? Suppose a friend deposits his weapons with me. When he did this he was perfectly in control. Later, when he is mad he asks for them back. Should I give them to him? Nobody would sanction this or call such an action right any more than they would require me to always speak the truth to my mad friend.” “This is true,” he said. “But then we were not right to say that Justice is telling the truth and repaying that which had been previously given.” Plato, Republic I, 33ICI–D32

Thesis: Justice ≠ speaking the truth and paying one’s debts.

Assume antithesis: Justice = speaking the truth and paying one’s debts.

Antithesis leads to absurdity: One should provide a madman with weapons.

Therefore, antithesis is wrong and thesis is proven.

Comment: Notice that this method relies on there being two and

only two logical states, true and false, and that if an antithesis is shown to be absurd (false), then its opposite, the thesis, must be true. This relationship between sentences is called contradictory opposites. It is important to sharpen one’s understanding of opposites since this relationship is crucial for the operation of reductio ad absurdum.

The Four Propositions “All swans are white” means “Everything that is a swan is also white.” “No swans are white” means “Nothing that is a swan is also white.” “Some swans are white” means “There is at least one swan that is white.”

78

Reconstructing the Text

“Some swans are not white” means “There is at least one swan that is not white.” These may be combined as shown in Figure 4.1, where the sentences marked A and O and those marked E and I are contradictory opposites. These are the only relationships from which, in every case, one can imme­ diately deduce the truth-value of one statement from that of another. In the example on page 77, the thesis could be rewritten as an O statement: “Some cases of telling the truth and paying one’s debts are not cases of justice.” The corresponding antithesis could be written as an A statement: “All cases of telling the truth and paying one’s debts are cases of justice.” By showing the latter is false, we have shown the former to be true. Caution on reductio arguments: The major caution here is that one is actu­ ally dealing in contradictory opposites. These are sentences whose comple­ ments have opposite truth-values. However, there is another brand of opposites, contrary or polar opposites, which have a different logical relation. In Figure 4.1, A and E (E and A) are called contrary opposities and I and O (O and I) are subcontrary opposites. Contrary opposites may both be false. In other words, proving one false does not entail the other is true. For example, in Figure 4.1, it may be the case that both A and E are false just in case some swans are white and some are not white. For another example, take these two sentences: “All the sales associates in Johnson’s Realty are in the Million-Dollar Club.” “None of the sales associates in Johnson’s Realty are in the MillionDollar Club.” If only one-third of the sales associates in this company are actu­ ally in the Million-Dollar Club, then both the above propositions are false. Thus, proving one to be false does not entail the other being true. We can,

All swans are white

No swans are white

A

Co

s

ntr

a

a

ntr

Co I

E

ie tor

dic dic

tor

ies O

Some swans are white

Some swans are not white Contradictory Opposites = A & O O&A E&I I&E

Figure 4.1 Contradictory Opposites

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

79

therefore, conclude that A and E statements are not contradictory opposites since both may be false. Instead, they are called contrary opposites. Likewise, if we compare an I and O proposition (see Figure 4.1) we have: “Some swans are white” and “Some swans are not white,” which may both be true (though not both false), and in our secondary example “Some of the sales associates in Johnson’s Realty are in the MillionDollar Club” and “Some of the sales associates in Johnson’s Realty are not in the Million-Dollar Club.” Proving one of these statements true does not prove the other false. They may both be true if at least one member (but not all) of Johnson’s Realty is a member of the MillionDollar Club. We can therefore conclude that I and O statements are not contradictory opposites since both may be true (though they may not both be false). Instead, these are called subcontrary opposites. Reductio ad absurdum only works when the thesis and antithesis are related as contradictory opposites. When this relationship exists, indirect argument by logical complements can be a powerful tool of persuasion.

Exercises on Contradictory Opposites Directions: In the following, state whether the thesis and the antithesis are contradictory opposites. Write “yes” for contradictory opposites and “no” for any other relationship. 1. All first basemen are left-handed. No first basemen are left-handed. 2. Lake Michigan bass are not edible. No fish from Lake Michigan are edible. 3. Sam Jones and Martha Smith are corrupt politicians. No politicians are corrupt. 4. All red wine tastes better with meat. Gallo red wines don’t taste better with meat. 5. All Hall of Fame frisbee players are still alive. Margo Washington is a Hall of Fame frisbee player who is still alive. Remainders

The principle of indirect argument assumes a limited number of possible cases. You can show one to be the case if the others are shown not to be the case. The remainder is thus alone at the end and must be true. The group to be examined is conveyed by the thesis statement. 1. Someone in the group of three students who stayed late after school— Tom, Sue, or Bill—put a wormy apple on the teacher’s desk—(thesis) 2. The apple was observed by the teacher at 3:45, immediately upon her return after a ten-minute absence from the classroom—(fact) 3. Tom was in the principal’s office from 3:30 to 3:50—(fact)

80 Reconstructing the Text

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tom did not do it—(2, 3) Bill had chalk dust all over his fingers since 3:00—(fact) There is no sink in the room in which to wash up—(fact) Bill did not leave the classroom—(fact) No chalk dust was found on the apple—(fact) Bill did not leave the apple—(5–8)

10. Sue left the apple—(1, 4, 9) As you can see, this form of indirect argument relies heavily upon the initial group chosen. If it is wrong that someone in the group left the apple, then the final conclusion is skewed. For example, if someone sneaked in and left the apple, the conclusion would be false. This is, nonetheless, a very popular form of logical deduction. As long as you keep in mind the indefinite nature of the thesis statement, you may pro­ ceed accordingly.

Exercises on Indirect Argument Directions: In the selections below, find the thesis that is proven. Then state briefly how the proof worked. 1. “Clearly,” began the detective as he chomped down on his cigar, “one of the people in this house last night committed the murder— John, Mary, or Sally. The murderer’s only access to the victim was via the dumbwaiter. John is too fat to fit into it, and Sally was too drunk to operate the intricate pulley system. Therefore, Mary is the murderer!” 2. Senator Jones’s proposal of a completely flat tax rate with no exemp­ tions or exceptions must be rejected. This is easy to demonstrate. Suppose we go along with the senator for a moment. Why does he advocate this flat tax? He says that it is because he wants to create a tax equally fair for all. Everyone believes that only a fair tax deserves to be passed. But how does a completely flat tax do this? “Equally fair” must mean that everyone bears an equal tax burden. That is, the impact of the tax on a person’s life should be the same no matter what his or her income is. But I put it to you that 20% taken from a poor man deprives him of rent money or food for his children, while 20% from a rich man merely affects his investment options. Since rent and food are more basic to survival than types of investments, the poor man accepts a heavier burden when taxes are all of one rate. This, according to our definition, is unfair. A completely flat tax rate is thus unfair.

Outlining Deductive Logical Argument

Reading Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What are interlocking premises? What are tight inferences? How do we judge an argument to be valid? Sound? What is meant by a test for accuracy? Briefly state the rules for creating your own argument.

Notes 1 This does not apply to inductive arguments. 2 All translations are by the author.

81

Chapter 5

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

The second sort of logical argument is inductive argument. To better understand what this is, let us first go further into what makes inductive arguments distinctive and then go through the techniques necessary for logical outlining of inductive arguments.

Example One A. 1. All people are mortal—(fact) 2. Sally is a person—(fact) 3. Sally is mortal—(1, 2) B. 1. Every person on historical record has died within 200 years of his or her birth—(fact) 2. Sally is a person—(fact) 3. Sally is mortal—(1, 2) Comment: The difference between the above arguments is not so much the presentation of the inductive investigations as it is the manner by which the conclusion follows from the premises. In example A the con­ clusion follows necessarily. If the premises are true (and the inferences valid), the conclusion will also be true. In example B the conclusion fol­ lows contingently. It is still possible for the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true. Two things can be said about this difference: (a) Deductive inference makes explicit mediate relationships already present, and (b) inductive inference goes beyond that which is present and points to something new. This something new is either a generalization or a causal relationship. These two features will be the focus of this chapter.

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

83

Generalization Enumeration and analogy are two of the most common methods by which generalizations may be formed. When employed correctly, they are indispensable tools for inquiry. When utilized improperly, how­ ever, they lead us into error. In proper generalization, broad statements are created from a sample that is comprehensive. This means that the sample is large and varied enough to generate the general conclusion. In addition, the practitioner must be a dispassionate observer so as not to bias the findings. Jointly, enumeration and analogy help to ensure a proper generaliza­ tion. Let’s look a little more closely at these two means of forming a generalization. Throughout this discussion, pay careful attention to the place of the common body of knowledge. Often it is the status of these background conditions that can make the difference between a good and bad argument (see also Chapter 2 on logical fallacy). Let’s look a little more closely at these two means to forming a generalization. Enumeration

In enumerative induction the strategy is first to list all the observed properties of something with the objective of making a generalization about that type of thing. Then one draws a conclusion about all members of the class from premises that are about the observed members.

Example Two After listing all the physical traits of thirty people who successfully sur­ vived the malaria outbreak, it was found that all of them had sickleshaped red blood cells. All people with sickle-shaped red blood cells will be more successful in surviving exposure to malaria.

Logical Outline 1. A comprehensive list of the physical traits of thirty people after an outbreak of malaria showed that these people shared the common characteristic of having sickle-shaped red blood cells— (fact) 2. These thirty people were the survivors among a larger group exposed to malaria—(fact) 3. Anyone with sickle-shaped red blood cells will be more successful in surviving exposure to malaria—(1, 2)

84 Reconstructing the Text

Comment: Enumeration is one device that enables one to create general­ izations. However, it is clear that problems can occur. If the evidence presented in the examination is not exhaustive, or if the case under exam­ ination is atypical, then one is likely to make a mistake (see the fallacy of incomplete evidence). For example, it might be true that most of the Nobel Prize winners of the 1980s were European or American, but that does not make Bishop Tutu of South Africa into a European or an American. In the example above on sickle-shaped red blood cells, the sample is atypical of a larger sample space (see the probability section later in this chapter). For this reason, the word “anyone” in the conclusion should be replaced by “some individuals,” because the sample space cited in premise 1 is too small to draw a large-scale generalization. For enumerative induction to work it must be the case that one has enumerated a sample population that is large enough to be representative of the general population. Though enumerative induction is imperfect, we can try to minimize our chances of error by making sure the sample is sufficiently large and varied and that the researcher is unbiased. By keeping these conditions in mind, we increase our odds for success. Analogy

This is a common and productive form of inductive reasoning. Analogy rests on the assumption that objects that are similar in certain respects will be similar in other respects as well.

Example Three 1. When rats are fed food that has been seasoned with large amounts of salt, they die much sooner than the control group—(fact) 2. Humans and rats have certain physiological similarities—(fact) 3. Salt must lower the life expectancy of humans too—(1, 2) Comment: The move from rats to humans is based upon an assumption that both species have digestive similarities such that they would metabol­ ize food in similar ways. If this were the case, then one might make experiments on one species to apply to the other as well. (And this is done in certain preliminary drug trials.) This means that the similarities focused upon in the example are relevant. The presence of this common physiological system increases the chances that the other will also experi­ ence the effect experienced by one. This is where one must be careful. Obviously, there are instances in which the similarity is not relevant and there is no connection between the common trait and the new

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

85

generalization that is sought. The two may be somewhat independent. For example, Joe may have won the raffle twice while wearing his red flannel shirt. This does not mean that wearing the red flannel shirt a third time has anything to do with winning the raffle a third time. The shirt analogy is improper. For analogy to be effective there must be some connection between the two traits such that the possession of the first increases the probability of the second. This increase must, itself, be the consequence of some mechanism (at least in principle). This underlying mechanism must be known independently so that its operation and results can be projected into the novel case at hand.1 In this particular case we are looking at the endocrinology, which governs the complicated process known as metab­ olism and how incoming chemicals are broken down and assimilated. To understand whether such mechanisms exist requires reference to the common body of knowledge (see Introduction and Chapter 2). This enables us to see how the generalization created in the conclusion fits with other information (such as the body of accepted scientific know­ ledge that we already possess). For example, if the new conclusion is in contradiction to, or is inconsistent with, the common body of know­ ledge, then one might have some doubt about the generalization. If it is correct, then we will need more than just a generalization to back us up. This further support will come from the concept of causation.

Causation Within our common body of knowledge there are a great many causal connections that we make via this form of induction. These come about through an intricate mental mechanism that includes our memories of certain occurrences that are constantly conjoined with others. This can work from cause to effect or from effect to cause.2

Example Four A. 1. The clouds are darkening—(fact) 2. The wind is picking up—(fact) 3. There’s a funny sensation in the air—(fact) 4. It is going to rain—(1, 3) B. 1. The ground is soggy—(fact) 2. There are pools of water everywhere—(fact) 3. It must have rained—(1, 2)

86

Reconstructing the Text

Comment: In example A we are presented with circumstances that generally indicate that it is going to rain. This is an inference from cause to effect. The argument makes a prediction about the future. It assumes that these are circumstances that belong within the causal mechanism of producing a rainstorm. The high humidity and the rapid shift in atmospheric pressure are signified by darkening clouds, windy conditions, and an inexplicable sensation that comes through our skin, which acts as a quasi-barometer. It is important that these circumstances are observed as preceding the effect and that they are part of an overall structure that would scientifically sanc­ tion such causal links. If such a structure is not there, then either (a) the effect was not caused by the preceding conditions but merely illustrates an accident or coincidence; or (b) there is an underlying causal mechanism that science has not observed. Conviction in possibility has led to many discoveries in the history of sci­ ence. Scientists have vowed to search for and explain new networks of rela­ tions that would justify tagging their observed regularity as causal. Until they are provided, however, such ascriptions are merely unproven hypotheses. The same holds true when you move from effect to cause. These are really just two ways of looking at the same process (prediction versus retrodiction). This process defines a close relationship between premises and conclusion (cause and effect). The nature of this connection is sometimes as a necessary condition. For example, oxygen is a necessary ingredient to fire. It is impossible to have a fire without it. Thus, in one sense, oxygen can be thought of as a cause of the fire. However, there is another sense of cause as a sufficient condition. One may have oxygen and still not have a fire. Other conditions are also neces­ sary, such as fuel and a threshold temperature. Together, these are both necessary and sufficient. Necessary condition: Without the presence of a certain condition some spe­ cified effect will not occur. Sufficient condition: With the addition of that condition some specified effect will occur. Sometimes there are conditions that are sufficient and not necessary. To start a fire, it is sufficient to have a lighted match and a dry news­ paper, but these are not necessary for fire because it is possible to create a fire via other means. Try making a list of examples that present cases of (a) a necessary con­ dition, (b) a sufficient condition, and (c) joint necessary and sufficient conditions. These important concepts require a little work for you to become more familiar with them. Another aspect of cause concerns the proximity of cause to effect. In a chain of events, something far removed is less likely to be fully

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

87

responsible than something closer. (A close relation will be called a “proximate cause” and a distant relation will be called a “remote cause.”) This is because, in the case of a remote cause, there are more intervening factors that, by themselves, bear responsibility for what happens.

Example Five A. John thoughtlessly throws a cigarette butt on the dry leaves as he hikes on the trail. The leaves catch fire and the forest burns down. B. John thoughtlessly throws a cigarette butt on the dry leaves as he hikes on the trail. The ash is about to die out when it is fanned by Mary, who keeps it alive and pours gasoline around the surrounding area. The fire grows and the forest burns down.3 Comment: In scenario A, John is the responsible cause of the fire because he is the proximate cause. His action directly brings about the forest fire. He is responsible and is, therefore, the cause. When we focus on who is to blame, we look to John. In scenario B, it is Mary who replaces John as the proximate cause. John’s actions are still wrong (via contributory negligence). He is still part of the causal chain that causes the fire. But now John shifts from being the proxim­ ate cause to being the remote cause, for if Mary had not been there (in scen­ ario B), no fire would have happened. It is Mary’s actions that directly bring about the forest fire. She is responsible as the primary cause. When we focus on who is to blame, we look primarily to Mary. (John is still somewhat responsible as a remote cause via contributory negligence.) Proximate causes may be the most helpful part of the scheme for understanding why something happened, but remote causes are also useful. They contribute to our understanding of the larger context of how some effect came about. (Note that in judging criminal causation, it is very often the case that there is more than one party involved, so legal statutes often try to capture this dynamic in laws governing contributory negligence by setting minimum and maximum standards for being a supporting actor.) Mill’s Methods

Obviously, causal relations are a very important part of induction. Improper application of this form of induction can result in the fallacy of false cause (see Chapter 2). Thus, there is the need for a method to aid the practitioner in establishing general causal relations. One such group of

88

Reconstructing the Text

rules was set out by the English philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill offered five methods.4 The first is called the method of agreement. By this method you look for examples of the given effect on a wide variety of incidents. Then you try to find the element common to each incident. For example, when an unusual pneumonia-like disease killed a number of American legionnaires in Philadelphia several decades ago, physicians were at a loss to discover the source of the germs and the vehicle of their distribution. Through careful use of the method of agreement in disparate cases around the world, British doctors discovered that old air-conditioning systems were a common element. From there it was discovered that excess water from the air-conditioning units had stagnated and created a perfect environ­ ment for these deadly microbes to grow and disperse. By examining what was common to all the cases, the mystery was solved. Of course, this method can be abused, as in the following: BARTENDER:

Hey Joe, you’re drinking quite a bit tonight.

I’m conducting an experiment.

BARTENDER: Oh yeah, how’s that?

JOE: I’m always getting drunk, so I’m trying to find out why.

BARTENDER: What are your results?

JOE: Well, I’ve had bourbon and soda, rye and soda, and scotch and soda.

Now I’m drunk. The only common element among the group is the soda. Next time, I’ll cut out the soda!5 JOE:

Comment: In order to work correctly, one must make some preliminary assumptions about the agents involved. In this case a description of what might count as a relevant similarity or difference is in order. “Relevant” will be judged within the context of the underlying accepted scientific causal mechanism that, in turn, is projected into the application of the event. Since “soda” has nothing causally to do with getting drunk (because it possesses no neuro-cerebral-altering agents, its presence as a common “agreement” factor is not causally efficacious. With these cau­ tions in mind, the method of agreement can be a powerful tool in dis­ cussing causal connections. The second of Mill’s methods is the method of difference. In this case, one item is eliminated from the environment and it is then determined whether the effect is still manifested. This technique is often used in treating asthmatics. Asthma is a breathing disorder often triggered by allergens (particles that create an allergic reaction). The traditional method of identifying the allergens responsible is to eliminate elements from the patient’s life one by one. Each week something, such as chocolate, peaches, or feather pillows, is taken away. After the item has been removed, the patient’s condition is

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

89

carefully monitored. If symptoms subside, then there is a good chance that the eliminated item is an offending allergen. Again, care must be taken that when one removes an item, it is really a single unit. Otherwise we might mistake the real causal factor. For example, one asthmatic might have her mattress removed and, as a result, improve. This does not necessarily mean that the patient is allergic to the mattress itself. It is quite possible that microscopic mites that live atop all mattresses might be the offenders. If this were true, one would not have to eliminate the mattress but merely shield the patient with a plastic mattress cover to eliminate the allergen. Since our world is filled with interdependent collections of organisms, it is often difficult to be sure one is able to correctly follow the method of differ­ ence. This is because of the difficulty of removing one, and only one, variable (and keeping all external factors constant). But with careful attention to these possibilities some errors may be avoided. The third method is called the joint method of agreement and difference. This is, just as the title suggests, a combination of the preceding two. By this procedure a much more sophisticated method is created that comes closer to the way we actually solve problems. Using our example of the asthmatic again, we can illustrate the joint method as follows.

Example Six Table 5.1 Joint Method AGREEMENT CONDITION

DIFFERENCE REACTION CONDITION

REACTION

Regular foods, stuffed animals, Asthma uncovered mattress

Covered mattress, regular foods, stuffed animals

No asthma

Special diet, stuffed animals, uncovered mattress

Asthma

Special diet, stuffed animals, uncovered mattress

Asthma

Regular foods, no stuffed animals, uncovered mattress

Asthma

No stuffed animals, regular foods, uncovered mattress

Asthma

Comment: The joint method seeks to bring forth the necessary and sufficient conditions that are the result of employing each separate procedure. Together, they would provide a much richer sense of cause. The joint method eliminates those sufficient conditions that are not also necessary. In the above case it is the covered mattress that is the critical factor. This can be ferreted out most easily by making a chart, as per Table 5.1, so that each input from the “agreement” and from the “difference” side can be evaluated together.

90

Reconstructing the Text

Obviously the problems outlined in the practice of each method are also to be repeated here. Further, it should be stated that though the ideal is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions, these cannot be guaran­ teed. As in any inductive argument, the conclusions are only contingent —not only in their inherent logical status, but also because they are rela­ tive to the thoroughness of the practitioner. This last point is of no small importance. Much of the recent controversy in cancer and genetic engin­ eering research has hinged upon the propriety and utility of various research strategies, about which there is much disagreement. The next method is that of residues. This is similar to the argument by remainders found in Chapter 4. When one finds that a predicted result of known causes does not account for some phenomenon (explanandum), then it is probable that some new, unknown factor is the cause (since the known factors have been exhausted). What would therefore remain might very well be the explanation (explanans). This has happened in the history of science (and is happening now). The discovery of the planet Neptune occurred after Bouvard de Paris, in 1821, published tables on the motions of the planets based upon Newton­ ian mechanics.6 In 1845 a young aspiring scientist named Leverrier found problems with the calculations. Though they were mostly correct, there was a slight variation that could not be squared with observation. The only explanation that might right the issue would be the existence of a planet (as yet unobserved). This led to the discovery of Neptune. Thus, when all existing accounts are not sufficient to explain observational anomalies, the method of residues calls for finding either a new variable or an entirely new theory to explain things.7 A contemporary example of residues concerns the apparent discrepancy between the amount of observed matter in the universe (expanded ana­ logically over the observed domain) and the theoretical prediction of the same by Einstein, and as modified by Hawking. This has led some scien­ tists to modifications of the theory using a multidimensional approach (commonly known as string theory), while others want to create an entirely new structure (commonly known as loop quantum theory).8 In each case the reaction is one akin to Mill’s residues approach. The last method to be mentioned is that of concomitant variation. This method differs from the joint method and its thesis that we can totally eliminate various elements from our experimental model. Such elimination is not always possible. For example, if we wanted to study the causal relationship between sunspots and the concentrations of cer­ tain types of radiation in the world, then clearly the joint method would be inapplicable. We cannot eliminate sunspots. What we can do is measure the variation of radiation levels whenever sunspot activ­ ity increases or decreases. Concomitant variation seeks to show that

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

91

two conditions are causally related, since the variation of one leads to the variation of the other. This method has been a powerful tool in science. Though it cannot provide necessary or sufficient conditions, it has been useful in discovering important causal connections between smoking and cancer, asbestos and asbestosis, sodium levels and arteriosclerosis, and so on. Of course, there is a danger that one might observe accidental correl­ ations and from these incorrectly project a causal relationship where none exists. An example might be the asserted connection among drug addicts, homosexuals, and carriers of AIDS (circa 1980s). Though drug addicts and homosexuals statistically have a much higher incidence of being infected than the general population, there is no essential connec­ tion among being a drug addict, a homosexual, and an AIDS victim. One becomes infected with the HIV/AIDS virus via the transfer of body fluids (underlying mechanism to be projected). This is the mode of transmission, not membership in some particular group. Thus, a celibate homosexual or a drug addict who always uses a clean needle would be at no risk of being infected. One must not mistake the proxim­ ate cause with a remote cause even if statistics seem to correlate equally with both groups. Since necessary and sufficient conditions are not demonstrated, there is much room for dispute about how these correlations are to be analyzed and interpreted. There is always the risk of asserting the existence of a cause where none exists. Probability, Statistics, and Evidence

Probability and statistics lead us in two directions (as hinted at above): Belief and frequency. Our beliefs are the relative confidence we feel that a certain empirical outcome will come to be within a situation of uncer­ tainty. The frequency part of the model refers to the relative number of times in which an outcome occurs in repeated trials on a chance set-up. The way the trials are run and interpreted creates a transition between raw data and interpreted data (the two classes of statistics). The outcome so interpreted by this process will be counted as evi­ dence (interpreted data). This interpretation is crucial to the inductive process. For example, most people would suggest that tossing a coin in the air creates a trial in which the probability of heads or tails is 0.5. However, it is important to examine the experimental set-up to be sure of two things: (a) That the tossing procedure is random and does not favor one outcome over the other; and (b) that the coin itself is not weighted in such a way that even a fair flipping process will neverthe­ less tend toward heads or tails.

92

Reconstructing the Text

Now before going further, let us return to our concepts of belief and frequency. In inductive logic it is the case that many practitioners lean one way or the other between these. For example, belief dogmatists set out that inductive reasoning should emphasize the belief dimension. By emphasizing the believe-type probability, these practitioners generally set forth a single sort of frequency interpretation. After all, for these practi­ tioners, going into the statistics from various directions takes time away from projecting the evidence into an interpretation within the general structure of accepted scientific explanation. In contrast, the frequency dogmatists believe that we ought to seek out multiple statistical sources in order to get a firmer grip on whether there is bias within one particular sourcing and interpretation of data to obtain evidence. For these practitioners there may be multiple under­ standings of probability within a given experimental set-up, so care here is most important in obtaining evidence that may be projected into the empirical problem at hand. An example of the difference between these two approaches can be found in weather forecasting. What is meant when the weather forecaster says that there is a 40% chance of rain tomorrow? According to the fre­ quency-type approach this reflects examination of weather databases of the city in question, which had various sorts of metereological conditions (call them A, B, C, D). Whenever A and B have occurred in the past, 40% of the time it rained. Just now, A and B have been recorded as occurring. Thus, they would say that the probability of rain tomorrow is 40%. According to the belief-type approach the frequency people greatly oversimplify their choice of the conditions A, B, C, D. Why do they do this? Because they believe that certain conditions, such as A and B (or other pairings), are the most important for rain and they highlight these particular groupings and their frequencies. But such judgment calls do not come from frequencies but from underlying theories and a method for projection. These all fall under the belief approach. Obviously, this controversy is important and it may tell whether pre­ diction or retrodiction has a wider (belief) or narrower (frequency) approach. Thus, in cases in which, because of simplicity, or in cases in which the underlying mechanisms are very well known, the application of precising via the frequency approach is very useful. In cases in which the sort of question examined seems to originate from an uncontroversial theory that is relatively simple—such as a coin tossing device and coins that have been weighted and otherwise tested for their even weight distribution—if we ran a very large number of trials and the incidence of heads was significantly over 0.5, then we are prone to look for bias that we missed. This inclination is driven by the fre­ quency folk.

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

93

However, in other questions, such as why the dionsaurs were made extinct, we have very little control on the data presented to us for retrodiction. Even the interpretation of this data into evidence is controversial. For example, if the hypothesis to be examined is whether a large asteroid hit the planet and this caused the dinosaurs to become extinct, then find­ ing sites for the asteroid collision would be very important. One way to do this might be to find geological depressions in which there is a critical chemical that is spread over the area in which the dinosaurs lived (as set out by fossil finds), and if that chemical might be one that might have been deliterious to dinosaur life (by analogy to their evolutionary ances­ tors), then it is possible that such a chemical (if it is otherwise rare on earth) might have been responsible for dinosaur extinction. This is more speculative, but that is both the advantage and fault of the belief dogmatists.

Reading Question What are frequency dogmatists and belief dogmatists? And what are the advantages and drawbacks to each? Changing Conditions in Obtaining Evidence and Bayes’ Theorem

In the above paragraphs on the belief or frequency approaches to inter­ preting data in order to put forth evidence, it has been assumed that the conditions under which the data were obtained are static. However, as the ancient philosopher Heraclitus observed, the world is constantly changing.9 If the raw data are changing, then this is a problem for the frequency dogmatists. One way that raw data might change is whether sequential events are connected or not. Sequential events that are connected are called depend­ ent events. Events that are not connected are called independent events. Here is a way to understand the difference. Imagine a bucket that has four red balls and four green balls in. A person will draw one ball out of the bucket without being able to see the ball they are drawing out (event1). The probability of drawing a red ball and the probability of drawing a green ball are both 0.5. When the ball was drawn out, it was red. Now let’s assume that we set the ball back into the bucket and do it again. We will call this do-over (event2). In event2 the same probabilities stand for drawing a red ball as for drawing a green ball: 0.5. Because nothing has changed between these events, we will call them independent. Now let’s change things and structure an event3, in which we are drawing a ball from the bucket—this time it is a green ball, but we set the ball aside and do not return it to the bucket. Then we again draw

94 Reconstructing the Text

a ball from the bucket, event4. Now the person is drawing from a bucket containing four red balls and three green balls. The probability in event4 of drawing a red ball is higher, 0.57, and for drawing a green ball is lower, 0.43. Because these two events are connected, they will be called dependent.

Two thought experiments on dependent and independent events A. Q: You have a fair tossing mechanism and the coins are not unfairly weighted concerning heads or tails. You have tossed a coin 25 times and they are all heads. Is it the case that since this is such a rare phe­ nomenon, that it is more likely that the 26th time will be a tail? A: No. Each toss of the coin (under the conditions mentioned) is an independent event. It is a coincidence that 25 heads have been tossed in a row. On the 26th time the probability for both remain at 0.5. B. Q: You read on an Internet post that if you want to be safe while flying in an airplane be sure to pack a plastic bomb in your carry-on luggage, because in the history of aviation there have never been two bombers on the same plane! A: No. It is a coincidence that there have never been two bombers on the same plane. Each time some­ one chooses to be a potential bomber is an independent event. Thus, your carrying a bomb onto a plane does not enhance or diminish someone else doing the same thing. The events are independent. One way of understanding dependent events as so described is under the title conditional probability. In conditional probability the desired out­ come is to calculate total probability. When we have instances of possible dependent events in which the level of dependence changes, then we must make adjustments. In the above example, for instance, if the person took two balls from the bucket in a second trial, instead of one, then the entire way of interpreting the probability of the new outcome will change. One way to do this is by creating a formula that will take into account changes in dependent events. This formula is called Bayes’ Rule or Bayes’ Theorem. People who pay particular attention to Bayes Rule are called Bayesians. They are belief dogmatists. The Basesians believe that experience plays a large part in the way we re-assess evidence—even in cases thought to be already solved. This is due to the existence of new evidence that causes us to re-think our pre­ vious decision. For example, in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, it seemed to many observers that Hilary Clinton would win. Then 11 days before the election James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

95

Investigation (FBI), publically notified Congress that he was re-opening the Clinton private server e-mail investigation.10 Some people think that this new event within the series of events that constitute politics turned the tide and helped elect Donald Trump. In complicated “real life” examples it is never certain that some novel event will change the normal course of expected statistical outcomes. This is why many practitioners, who are belief dogmatists, focus on some random or ideal individual who they claim is representative of a community worldview. The measurement of the random or ideal individual’s beliefs can be measured by models that suggest a betting matrix. If we assume that no one wants to lose their bet, and that we bet according to an assessment of what model we think will prevail, then we should be able to set out a model of conditional betting payoffs to measure degrees of belief.11

Special Hints for Outlining Inductive Arguments Inductive arguments can be outlined according to the general suggestions for outlining deductive arguments, as described in Chapter 4. The major difference between inductive and deductive arguments is that the conclusion of the latter is necessary and that of the former, contingent. This is also reflected in the way we check an inductive argument to determine whether it is a good one. In the last chapter the criteria for a good deductive argument were presented. A deductive argument is good when it is sound. Soundness was defined as a valid argument whose premises are true. An inductive argument is good when it is cogent. Cogency is defined as: All inferences are highly probable (strong), and all premises demonstrate that they are probable beyond some artificial standard either from a frequency or belief standpoint. If the sample space is changeable, then adaptation of Baysian standards is in order.

Criteria for Good Arguments Sound Deductive Arguments 1. Valid inferences 2. All premises true

Cogent Inductive Arguments 1. Strong inferences (based upon probability) 2. All premises true (based upon probability)

96 Reconstructing the Text

Amendments to the Order of Logical Presentation (Set Out in Chapter 4)

I. Find and outline the argument (as stated in Chapter 4) II. Test for cogency (in the case of inductive arguments) A. Strong inferences. Do all inductive inferences seem highly prob­ able? Go over the fallacies for induction presented in Chapter 2. Are the fallacies of hasty generalization, improper analogy, incomplete evidence, or is false cause present? Is there anything else about the inductive inference that would cause you to doubt that it is usually true—for example from the frequency dogmatist or belief dogmatist standpoint? Are there any new events that have novelly entered into the dependent event series that might dictate a changed outcome based upon Baysian concerns? If doubts are found, then you may use these as a basis for writing your evaluation. Double-check these with the rules governing generalization and causation. B. Are all the premises true? Go over the premises justified as fact or assertion. If questions about the truth of these can be raised, and the premise cannot be restated to make it true (according to the principle of fairness), then these questions should be addressed in the argument evaluation. Double-check these with the rules gov­ erning generalization and causation. III. Judgment of cogency. If, after completing the test for cogency, one can conclude that the inferences are strong and the premises are true, then the inductive argument is cogent and its conclusions should be generally accepted. For the rest of the process of outlining, continue according to the instruc­ tions described in Chapter 4.

Exercises Directions: Identify the arguments that are inductive and those that are deductive.

Group A 1. Sluggo, Rocky, and Bruiser are all successful boxers. They can take a punch and still continue fighting. Therefore, successful boxers have to be able to take a punch. 2. All viruses are distinguished by being a single strand of RNA covered with a protein coat. This unknown organism before us is simply

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

97

a single strand of RNA covered by a protein coat. This unknown organism is a virus. 3. Most societies have sanctions against murder. The Hopi constitute a small society. The Hopi have a sanction against murder. 4. The gears on my automobile do not disengage easily. There is a popping noise occasionally when I depress the clutch. Pretty soon my clutch cable is going to break. 5. Whenever it rains all hydrophobic organisms stay under cover. Right now, it’s raining. Let’s go out and enjoy ourselves. There’s no chance of getting rabies today.

Group B 1. Edward Jenner noted that Sarah Portlock, Mary Barge, Elizabeth Wynne, Simon Nichols, Joseph Merret, and William Rodway had all suffered cowpox, and they seemed not to be infected by smallpox in cases he might have expected it. To be sure, he inoculated them with smallpox directly. Nothing happened. Years passed and he repeated his observation. These people were immune. Jenner concluded that it was the cowpox that made them immune. 2. Yellow fever is an acute infection that creates a deeply jaundiced condition. Other symptoms include dizziness, rapid onset of fever, headache, nausea, and vomiting. Death may occur on the sixth or seventh day of illness and has been known to occur in as many as 50% of those infected. During the Spanish–American War, Walter Reed was sent to Cuba to solve the problem. Reed narrowed the correlative antecedents from a large to a small list. The possible candidates for the cause of yellow fever were (a) mosquitoes who had fed on infected victims, (b) excreta of yellow fever patients, (c) dishes and saliva of patients, and (d) clothing of patients. Reed built a mosquito-proof building and divided the interior space in two. One space contained mosquitoes who had fed on yellow fever victims. The other space was left alone. Non-immune volun­ teers were put in each half of the building. Volunteers on the mosquito side contracted the disease. Next, the other items on the list were given to volunteers in a similarly constructed setting. One by one, and then in concert, these other factors failed to bring on the illness. Thus, by breaking up the list and eliminating each factor one by one, it was determined that mosquitoes alone transmitted the disease.

98 Reconstructing the Text

Arguments of Cogency Directions: In the following exercises, decide which of these inductive arguments are cogent and why. 1. It is election night and Mrs. Johnson is ahead with 50% of the vote reported. Mrs. Johnson is sure to be elected. 2. My horoscope is usually right. Today it says I should be prepared to take financial risks. Therefore, I withdrew all the money from my bank account and am waiting. 3. In the months after our cat died, I suddenly realized that the indoor plants—which had always been scrawny—were now blooming in health. Nothing else in our apartment had changed. I’ll bet our cat bothered them by eating leaves and scratching the stems. 4. The army trains its soldiers well in boot camp. Thus, these soldiers are ready for everything real war has to dish out. 5. The New England Patriots are sure to win the Super Bowl as they have been the best team over the past decade. However, they have lost their MVP (most valuable player) quarterback. But that shouldn’t make such a big difference—should it? 6. “The only one who could have committed the murder is the person who had access to the murder weapon, had a motive, and was near the room where the crime was committed. You did it, Professor Plum! You killed Colonel Mustard with a lead pipe in the study.” (Imaginary detective solving his case). 7. You asked John out on a date several times when you were both in 3rd year in college. You’re now both 4th year. Do you think he’ll change his mind? Why or why not?

Reading Questions 1. What is enumerative induction? 2. What is induction by analogy? 3. Why is projection an important safeguard against the fallacy of false cause? 4. What is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions? 5. State the five methods of Mill. 6. What are the stages for obtaining evidence? 7. In what situations might the frequency dogmatist or the belief dog­ matist give an account that is superior to the other? 8. What are the conditions in which one ought to turn to Bayes’ Theorem? 9. What are the criteria for good deductive and inductive arguments?

Outlining Inductive Logical Argument

99

Notes 1 By “projectible” in this context I am making reference to the sense of the term set out by Nelson Goodman in Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, 4th ed. (Cam­ bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983): Part IV. 2 Note here that when statistics are brought forward in even simple models there is either a bias toward an analysis of the numbers themselves and what they say by themselves or a bias toward the practitioner who is applying this particular data group to his personal worldview. The first is math-driven and the second is driven by the psychology of the researcher. 3 These examples are adapted from those given by H. L. A. Hart and Tony Honoré, Causation in the Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959): 292–296, 358–361. 4 John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic (London: John W. Parker, 1843). 5 Adapted from an example given by Wesley Salmon, Logic (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963): 112. 6 For a further account see Edward Arthur Fath, The Elements of Astronomy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1926): 170. 7 This was the case in Copernican astronomy, which replaced the Ptolemaicbased system. For an excellent account see Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957). 8 Jan Ambjørn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and Renate Loll, “The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe,” Scientific American 299, no. 1 (July 2008): 42–49. 9 Heraclitus, circa 500 BCE, expressed this sentiment in the oft repeated aph­ orism, “You cannot put your foot in the same river twice.” This is because the river is constantly moving (aka changing) and the river you put your foot into the first time has changed and become a different river. 10 For a few of these details see www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/13/ james-comey-book-hillary-clinton-email-investigation (accessed 10/01/19). 11 It is not in the scope of this book to go into this dimention with mathemat­ ical rigor, but students who are so interested can set out simple interpretative mathematical models that can translate two competing conditional betting rates against each other. For example, see William Mendenhall, Robert J. Beaver, and Barbara M. Beaver, Introduction to Probability and Statistics, 14th ed. (Boston: Brooks/Cole, Cengage, 2017): Ch. 4 and 5.

Chapter 6

Abductive Logical Outlining

Abductive logic is an offshoot of pragmatic philosophy which seeks to generate several hypotheses that will explain the efficacy of some event in question. Then, the practitioner will narrow the field based upon the likelihood of one of the hypotheses offering the best explanation given that sample space. The emphasis is upon plausibility given a certain defined universe. In this way, abductive logic looks more like inductive logic than deductive logic. Like inductive logic, abductive arguments do not gener­ ate certain conclusion. They are not logically necessary as are the conclu­ sions of deductive arguments. They exhibit the characteristic of comparative advantage based upon practical plausibility. But what are the categories that establish this plausibility? For our purposes we will empha­ size the properties of coherence, completeness, elegance, and synonymy with our personal worldview.1 Let’s look at these in order.

The Grounds of Plausibility Coherence

There are two sorts of coherence that we should examine here: deductive and inductive. In the first case, the event to be judged (or the possible action open to the agent) should follow general principles from the common body of knowledge, which the agent and the wider community hold to be factually and/or normatively true. If the principles are scientific in nature, then they should conform to an underlying mechan­ ism whose operation is transparent and can be projected to the event in ques­ tion through a process that others in the field have replicated with similar results. For example, consider an individual, Rebecca, who wants to judge public policy on carbon emission (the possible change in public policy constitutes an event) because it is held to be a source of global warming which, in turn, is thought to change the global climate in ways that

Abductive Logical Outlining

101

may not be advantageous to homo sapiens. Rebecca is a mother who is more interested in the future of her daughter than what might happen to her. The potential personal problem for Rebecca if the policy changes is that the cost of gasoline will increase by 25%. This will make a big change in Rebecca’s life. Rebecca lives “paycheck-to-paycheck.” She goes to the library and talks to the research librarian to look at the sci­ ence (set in layman’s terms—such as Scientific American) and reads the articles in the last few years on climate change. She finds that there is general agreement among trained scientists that human behavior has increased CO2 concentrations in the troposphere and this, in turn, has caused gradual global warming. This, in turn, has then altered the cli­ mate, which has greatly accelerated animal extinctions—particularly in marine life. These facts cause Rebecca to agree that human activity is causing cli­ mate change that is currently killing species of plants and animals. If this accelerates the way scientists (experts) believe, the future may be very grim for her daughter. Therefore, Rebecca agrees that some public pol­ icies need to change—even if they cost more money. Among the avail­ able reactions that Rebecca has open to her, she decides the most plausible is to support public policies that will cut down the use of fossil fuels (a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere). To admit there is a problem but to deny working toward a solution would be deductively incoherent and thus abductively unacceptable. One’s actions must match her considered beliefs. Inductive incoherence works differently. It involves an individual improperly assessing two or more possible courses of action and the global effect of making a decision of one of the possibilities. If we look at a simple example of a betting house that is taking bets on whether Team A or Team B will win the championship, the betting house must offer odds that are complementary if the betting house wants to break even, or be a little more positive and more negative on Team A against Team B if they want to make money. For example, if they offered positive odds on each team: 5–1 for A and 5–1 for B, then they will be engaged in a sure loss contract. This can be shown by the example of only two bettors: Bettor X bets $10 for A and Bettor Y bets $10 for B. Let’s assume Team A wins. Then X will get $50 and Y will get nothing. The betting house has $20 of income and $50 of expenses. If this continued in more cases the losses would loom even larger. For a real-life situation say John is married to Sue. John wants to be a good husband and father to his children but he also wants to be a “player” (one who engages in extra-marital affairs). The characteristics that John must adopt to be a good husband and father: Kindness, othercentered action, compassion, truth telling, and sensitivity will hurt John as

102

Reconstructing the Text

a player. A player must be selfish, a liar, cold, and insensitive to the feel­ ings of others. Thus, if John grooms the characteristics of the good hus­ band/father, he will be a bad player. If he grooms the characteristics of the good player, he will be a bad husband/father. Therefore, to try to do both will make John a failure at both. This is inductively incoherent; it leads to a sure loss contract. As such, it is not a positive sign for best possible outcomes. Completeness

For completeness the individual must develop a disposition in which s/he can handle any novel situation that is presented to him or her. If the indi­ vidual wants to accept the most plausible way to be able to insure this, they should turn to creating a disposition toward developing a rational and an emotional good will. The good will is just a way of describing one’s general attitude toward the world. In the case of the rational good will, one must embrace a scientificallybased epistemology—such as foundationalism (or another empirically grounded account). This would mean that if one heard that others accepted a particular proposition, for example “Stay away from giving your children the childhood vaccines such as measles shots and the diph­ theria, pertussis, and tetanus shot (DPT) because they can cause autism,” then one should not accept this advice just because these skeptics are your friends. Rather, one should see what the medical experts have to say on the upsides and downsides of the childhood vaccines for your chil­ dren. At the present moment in history, the benefits of giving your chil­ dren the shots far outweigh the miniscule costs. Abduction says that the rational good will advocates giving your child these preventative vaccines.2 In the case of the emotional good will one must first work on the skill of empathy: the rational understanding of other people and how they understand the world.3 Many individuals believe that everyone is just like they are. Those who are different are wrong! Because they are wrong, they can be dismissed from consideration. There are many who go through life thinking in this way. These individuals will miss critical cues on what will count as the most likely explanation because of this blindness. The second step in establishing the emotional good will is to create level-emotional-connection with others. Once one has rationally under­ stood another’s point of view and has established a level-emotional­ connection with that person, then the first person will exhibit care for the other when need arises. The following triad, empathy + sympathy => care, constitute philosophical love, which is the foundation of the emotional good will. Those who possess the emotional good will can add

Abductive Logical Outlining

103

another dimension of understanding over those who only possess the rational good will. Those who possess both will be in a better position to assess a situation that will lead to a judgment about what constitutes the best course of action (among competing alternatives). Elegance

One way we can assess the most likely account is by using aesthetic criteria. Two of the most popular put forward are simplicity and ele­ gance. In the history of science, for example, these two criteria have often been put forward as critical factors that have caused the accept­ ance of new theories over established ones.4 The advantage of this approach is that it makes use of our intuitive understanding of simpli­ city and elegance. However, it is important to distinguish between the per se and the pro se. In the first case we look at the simplicity and/or elegance of the object itself. In order to view this approach as being truer than a more complicated and cacophonic presentation is to hold the ontological belief that the world itself is simple and elegant. Such a fundamental posit is impossible to prove. It could just as well be the opposite. Nonetheless, these aesthetic categories have often been used to choose the most plausible alternative. In the case of pro se these criteria may be linked to our own percep­ tions and not to the object/event itself. These are surely practical prin­ ciples that are used all the time. When something seems simple or elegant to us we are inclined toward them. However, one must also accept that our perception of simplicity or elegance under the pro se interpretation may be due to an error or ignorance on our part. Unless we wish to gen­ eralize to others though, this may be a descriptive way in which abduc­ tion works in everyday life. Synonymy with Our Personal Worldview

I define the personal worldview as our personal understanding of facts and values about the world.5 Thus, in many ways, this last criterion may be the most important in a practical way of governing the way we choose the most likely outcome among many presented to us. The potential problem with this approach is when the agent has a skewed understanding of the world (as judged by the common body of know­ ledge). As mentioned earlier some people are inclined to be skeptical of vaccinations. The basis of this skepticism may be a general distrust of sci­ ence and/or of governments, who promote these in the name of public health. For example, what if the government is not good or even benign? Might they be part of a conspiracy against some particular sub-group?

104

Reconstructing the Text

People who think this way know that others will call them paranoid, but they reply—“what if I’m paranoid for good reasons?” There is, of course, grounds for discussion for those who believe in unverifiable deep conspiracies.6 These individuals will demur the common body of scientific knowledge and claim that there is a conspiracy afoot that will benefit unknown parties. Prescriptively, this is the downside of putting forth synonymy with our personal worldview, simpliciter. This is why this author created a Personal Worldview Impera­ tive (see Note 5). Since the personal worldview is such a strong compo­ nent in the way we judge the most likely candidate among a range, it is important that it exhibit some structural constraints.

Reading Questions 1. How does the criterion of coherence fit into the abductive criteria of some outcome being “most likely to be true”? 2. How does the criterion of completeness fit into the abductive criteria of some outcome being “most likely to be true”? 3. What caveats obtain with the criterion of elegance? 4. What caveats obtain with the criterion of synonymy with one’s per­ sonal worldview?

Vicarious Exploration of Plausibility via Fiction One way I have found to employ the tools of abductive reasoning is through what I have termed “fictive narrative philosophy.”7 Fictive nar­ rative philosophy focuses upon certain sorts of fiction (short stories, novels, poetry, plays, and movies) that seek to put forth a point of con­ tention—just as deductive arguments do but by using a different medium. When the question to be examined has a definite, empirically verifiable outcome (see Chapter 4 on Deductive Logic and Chapter 5 on Inductive Logic), then either an approach using deductive or inductive logic (or some combination therein) is the way to go. There is one group of philo­ sophers who advocate trying to set up ways in which traditional problems can be clarified or solved using experimental findings from science and social science.8 Be that as it may, it is my opinion that some of the most difficult, abstract problems in philosophy will not, in principle, ever have an experimental outcome and, thus, they cannot guide the student in finding out which point of view to believe in—the best explanation within some given universe of options. For those who also believe this to be true, there is another option: Fictive narrative philosophy.

Abductive Logical Outlining

105

Fictive Narrative Philosophy

The strategy of fictive narrative philosophy is to set forth vicarious empir­ ical experience through the story of characters who are undergoing the critical philosophical problem at hand. For example, take the question of free will versus determinism. There are several novels that can address this question from particularized settings. In one example, there is an abduc­ tive argument by Jean Paul Sartre on his view from his novel, La Morte dans l’âme (often translated as The Troubled Sleep), in which he sets out his strong view of the possibilities of human freedom within a story setting that may be organized around the fall of France to the Nazis and that the prevailing apathy among many at the time could, and should, be over­ come by unfettered choice. On the other side is Emile Zola’s novel, Ger­ minal, that depicts a determined existence of coalminers and child labor. Then there is Fyodor Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment that puts forth a rather complicated account in the middle as the protagonist Raskolni­ kov tries to assert himself by committing a difficult action (murder) and ends up in a muddle. In this case, the question of free will and determin­ ism is given three different answers by these three novelists. Fictive narrative philosophy suggests that when an individual reads these three accounts one of them will seem to be more accurate. This is because of the detailed renderings vicariously obtained of “empirical” nar­ rative set out by the author. There is so much critical concrete minutia in life that some questions do not properly lend themselves to either nomo­ logical subsumption (in which generally accepted a priori principles are presented an instance of the rule for mechanical attribution), or to experi­ ments set out either in natural or social science. In such cases both deductive and inductive logic cannot present us with clear, non-question­ begging outcomes that are universally accepted. In the presence of such a vacuum, another explanatory tool must be brought forward: abduction via fictive narrative philosophy. Personal Worldview Exploration of Fictive Worlds

Of course, the way that one account is judged to be more likely than another is a function of one’s personal worldview. In many cases, the individual in question will have a firm worldview that is not open to exploration. In these cases we have what has often been termed “con­ firmation bias.”9 The way around confirmation bias in the personal worldview is for the agent in question to subject herself to the Personal Worldview Imperative (see Note 5). These categories (which overlap with the abductive constraints listed above) provide a way to protect one­ self from confirmation bias (see also Chapter 3).

106

Reconstructing the Text

It is my contention that there are three stages of confronting novel normative or novel factual paradigms that will challenge our existing ideas and suggest change. First, there is a consideration of the novel theory pre­ sented in its strengths. Second, there is an assessment of the possible com­ parative shortcomings of the proposed change. If the proposed alteration is still plausible then we move into a third stage in which one provision­ ally inserts the change into his personal worldview and tries to assess whether it is now more or less viable. This third stage is dialectically oriented and can take some time. It is the most important part of the pro­ cess and may require the individual to engage others in dialogue. Finally, if the proposed change passes all three stages, it is now up to the individual to accept it and create strategies for how they will integrate this new maxim into their personal worldview in order to go forward. With respect to fictive narrative this process can be relatively quick, as in Charles Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist and child labor in UK, or rather slow, as in Ralph Ellison’s novel Invisible Man and recognition of African Americans as legitimate citizens of the United States. In some cases it is in-between, as in Margaret Atwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale, and its sequel The Testa­ ments, on viewing women as being more than reproductive machines. In each of these cases, it is the personal worldview of the individual reading the novel that will judge whether the resolution of the philosoph­ ical problem at hand is reasonable or not. Thus, it is crucial that the reader of the novel has gone through an introspective analysis into their own personal worldview and has engaged in an ongoing process to make themselves the best they can be by striving to attain high epistemic and normative worldview standards (such as the Personal Worldview Imperative).

Reading Questions 1. How can fiction provide a venue for assessing a philosophical contro­ versy one way or the other? 2. What caveats ought to be observed when appealing to the personal worldview in the process of agreeing with or dissenting with the pos­ ition suggested by a work of philosophical fiction? 3. When is it appropriate to turn to deductive logic, inductive logic, or abductive logic—especially connected to fiction? Creating a Logical Outline Using Abductive Logic

People are driven to abductive logic when deductive and inductive logic are not conclusive in settling or fully describing some particular question. An example for settling a question might be the question of belief in

Abductive Logical Outlining

107

God. Since most accounts of God are that it is immaterial, therefore; deduction and induction are inconclusive here. If we turn to fictive nar­ rative philosophy, we can examine the account given by Isaac Bashevis Singer in his short story, “Gimple the Fool.”10 In the story a simple Polish Jew living in a small town has a wife who exhibits serial unfaithful­ ness. Nonetheless, Gimpel still believes in his wife’s fidelity. The people in the town call him a fool for believing in his wife, however, the story turns after his wife’s death. She is able to make contact with him and her earlier cynical attitude changes and she is transformed by Gimpel’s belief —even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. The story ends by suggesting that Gimpel’s faith saves him: he may be a fool—but he is a fool whose actions make him an exalted figure instead of a cuckold. What if the question of belief in the existence of God was rather like this? Since God is non-empirical, it will always seem to be foolish for empiricists to believe in God. But Singer’s conjecture, which he’s putting forth, that “belief in an unproveable (by empiricism) ideal (God) actually exalts the human soul.” Under this account Gimpel is a fool, but he is the wisest of all. This is one way to settle the question in a way only open to fictive narrative philosophy. Whether it works for any given reader as the most probable explanation is controversial, but perhaps the presentation adds a dimension absent in deductive or inductive accounts. Such an outline translated into our deductive mode might look like this: The Role of Faith in “Gimple the Fool” 1. Most people in a marriage relationship would attest that having an unfaithful spouse would cause an end to their marriage bond—(fact) 2. The character Gimple is a Jewish peasant living in rural Poland— (fact) 3. Gimple’s wife is serially unfaithful to him according to the testimony of everyone in their rural village, but still Gimple believes in his wife’s purity—(fact) 4. Everyone calls Gimple a fool for his faith in his wife, despite her infi­ delity—(fact) 5. The common body of knowledge characterizes Gimple as a fool— (1–4) 6. [There is an important place in life for a least one person in a community to maintain faith and forgiveness in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary]—(assertion) 7. [Communities are kept alive by “fools” like Gimple]—(assertion) 8. Gimple, “the fool,” should be honored, not mocked—(5–7)

108

Reconstructing the Text

Obviously, the creation of such an outline requires the student to inter­ pret the story in light of the larger question at hand and to use the basic structure taught in Chapter 4 to set out the reconstruction. The next step in evaluating this presentation on faith is making the analogical connection between the fictive account of Gimple and the situation of the person of religious faith’s belief in God. This could be accommodated by either the “pro” or the “con” essay structure set out in Chapters 8 and 9.

A Summary of the Process of Creating an Outline for Fictive Narrative Philosophy In the second case of fully describing a situation one might take the ques­ tion of an individual’s attitude and response to an unjust state that is unjustly tormenting the agent. This is the material behind the controver­ sial argument in Plato’s Crito.11 For Plato, the individual in such a situation ought to accept the unjust punishment of the state. This is based upon the idea of the inappropriateness of reciprocal harm (respond­ ing with a harmful action in response to an unjustified harmful action by the state). Part of this stems from the idea that one chose to live in a state and took the good when times were positive. Now, when the situation is different, we must accept the bad in negative times. In itself, this under­ standing is controversial with Aquinas and Martin Luther King being prominent detractors. Another way to get to a fuller understanding of the truth of this ques­ tion in social/political philosophy is to bring in factors of the emotional good will. One such case involves the contemporary rage that some Native Americans feel while living in the present age in the United States of America. One might try to assess these holistic reactions via the deductive approach by listing the number of treaties made and broken by the United States—especially from 1840 onwards.12 From these texts one might set out normative maxims such as “No peoples who have been abused by forced relocation, murdered without a cause except a racist desire to break the spirit of a people, and lied to over and over again will be happy when referencing their oppressors.” This is powerful but it may miss something. Another approach might be to turn to an inductive approach of social science surveys of Native Americans on a variety of topics to understand which are uppermost in their minds. Such surveys will be important but they might not reveal everything because the results are bound by the limitations of the survey. Thus, one might approach a story written by a Native American author. One such contemporary account is There, There by Cheyenne and Arapaho author Tommy Orange.13 In this convergent novel a number of

Abductive Logical Outlining

109

lives are brought to a crisis in a large, regional powwow set in Oakland, California, that goes terribly wrong. The actions that lead up to this disaster are conveyed by a story within a story: One man, X, asks if he can move in with man, Y, who has a spacious two-story apartment. Y says ok. After a while Y comes home to find that X has turned his apartment into a business. Every inch is taken up with employees. Y says this isn’t ok. X says, “Tough luck. I need the space. If you don’t like it, I’ll kill you.” Y complains to X that this is the wrong way to treat someone who lent you a hand when you needed it. X says that there is a little room under the stairwell that Y can stay in. It’s little bigger than a closet but it’s better than nothing. X says, “Take it or leave it.” Y takes it and becomes invisible. This is the plight of native peoples in the United States. For classroom use, I would suggest that the instructor assign a fictive text, like There, There. The first step for students is to read the story. The second step is for the students to organize their reading experience using the following form (a reading outline for fiction): A Reading Outline for the Chosen Fictive Narrative Philosophy

Tommy Orange, There, There (New York: Knopf, 2018). Main Characters

(In the order of presentation—characters with an asterisk (*) are those who participate in the robbery at the powwow. Characters with a hash (#) before their names are shot at the powwow.) • *#Tony Loneman—21 years old. Mother had fetal-alcohol syn­ drome. This leaves Tony somewhat facially deformed (The Drome [short for “syndrome”]). Tony is permanently affected by this. He got into lots of fights growing up. Tony’s job at the powwow is (a) to hide the bullets in the socks and (b) to take the safe. • Opal Viola Victoria Bear Shield (sister to Jackie Red Feather) —as teenagers they go to Alcatraz for a re-enactment of the occupa­ tion. Afterwards they get back to shore and Jackie is raped by Harvey. She becomes pregnant (Blue). She has the baby and gives it up for adoption. • #Edwin Black—Harvey is also his father. Edwin is overweight and habitually constipated (a metaphor for a certain group of native people). He applied for a paid internship to help with the powwow. • #Bill Davis—He works maintenance at the Oakland Coliseum. He remembers old sporting teams, like the Oakland A’s of the 70s. He sees a drone flying inside the stadium and he tries to swat it away.

110

Reconstructing the Text

• *#Calvin Johnson—he is bipolar. He lives with his sister Magie and her man Sonny. Calvin’s brother, *#Charles, is a tough guy. *#Charles hangs with *#Octavio and *#Carlos. *#Carlos and *#Charles spend so much time together that *#Octavio calls them **##Charlos. • #Orvil Red Feather—Orvil is a little slow. Loother and Lony are brothers and are friends of Orvil. Orvil thinks he has an insect (maybe a spider) living under his skin and tries to scratch it out. They are thinking/planning for the upcoming powwow. • *#Octavio Gomez—Fina, Octavio’s mother was deserted in her pregnancy by her boyfriend. Fina’s father gave her an old Indian curse that made her sick. Octavio’s dad sheltered Octavio with his body when they were sprayed with bullets after Uncle Sixto and Octavio’s older brother, Junior, stole some plants from someone’s basement. Octavio’s dad died from shielding Octavio. Fina suggested new friends for Octavio. Uncle Sixto then crashed his car killing two of Octavio’s friends. Octavio tried to get even but it doesn’t come off. • *Daniel Gonzales—He made the 3-D printer plastic guns that they would use in the powwow robbery. He writes his brother a long e-mail giving his rather chaotic view of the world. Daniel has a drone that he has used to keep track of things and because he’s an IT nerd. Daniel doesn’t go to the powwow but has his surveillance of what’s happening from his drone that he flies to the Coliseum. • Blue—She is married to Paul. She is the daughter of Jacqueline and Harvey. Paul is very physically abusive to her so she decides to leave and goes to Oakland where she has a job at the Indian Center. She leaves her husband behind without notice. She gets a quick ride to the bus station from Geraldine. She takes no belongings. Paul sees her gone and goes after her. Blue hides in the lady’s toilet. Paul starts to come in but an elderly woman (also in the restroom) gets Paul to leave. The two ladies go together just before the bus is about to leave. Blue has found her freedom. She also goes to the powwow. • #Thomas Frank—Begins the chapter with philosophical insight into the various forces from without that help determine all of us via social/political environmental impact. Thomas is a drummer and has been invited to the big Oakland powwow as a drummer. His drum group is called Southern Moon. Thomas started as a janitor at the Indian Center. Then, when he was 16, he went to Washington, D. C. to visit his uncle. That’s when he discovered James Hampton, an artist, a Christian, a mystic, and a janitor. Hampton would end up as Thomas’ guiding light. Thomas’ dad is full Indian from the “rez.” He’s a recovering alcoholic. Thomas has a chip on his shoulder because he was forced to be raised in Oklahoma. Thomas’ mother is

Abductive Logical Outlining

111

white and he eschews that part of himself. Thomas started drinking. One night he drank a lot and it stayed on his breath the next morn­ ing when he went to work. That got him fired from his job. He begins feeling depressed about his failed Christianity and how the reli­ gion had crushed his mother. He has a sister into the drug PCP. It’s now time for the powwow. Thomas finds the organizer, Bobby Big Medicine. It’s all ready to happen. Your music will be your prayer to life. Plot

The form of this presentation is called “the convergent novel” (cf. The Bridge of San Luis Rey). The characters are sketched out separately and then they all come together in the converging incident: In this case it is the Oak­ land powwow. A small sub-group of urban natives have decided that they will rob the safe that has the gift cards for winners (see characters above with *). They also use plastic guns with live ammunition to kill others and cause havoc. The robbery is aborted and it’s all for nothing. The great powwow that is the religious life blood for many native people is destroyed by native people. This is the proximate cause. The ultimate cause, however, is the United States European Colonizers and the likes of Andrew Jackson who broke treaties and created a genocide that is still happening. Themes

It’s all for nothing is the theme of the book from the perspective of native peoples, but there is a back story. A version of this is relayed in the book. One man, X, asks if he can move in with man, Y, who has a spacious twostory apartment. Y says ok. After a while Y comes home to find that X has turned his apartment into a business. Every inch is taken up with employees. Y says this isn’t ok. X says, “Tough luck. I need the space. If you don’t like it, I’ll kill you.” Y complains to X that this is the wrong way to treat some­ one who lent you a hand when you needed it. X says that there is a little room under the stairwell that Y can stay in. It’s little bigger than a closet, but it’s better than nothing. X says, “Take it or leave it.” Y takes it and becomes invisible. This is the plight of native peoples in the United States. Transition from Reading Outline to Abductive Logical Outline

Once one has set out the reading outline, they should return to the gen­ erating question on how one ought to react to an unjust state. In this case, author Tommy Orange depicts another possible approach to the problem that is more nuanced than the simple model set out by the deductive approach—because it involves the emotional good will. One

112

Reconstructing the Text

possible distillation of Orange’s approach is to examine how a group (various Native American tribes/nations) might react with a rage that they turn on themselves (after the failure of the so-called Indian Wars of the nineteenth century (detailed by Dee Brown). Such an outline might look like the following. Pain and Rage: How Oppressed Peoples Can Turn Upon Themselves

1. A powwow is an important religious, cultural event for most Native American nations—(fact) 2. A big, regional powwow as described in the novel is a defining moment for all the participating tribes/nations—(fact) 3. [Participating tribes/nations treat the music, dancing and activities of the powwow very seriously]—(1, 2) 4. [Those members of tribes/nations who feel alienated in their identity may feel compelled to desecrate their tribe/nation as well as them­ selves]—(assertion) 5. [There is no greater desecration of a sacred event than to disrupt it and to try to rob its coffers]—(assertion) 6. [Only an act of nihilism and self-abnegation could account for des­ troying a sacred gathering] 7. [Destroying one’s sacred event and to commit crimes against one’s own tribe/nation is an act of nihilism]—(4–6) 8. When one turns to nihilism against himself and his tribe/nation it is the ultimate sorrow—(assertion) 9. Those who ruined the Oakland powwow acted from nihilism (per­ sonal and social) and it is a moment of great sorrow—(3, 7, 8)

Conclusion Abductive arguments are presentations of points of contention in which sev­ eral outcomes are set forth and the speaker suggests to the audience one of the outcomes put forward is the best among those set forth. This chapter has set forth the criteria of a general abductive argument: Coherence, com­ pleteness, elegance, and synonymy with personal worldview. These are the core components. Then the chapter transitions to one of the most useful sources of abductive argument: fictive narrative philosophy.

Exercise Find a cause you deeply believe in that you feel can only adequately be expressed by a story. Then set out what you think the point of the story

Abductive Logical Outlining

113

is: The point of contention (aka conclusion). Link this point of conten­ tion to a traditional philosophical problem.14 Then link this problem to a short story, novel, play, movie, or television show that dealt with the same problem. Interpret the story via the outlining method set out in Chapter 4 (see above) so that you generate either an answer to the prob­ lem or a dimension to the problem that is often overlooked.

Notes 1 I have discussed these in greater length in connection with my Personal Worldview Imperative. The most recent version can be found in Michael Boylan, Natural Human Rights: A Theory (New York and Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 2014): Ch. 6. 2 For a discussion of this see www.vaccines.gov/getting/for_parents/five_rea sons (accessed on 10/01/19). 3 “Empathy” is a word that (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) entered the language in 1912 as a translation of ein (in) + fühlung (feeling) into English after the writings of Hans Lipps, Academy: The Monthly Record of Litera­ ture, Learning, Science, and Art 17 (1912): 209. Lipps set forth a theory of literary criticism based upon one’s ability to project himself into the work of art. This is similar in content to Keats’s “negative capability.” For a discussion on the historical development of this term in English see L. G. Wispé, “The History of the Concept of Empathy” in Empathy and its Development. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer, eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987): 17–37. (Wispé puts the date into English at 1909.) Many try to draw distinctions between “empathy” and “sympathy” with the former indicating the connection of feel­ ing and the latter a connection that is attached with a sorrow for another’s plight. For some discussion of this point of view see the collection of essays in Eisenberg and Strayer (1987). 4 Three examples here are Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolu­ tions, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Michael Boylan, The Origins of Ancient Greek Science: Blood —A Philosophical Study (New York and London: Routledge, 2015). 5 This is an important part of my ethical/social/political account of living in the world. I believe that the personal responsibility in the construction of a personal worldview is so important that I have set out a Personal Worldview Imperative: “All people must develop a single comprehensive and internally coherent worldview that is good and that we strive to act out in our daily lives” (Michael Boylan (2014): Ch. 6). 6 For a discussion of conspiracy theories from the “right” and “left” of Ameri­ can politics see Jessie Walker, The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory (New York: Harper rpt., 2014). 7 For a depiction of fictive narrative philosophy as a teaching device in intro­ ductory courses in philosophy see Michael Boylan and Charles Johnson, Phil­ osophy: An Innovative Introduction—Fictive Narrative, Primary Texts, and Responsive Writing (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2010). For the monograph ver­ sion meant for scholars see Michael Boylan, Fictive Narrative Philosophy: How Fiction can Act as Philosophy (New York and London: Routledge, 2019).

114

Reconstructing the Text

8 For a good discussion of experimental philosophy set out by its proponents see the edited volumes of Tania Lombrozo, Joshua Knobe, and Shaun Nichols, eds. 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 9 On confirmation bias see Robert Sugden and Martin Jones, “Positive Confirmation Bias in the Acquisition of Information” Theory and Decision 50.1 (2001): 59–99 and Daniel Steel, “Wishful Thinking and Values in Science” Philosophy of Science 85.5 (2018): 895–905. 10 Isasc Bashevis Singer, “Gimple the Fool” trans. Saul Bellow in The Partisan Review (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1953). 11 Plato, Crito, 49–51. 12 For a thorough and accessible account of these actions from 1840–1890 see Dee Brown, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970). 13 Tommy Orange, There, There (New York: Knopf, 2018). 14 For those who would like assistance with finding a traditional problem of philosophy see The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Part 3

Responding to the Text

Chapter 7

Finding Out What You Believe

An evaluation is a reasoned response to a logical argument. This reasoned response takes a point of view that can be seen as supporting the argument or not. The former response will be called a pro evaluation and the latter a con evaluation. Chapters 7, 8, and 9 will concentrate on the mechanics of how to construct each of these. This chapter will give an overview of some of the elements that make up this form of argumen­ tation through the creation of a pre-essay packet that will make you more successful at it. The first thing an evaluation needs is structure. Without structure, by which its remarks may be guided, an evaluation becomes meaningless. As was said earlier about movies (see Introduction), general statements that do not make their measurement scale explicit yield no useful information. Sometimes they are worse than nothing because they can make things unclear. An evaluation must (a) make clear the assessed character of that which is being evaluated (an argument, book, opera, movie, and so on); (b) ana­ lyze that character into its components; (c) direct attention to particular important components; (d) put forth a point of view directed through those components; (e) generate a reasoned argument for that point of view; and (f) show how one’s view of the whole is affected by the posi­ tions taken on those components. This is a tall order. Let us examine in a little more detail some of these points.

The Process of Argument to This Point In Chapters 1 and 2 a method of critical reading was set forth that would enable the student to integrate his or her personal worldview, and the pervading shared community worldview, into his or her experience with the text. Chapter 3 set out principles by which the individual can feel confident about the facts s/he has accepted to be true about the world. This was reinforced via contemporary examples. The result was to ferret out the point of contention (conclusion) along with the general sense of

118

Responding to the Text

what supported it. This process was repeated analogically with media examples. In Chapters 4, 5, and 6, a natural language system of deductive, inductive, and abductive argument was described that presented precise rules for defining the relation between premises and the conclusion in a more formal, explicit fashion. At this point the student has read the text multiple times and reconstructed the main arguments presented in deductive, inductive, or abductive reconstructions—including enthymemes. What is left at this stage is to use the outline as the launching pad to create a pre-essay packet that will assist you in fashioning an essay that is either pro or con. This chapter will describe the way you create such a packet.

Sample Argument Consider: There are several sorts of friendships that can be made in life. Each form of friendship owes its existence to a particular category. The categories are utility, pleasure, and goodness. Thus, one sort of friend is someone you interact with because each of you gives the other a tangible material benefit. This relationship will end as soon as the tangible material benefit ends. The second form is similar to the first. The benefit, how­ ever, is immaterial: Pleasure. Because of its immaterial nature, some inter­ action between the essential worldviews of the participants occurs. However, like utility, when the pleasure ends, so does the relationship. The final form is goodness. In this sort of friendship it is the ability of each reciprocally to improve the moral excellence of the other that occa­ sions the relationship. When you are with such a friend then you know that you are better, becoming all that you can be. Each individual is per­ manently affected for the better. Thus, the friendship based upon good­ ness is the best sort of friendship. This is a paraphrase of an argument that Aristotle presents in Book Eight of the Nicomachean Ethics. Treat this as your assignment. The pres­ entation is deductive, but your evaluation packet can also include aspects of inductive and/or abductive argument. Okay. Let’s apply the process: 1. Read the passage for overall meaning. 2. Find the principal claim—the best sort of friendship is one based upon goodness. 3. What is the evidence for the claim? 4. Put the evidence into logical form using the methodology advocated in Chapter 4.

Finding Out What You Believe

119

Start by writing down the conclusion, then find sub-conclusions that may support it. Conclusion: The best sort of friendship is one based upon goodness. (Prin­ cipal claim) Subconclusions: 1. There are three sorts of friendship: Those based on utility, those based on pleasure, and those based on goodness—(assertion) 2. Utility fails when the utility ends—(fact) 3. Pleasure fails when the pleasure ends—(fact) 4. Pleasure interactively touches the worldviews of the participants— (assertion) 5. Interactive goodness makes each party more excellent—(assertion) 6. Each individual is permanently affected for the better—(assertion) Enthymemes necessary for the inferences are: 1. Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones—(assertion) 2. Interactive touching of worldviews is a worthwhile and positive event—(assertion) 3. All of us, by nature, desire most of all to be more excellent—(assertion) 4. Goodness and its expression are long term—(assertion) From these observations we are prepared to outline the argument accord­ ing to form1: 1. There are three sorts of friendships: Those based on utility, those based on pleasure, and those based on goodness—(assertion) 2. Utility friendships fail when the benefit that is the basis of the friend­ ship ends—(fact) [3. Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones—(assertion)] [4. Changes in utility are frequent and characteristic of a short-term rela­ tionship—(assertion)] 5. Utility friendships are not the best—(1–4) 6. Pleasure relationships fail when the pleasure ends—(fact) 7. Pleasure relationships interactively touch the worldviews of the parti­ cipants—(assertion) [8. Interactive touching of worldviews is a worthwhile and positive event —(assertion)] 9. Pleasure relationships are not the best, but they are better than utility friendships—(3, 6, 7, 8) 10. Goodness relationships are characterized by interactive goodness— (assertion)

120

Responding to the Text

11. Interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent— (assertion) [12. All of us, by nature, desire most of all to be more excellent—(fact)] [13. Goodness and its expression are long term—(assertion)] 14. Goodness relationships are better than those based upon pleasure— (9–13) 15. The best sort of friendship is one based upon goodness—(5, 9, 14) This is an example of a logical outline according to the rules provided. So, the first piece in your pre-essay packet is your outline of the author’s argument.

Deciding Which Premises to Focus On Once there is an outline, one must examine the various premises, begin­ ning with those justified by assertion. Assertion is the weakest form of justification; therefore, one is most likely to find in an assertion the par­ ticular, important component toward which the reader wishes to direct attention. What is especially important at this point is to view such premises in a pluralistic context. This is a context in which many viewpoints regarding that single element might be brought forth. It is very important that one does not allow a strong personal feeling to mask all the possible reasons one might be inclined to accept or reject this particular premise. The reason for this pluralism is that it allows a more comprehensive vision of the assertion. You cannot know why you are for or against a single tenet until you understand fully all the various reasons others give for their assent or dis­ sent. Thus, this pluralistic appraisal of the premise is extremely important in developing an informed view of its truth or falsity. Obviously, such a process is time consuming. One must limit the number of premises under consideration. The two guides that should rule such choices are (a) the crucial nature of the premise, and (b) the contro­ versial nature of the premise. These guides act serially; in other words, we apply (a) before (b). One needs first to examine the premise(s) that is crucial to the argument. Is it correct or not? If the reviewer is in any doubt, he or she should apply the pluralism principle in order to help decide. Among several crucial premises that may be isolated, the controversial nature of a premise should narrow one’s choice. This is true because one will need to develop a position on such a premise more fully, since it is the one to which most reviewers will naturally gravitate. An example can be seen in the example argument. According to the two criteria above, we must first examine the crucial premises and then

Finding Out What You Believe

121

the controversial ones. The concept of being crucial is relative to the infer­ ences that are drawn. In order that we not simply list all premises justified as assertion or fact, a good process of inquiry is to list those premises that are used to generate inferences and group them according to similar mes­ sages. In this argument the following premises stand out as groups on the same topic: First Group—Initial Classification 1. There are three sorts of friendships occasioned by utility, pleasure, and goodness—(assertion) Second Group—Link between Better and “Long Term” 2. Utility friendships fail when the benefit that is the basis of the friend­ ship ends—(fact) [3. Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones—(assertion)] [4. Changes in utility are frequent and characteristic of a short-term rela­ tionship—(assertion)] 5. Pleasure relationships fail when the pleasure ends—(fact) [6. Goodness and its expression are long term—(assertion)] Third Group—Interactivity of Friends as a Positive Excellence 7. Pleasure relationships interactively touch the worldviews of the parti­ cipants—(assertion) [8. Interactive touching of worldviews is a worthwhile and positive event—(assertion)] 9. Goodness relationships are characterized by interactive goodness— (assertion) 10. Interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent— (assertion) [11. All of us, by nature, desire most of all to be more excellent—(fact)] Obviously, this process is very subjective. One reader might create one sort of grouping while another might group via different criteria. However, subjectivity in this case is good because you are the one writ­ ing the essay. Thus, one looks at the groups created using the criterion of being crucial and then decides which premises are most controversial (meaning those that they think are logically prior [crucial] and those that they might have the most to say about [controversial]). For example, in the above grouping one student might decide that the first group is not very promising. Then, in the second group he might choose premise 3 and in the third group he might choose premise 11. The number of premises you choose to write on is dictated by the length of your proposed essay. For example, in my classes I often assign a short, 750–

122

Responding to the Text

word essay (around two and a half pages). For such a short essay two premises are probably the maximum that one can adequately develop. The longest argumentative paper I assign at the undergraduate level is a 2,400–word essay (around eight pages). In the case of the eight-page essay, choosing three premises is generally more serviceable. If you are writing a shorter essay, like a 1,500 word essay (around five pages), then choose only two premises.

Creating Brainstorming Sheets Once one has isolated two or three premises, then the process of brain­ storming begins. At the top of a sheet of paper (or your computer screen), list all the things that strike you about the premise, both in favor of it and against it (pro and con). Then do the same for your other prem­ ises. Each premise gets its own separate sheet of paper. For example, from our sample one might begin with premise 3.2

[3. Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones—(assertion)] Pro thoughts: • In life we generally value a good if it lasts longer: Cars, appliances, clothes, and so on. Perhaps the same is true of friendship. • Longevity of anything is connected to how well it is constructed. We all value that which is well constructed over that which is less well constructed. Thus, a well-constructed friendship is the best kind. • Some who endorse spiritual values in life connect a spiritual element to God and immortality. Immortality is a concept about the infinitely long term. Perhaps by analogy, a long-term friendship based upon goodness may be connected to this community worldview? Con thoughts: • Life is transitory. One should seize the day and find pleasure in the moment rather than losing something nice in the vain search for the long term. • High intensity of feeling is to be preferred over low intensity. This is a more relevant standard of value. High intensity is hard (if not impossible) to maintain in the long run—thus temporary short-term pleasure that is intense is to be preferred over long-term, more per­ manent, low-intensity relationships.

Finding Out What You Believe

123

• Most Taoists and Buddhists do not hold out for the immortal. They believe it is a spiritual illusion. Thus, looking for the permanent is a fool’s game that leads one away from (rather than toward) spiritual truth. Supplementary Source Considerations: • Inductive considerations: Are there any statistical studies on real people living in the world today who view considerations of lon­ gevity of friendships as a positive or negative value? How might such studies be important in your own evaluation of this pivotal premise?3 • Abductive considerations: Are there any instances of fictive narrative philosophy that can speak to the truth of the premise of the value of permanence versus the value of the transitory? How does this text establish the level of plausibility? The brainstorming sheets can (and should) be more extensive than the above example, which is provided as an example of how the brain­ storming sheet should look. In our example pre-essay packet, the stu­ dent should repeat the brainstorming sheet on another page for premise 11. (Hint: Most people cannot create effective brainstorming sheets in one sitting. Try scheduling at least three different times when you can work on them. If you are a social learner, you might consider entering into discussion with a classmate, friend, or family member about the truth of the premise from both sides. Record your verbal efforts on your smart phone and then transcribe them onto a page for each premise.) Once you have created your brainstorming sheets, the next step is to evaluate whether what you wrote leans more to the pro or to the con pos­ ition. There are only two accepted stances for the argumentative essay according to this book: The pro and the con. Now is the time to choose. Sometimes the choice is easy—you have many more bullet points for pro than for con. However, on the example brainstorming sheet given above there are an equal number of points on each side. In those cases, you simply have to appeal to your personal and community worldview perspectives and choose one over the other. For purposes of illustration, let us assume that the pro position was chosen. Finishing the Pre-Essay Packet: Creating the Cover Sheet The final step for our pre-essay preparation is to create a cover sheet for the packet. This is the last step in the order of creation, but it is the first step in the order of logical presentation. The elements that should be on

124

Responding to the Text

the cover sheet include: (a) some identification of the argument, (b) the argumentative stance of the essay (pro or con), (c) the principal points to be addressed in the body of the essay, and (d) the actual introduction you intend to use in your essay.

Evaluation of Aristotle’s Argument on Friendship Pro thoughts:

Possible objections to the argument: Premise [3. Long-term relationships

are better than short term ones—(assertion)]

• Life is transitory. One should seize the day and find pleasure in the moment. • High intensity of feeling is to be preferred over low intensity. • Most Taoists and Buddhists do not hold out for the immortal; they consider immortality a spiritual illusion. Replies to the objections to premise 3: • In life we generally value as good that which lasts longer. • Longevity of anything is connected to how well it is constructed. • Some who endorse spiritual values in life connect a spiritual element to God and immortality. Immortality is a concept about the infinitely long term. Perhaps by analogy, a long-term friendship based upon good­ ness may be connected to this community worldview. Objections and replies to premise 11: Interactive goodness makes all par­ ties permanently more excellent—(assertion) Introduction: Aristotle argues in Book Eight of the Nicomachean Ethics that the best sort of friendship is one based upon goodness. He bases this argu­ ment upon two controversial premises: (a) Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones, and (b) interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent. It is here that detractors will focus their attention. This essay will examine the strength of these objections in order and then show them to be mistaken, thus supporting Aristotle’s general conclusion. The cover sheet and the packet that is behind it (the outline and the brainstorming sheets) constitute your roadmap to guide your critical response to the argumentative text. One maxim I often repeat to my stu­ dents is that effective essays are the endpoint of a process of critical inquiry. When this process occurs thoughtfully over time, the end result (the essay) is of a markedly higher quality. Here is an example of a cover sheet for the sample argument.

Finding Out What You Believe

125

Assessing Whether You Want to Include Inductive or Abductive Elements At this point you should know whether you are going to argue pro or con the point of contention in your essay. In our sample we have chosen to take the pro position. Thus, if you feel your critical essay would be made stronger with inductive input you’ll want to research statistics or empirical studies that might bolster your cause. If you think that the nature of the argu­ ment you’re making will fall short of being decisive with only deductive or inductive input, then you will want to add fictive narrative philosophy to bolster your abductive addition.

Adding Statistics and/or Empirical Studies When the argument you are undertaking is amenable to scientific or social scientific study (induction), then the presentation of this data can help you structure your pro or con argument. In the past decade or so there has been an increased interest in how science and social science can help solve ques­ tions that, in the past, have only been subject to a priori, deductive reason­ ing. This form of philosophy is termed experimental philosophy.4 For example, for years philosophers have used studies in clinical psychology to help understand “voluntariness” in ethical choice. In past decades, this has been expanded to neuro-science as well. When one is writing an essay in which there are current studies in natural or social science, then citing those studies can buttress the argument you are putting forth. How do you know whether there are such studies? The easiest path is to go to your library’s research librarian. Ask them about what you are interested in and they will access the online databases that your library subscribes to and, in many cases, can pull up the article then and there. You can then either read the article on the spot, or print it out (accord­ ing to the license your library has with the database). Though many traditional philosophical questions are amenable to such empirical input, not all of them are. In our example, for instance, it would be impossible for any natural or social science experiment to determine whether an intense short-term relationship based upon utility or pleasure should be preferred over a long-term relationship based upon mutual goodness. How­ ever, that may not be the end of the line. There may be some studies in couple counseling that would be relevant, or other sociological studies on long-term friendships in various background conditions that my help sharpen your argument. They will not, however, fully answer the question in a non­ question begging way. So while this information may give some clarity to your discourse, it will not offer a definitive answer to our sample inquiry on friendship. In other philosophical questions, the use of statistics and empirical studies may be very useful in backing up your argument.

126

Responding to the Text

To be clear, your general argument will still have an overarching deductive form, but the critical premises being examined from a pro or con standpoint will be supported by inductive reasoning that should render them probable to the degree your empirical evidence is probable.

Adding Fictive Narrative Philosophy When trying to set out that one account is more likely than its competitors (abduction), it is often useful to turn to fictive narrative philosophy. As set out in Chapter 6, stories that are structured to take a position on a philosophical problem are called “fictive narrative philosophy.” Fictive nar­ rative philosophy is most effective when it is not possible to structure an a priori deductive argument or an empirical study that will solve the question in a definitive manner. Since we are now in the realm of abductive logic, our goal with this approach will be to use a summary and/or quotation from a story, novel, play, or movie that will render plausible the pro or con pos­ ition that we wish to support. Our example (with the critical focus on whether a short, intense friendship based upon utility or pleasure is to be pre­ ferred over a long-term relationship based upon mutually-reinforcing good­ ness) can be approached via literary examples. In supporting the position of the short, intense relationship the student might turn to Saul Bellow’s novella, Seize the Day. In that story the ephem­ eral nature of life and relationships is emphasized. Other examples in this mode would include John Wain’s classic British novel, Hurry on Down (along with others in the 1950s British group of writers known as the angry young men: including Kingsley Amis and John Osborne). Finally, almost anything written by Thomas Pynchon or Kurt Vonnegut. For story writers who might be considered ficitive narrative philo­ sophers who support the long-term, mutually-rewarding relationship based upon goodness include William Trevor’s short story “The Piano Teacher’s Pupil;” Ernest Thomson’s play, “On Golden Pond;” and Colson Whitehead’s short novel, Nickel Boys. In each case there is a friendship that is created and nurtured by caring and goodness. How do you find such fictive narrative examples? Like the empirical cases, the first place to try is your school library and the research librarian. They might be able to find you an example for what you need. If that doesn’t work, then go to the Literature Department and make an appointment with a teacher you know or with the chair. You probably want something short so that you can absorb it and create a summary and a key quote or two. Remember, movies can count too. What fictive narrative philosophy offers is a presentation meant to appeal to the personal worldview of the reader in order to make your choice plausible (in our example whether a long-term friendship based

Finding Out What You Believe

127

upon goodness is to be preferred over a short-term friendship based upon utility or pleasure). To be clear, your general argument will still have an overarching deductive form, but the critical premises being examined from a pro or con standpoint will be supported by abductive reasoning via fictive narra­ tive philosophy, which should render them plausibly the most likely result and, thus, be supportive to your general argumentative presention.

The Elements of a Finished Pre-Essay Packet A finished pre-essay packet should contain the following elements5: • • • •

Cover page Brainstorming sheets Outline of the argument Additional statistical or fictive narrative material (quotes and/or sum­ maries along with your bibliographical information for citation)

I suggest that the pre-essay packet be turned in along with the essay. Only the essay is graded but the pre-essay packet provides the professor with a strong diagnostic tool for helping students improve on their next essay.

Reading Questions 1. What are some of the general purposes of any evaluation? 2. How do we accomplish making the assessed character of the argu­ ment clear and then analyzing this into its components? 3. How does one decide on which premise to focus? 4. What is a crucial premise for evaluation? 5. What is a controversial premise? 6. What is a brainstorming sheet and how does one create one? 7. What elements should be listed on the cover sheet? 8. What elements should be in the pre-essay packet?

Notes 1 I should note that I generally require students to put down the numbers of pages where they found various premises. 2 I have used bullet points for the sample brainstorming sheet. Many of my stu­ dents, however, have used other methods, such as creating trees or fences with the thoughts as written on the page by hand. This method integrates design with the expression of thoughts. If you are graphically talented, this might be

128

Responding to the Text

a good strategy for you. Whatever unlocks your critical imagination is what you should employ. Trial and error should show you what is best for you. 3 I would suggest that students begin with databases of published articles, such as ProQuest or First Search, in order to access journal articles written in peer reviewed venues. As a secondary source I would point students toward free Internet sources such as The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (geared toward undergraduates) (https://www.iep.utm.edu/) or The Stanford Encyclo­ pedia of Philosophy (geared toward graduate students) (https://plato.stanford. edu). Because these are peer reviewed, they can be trusted over other nonpeer reviewed sites on the Internet. 4 For background on experimental philosophy see Tania Lombrozo, Joshua Knobe, and Shaun Nichols, eds. Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, vols. 1 & 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, 2018) and Edouard Machery and Elizabeth O’Neil, eds. Current Controversies in Experimental Philosophy (New York and London: Routledge, 2014). 5 Some instructors may want to create their own versions of the important argu­ ments they want students to reconstruct. In this case I suggest uploading these onto course intranet tools such as Blackboard/Canvas after students have made their first attempt at the argument. In these cases I require students to create an integrated outline combining aspects of the professor’s outline along with their original efforts. All three outlines should be included in the pre-essay packet.

Chapter 8

The Con Essay

This chapter will set out the general strategy of writing a con essay. We will follow the sample argument from Aristotle set out in Chap­ ter 7. In the next chapter the general strategy of the pro essay is set out. The flow of the con essay is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Statement of objections Anticipation of and refutation of rebuttals Theoretical observations Significance of the argument

Introduction The introduction should have the following elements: Identification of the conclusion being examined, the key premises (chosen on the basis of their being crucial and controversial), the statement of authorial standpoint (in this case, con), and a short statement on essay strategy. In the example argument set out in Chapter 7, an introduction that fulfills these requirements would read like this: Sample Introduction—Paragraph 1

Aristotle argues in Book Eight of the Nicomachean Ethics that the best sort of friendship is one based upon goodness. He bases this argument upon two objectionable premises: (a) Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones and (b) interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent. This essay will examine these pivotal premises and show them to be false, thus rendering Aristotle’s general conclusion as unproven.

130

Responding to the Text

This paragraph is only a model but a few comments are in order. In the argumentative essay (especially the 750–word through 2,400–word model), it is important to be efficient with one’s introduction. There is no need to give too much background information that is irrelevant to exploring the argument at hand.

Statement of Objections The statement of objections should have the following elements: (a) a critical reading of the premise at hand, (b) a short list of surface objec­ tions, and (c) how the surface objections really reveal deep problems. (This procedure should be repeated for each premise examined—remem­ ber to change paragraphs when you change your focus to another premise.) Sample Objection to One Premise—Paragraphs 2 and 3

[Critical reading of premise] Aristotle asserts the objectionable premise that long-term relationships are better than short-term ones. This essay will interpret this to mean that one should avoid possible highly pleasurable transitory relationships in favor of the search for deeper, more lasting relationships. [A short list of surface objec­ tions] It is the position of this essay that such a premise is flawed. This is because: (a) Life is transitory. One should seize the day and find pleasure in the moment rather than losing something nice in the vain search for the long-term; (b) high intensity of feeling is to be preferred over low intensity of feeling. This is a more relevant stand­ ard of value. High intensity is hard (if not impossible) to maintain in the long run, thus, temporary, short-term pleasure that is intense is to be preferred over long-term, more permanent, low-intensity relation­ ships; and (c) most Taoists and Buddhists do not hold out for the immortal. They believe it is a spiritual illusion. Thus, looking for the permanent is a fool’s game that leads one away from (rather than toward) spiritual truth. [How surface objections reveal deep problems] Let us begin by examining our attitude toward the transitory nature of life. On the one hand some might seek some outlets of immortality, such as art. Hippocrates said, “Life is short, Art is long.” How are we to deal with the transitory nature of life? One way is to escape into the delu­ sion of long-term friendship possibilities. This is a ruse. Life is short. We must grab for the pleasure and satisfaction wherever we may find it. Tomorrow we may be dead. To seek for a tomorrow that may never happen is to marry an illusion. You live right now. You have

The Con Essay

131

a potential for happiness right now. Why is there a question of what to do? [The student should continue on and cover (b) and (c) above through how those surface objections reveal deep problems.]

Anticipation of and Refutation of Rebuttals The anticipations of and refutation of rebuttals should have the following components: (a) the best possible argument that can be made against your surface objections, and (b) the best possible argument that can be made against the deeper problems. Sample of Anticipation and Refutation of Rebuttals—Mid-Essay

[Anticipation of rebuttals] Now Aristotle might disagree with my response on this key premise. He might say that though life is transi­ tory, this is not a reason to abandon a strategy toward long-term values over those at the moment. He might say that, given our short time on Earth, we should be even more aware of making the most of what we are capable of. A person of excellence is striving toward a long-term goal via moderation regardless of his or her amount of time on Earth. [Refutation of rebuttals] But Aristotle is surely wrong here. It is just as possible that the opposite is true. Aristotle stacks the deck in favor of his theory of moderation and excellence. These are not argued for, but are assumed to be, self-evidently true. But nothing could be further from the truth. This author’s critical statements are a case in point. It is just as intuitively plausible that living in the moment and for the moment is what is excellent. In this case, excel­ lent refers to being unburdened and free to explore the possibilities that each day presents. Since intuition is the ultimate ground for each claim, Aristotle cannot claim firmer grounding for his account. [Repeat the anticipation and refutation of rebuttals for the other premises.]

Theoretical Observations Now transform your rebuttals to their more theoretical expressions. Sample of Theoretical Observations—Toward the End of the Essay

Metaphysically we must see ourselves as fragile beings in a dance before death. It is all about to end sooner or later. Regardless, we

132

Responding to the Text

must act on that possibility. Why delay and postpone for what prob­ ably never will be? Hard-core, empirical engagement of the now dic­ tates that we make of it what we can. Life must be lived in the moment. Living for a tomorrow that may never come is a fool’s errand. That magical phrase, “and they lived happily ever after” is a trick that if you wait for it and your (prince/princess) charming you are very likely to be disappointed. Better by far to embrace carpe diem (seizing the day—now). Because of this mistaken bias for “hap­ pily ever after,” Aristotle can never fix his argument into something acceptable.

Significance of Argument Now discuss the argument’s significance and its relevance today. Sample Significance of the Argument—Last Paragraph

Today’s society offers an important context for accepting or rejecting Aristotle’s account of friendship. Aristotle wants to elevate friendship to an interactive striving for the good. To this end he employs the following controversial premises: (a) long-term relationships are better than short-term ones, and (b) interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent. This essay has shown these both to be false. Instead, it has been suggested that pleasure and spontaneity (as opposed to slogging after goodness) is to be preferred as a model of friendship and of living one’s life. So much of modern life is planned out for you: What courses you take in high school and your activities are all directed toward college. Once you reach college it is all about getting a job or going to graduate school. When is a person supposed to have fun? If we always live for the long-term future ahead of us, then we put off who we really are until then—if we live that long. A better alternative is to engage in the present. Do not look to tomorrow for the answer. Friendship is like holding a bird in one’s hand. For one to appreciate the bird one must lay open his grasp so that he might enjoy the bird. However, by opening the hand, the bird may flee at any moment. That’s what is always at risk, but the possibility of the union disintegrating gives it a potent intensity. Forget tomorrow. There is freedom in the present and in the pleas­ ure that one may find. These are the only friendships worth having.

Common Mistakes In my teaching this method over the years I have encountered these common mistakes:

The Con Essay

133

• Writing long and flowery introductions. • The objections are not fully developed. They often stop at the surface arguments and do not proceed to the deeper problems. • Students often run the premises and objections together, mixing them. This creates confusion on the part of the reader. It is important to label what you are doing so that the reader understands clearly your orderly progression. • Anticipation and refutation of rebuttals—many students bring up weak counterstatements. They want so much to defeat the author that they are reticent to really consider the question from that view­ point. This is not intellectually honest. Try to stretch yourself by empathetically projecting yourself into the other standpoint. • Theoretical observations—try to arrive at the logically antecedent causes that explain the general, underlying reason why you believe the way you do. This is hard work. There is a tendency to view the problem at the same level as the argument you are considering, rather than at the level of some tenet that is more foundational.

Chapter 9

The Pro Essay

This chapter will set out the general strategy of writing a pro essay. We will follow from the example argument from Aristotle set out in Chapter 7. The flow of the pro essay is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Objectors to key premises Replies to the objections Theoretical observations Significance of the argument

Let’s examine each of these in order.

Introduction The introduction should have the following elements: Identification of the conclusion being examined, the key premises (chosen on the basis of their being crucial and controversial), the statement of author­ ial standpoint (in this case pro), and a short statement on essay strategy. In the sample argument set out in Chapter 7, an introduction that ful­ fills these requirements would read like this: Sample Introduction—Paragraph 1

Aristotle argues in Book Eight of the Nicomachean Ethics that the best sort of friendship is one based upon goodness. He bases this argument upon two controversial premises: (a) Long-term relationships are better than short-term ones, and (b) interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent. It is here that detractors will focus their attention. This essay will examine the strength of these objections in order and then show them to be mistaken, thus sup­ porting Aristotle’s general conclusion.

The Pro Essay

135

As with the con essay outlined in the previous chapter, this paragraph is only a model but a few comments are in order. In the argumentative essay (especially the 750–word through 2,400–word model), it is import­ ant to be efficient with one’s introduction. There is no need to give too much background information that is irrelevant to exploring the argu­ ment at hand.

Objectors to Key Premises The statement of objections should have the following elements: (a) A critical reading of the premise at hand, (b) a short list of surface objec­ tions, and (c) how the surface objections really reveal deep problems. [This procedure should be repeated for each premise examined. Remem­ ber to change paragraphs when you change your focus to another premise.] Sample Objection to One Premise—Paragraphs 2 and 3

[Critical reading of premise] Aristotle’s detractors might object to the controversial premise that long-term relationships are better than short-term ones. This essay will interpret this to mean that one should avoid possible highly pleasurable, transitory relationships in favor of the search for deeper, more lasting relationships. [A short list of surface objections] Objectors here might contend that such a premise is flawed. This is because: (a) Life is transitory. One should seize the day and find pleasure in the moment, rather than losing something nice in the vain search for the long-term; (b) high inten­ sity of feeling is to be preferred over low intensity. This is a more relevant standard of value. High intensity is hard (if not impossible) to maintain in the long run, thus, temporary, short-term pleasure that is intense is to be preferred over long-term, more permanent, lowintensity relationships; and (c) most Taoists and Buddhists do not hold out for the immortal. They believe it is a spiritual illusion. Thus, looking for the permanent is a fool’s game that leads one away from (rather than toward) spiritual truth. [How surface objections reveal deep problems] Let us begin by examining the objector’s attitude toward the transitory nature of life. On the one hand some might seek some outlets of immortality, such as art. Hippocrates said, “Life is short, Art is long.” How are we to deal with the transitory nature of life? One way is to escape into the delusion of long­ term possibilities of friendship. This is a ruse. Life is short. We must grab for the pleasure and satisfaction wherever we may find it. Tomorrow we may be dead. To seek for a tomorrow that may never happen is to marry

136

Responding to the Text

an illusion. You live right now. You have a potential for happiness right now. Why is there a question of what to do? [The student should con­ tinue on and cover (b) and (c) above through how those surface objec­ tions—on the part of the example objector—reveal deep problems.]

Replies to the Objections The replies to the objections should have the following components: (a) The best possible argument that can be made against your surface objec­ tions, and (b) the best possible argument that can be made against the deeper problems. Sample Reply to One Premise—Mid-Essay

The objections raised are significant. If they are correct, Aristotle’s argu­ ment will certainly fail. However, this essay seeks to defend Aristotle. Let’s address these various objections in order. First, though the objector argues that life is transitory, this is not a reason to abandon a strategy toward long-term values over those at the moment. Given our short time on Earth, we should be even more aware of making the most of what we are capable of. A shortness of time does not mean that we should disregard time and become libertines, but rather that we should take the intensity of our brief lives as a clarion to develop ourselves according to our highest capacities. A person of excellence is striving toward a long-term goal via moderation regardless of his or her amount of time on Earth. This is what Aristotle meant when he opened the Ethics with an exhortation to look for the good as the end to which all things naturally strive. Even if we are not long for this world, the principles of what makes a human life valuable (including its friendships) transcend any of our individual existences. We value them because they show us a preferable path to happiness. [The stu­ dent should repeat replies to the other objections.]

Theoretical Observations Now transform your replies into theoretical observations. Sample of Theoretical Observations—Toward the End of the Essay

In today’s society so much is full of frenetic change. What is true on Monday may be false on Friday. Can people effectively live this way? Aristotle suggests a different route: Friendship based upon making each other better. To this end he creates an argument with the fol­ lowing controversial premises: (a) Long-term relationships are better

The Pro Essay

137

than short-term ones, and (b) interactive goodness makes all parties permanently more excellent. There are really two key issues here: Permanence and the value of embracing the good with another person. In the first instance, if we are to have values that are worth living for, they cannot be so flimsy that they disappear as soon as they come, like the first frost of winter. Most people recognize the value of permanence so we strive for it in all we do—such as saving for a house, looking for a career rather than a mere job, and choosing a style of life that balances the soul for the long term. In the second instance, Aristotle recognizes that we are social animals who need to share. In friendship, what could be higher than sharing goodness? By doing this we both improve and share in the experience of actualiz­ ing each other toward ultimate human goals: Human excellence that confers deep happiness. These are the foundational truths that lie behind Aristotle’s presentation.

Significance of the Argument Now discuss the argument’s significance and its relevance today. Sample Significance of the Argument—Last Paragraph

We stand at a crossroads in today’s world. Either we head down the way to superficial pleasures and temporary sensory stimulation or we set out toward a road that is harder in the short term but gets us to a more worthy destination. The substantial is always the best choice. This is true in the friendships we cultivate. Friendships built upon the good will last a lifetime. When we are confronted with personal challenges in which we cease to be able to deliver utility or pleasure to another, it is only the friendship based upon goodness that will see us through difficult times. And because of reciprocity, we also wel­ come the chance to serve our true friends as well. These are substan­ tial principles upon which a strong and enduring society can be built. It is as true today as when Aristotle wrote his book almost 2,500 years ago.

Common Mistakes • Writing long and flowery introductions. • Setting out weak objectors that are not developed beyond quick sur­ face objections. • Running your objections and your replies together—make it clear (by using new paragraphs and by labeling) where you are in the essay.

138

Responding to the Text

• Not really answering the objector—often the objections and replies sit on two mutually exclusive planets and never interact. To solve this, imagine you are a lawyer in the courtroom of truth and arguing for your client, Aristotle, against possible attacks. • Underdevelopment—look to your brainstorming sheets to ensure you have fully said what you believe is important to say.

Appendix

The Big Picture

The purpose of this appendix is to fill in a few gaps by providing add­ itional contexts in which outlines can be used to unlock the structures of various argumentative texts. As always, the general execution of this task will be suggestive rather than comprehensive.

Micro- and Macro-Arguments Throughout this primer the emphasis has been on outlining arguments that occur in several paragraphs or, at most, in a few pages. Such arguments are the atomic building blocks upon which larger arguments may be con­ structed. In this way the conclusions from small arguments become prem­ ises for larger arguments. For example, a chapter itself might have an argumentative structure. Such an argument could be outlined using the same techniques described in Chapter 4. The main difference is that the text is of greater length and the references to the premises are less explicit. For this reason, the best way to prepare for outlining the macro-argument is to begin with outlines of the micro-arguments contained within it. The larger argument emerges from the conclusions of the various microarguments. In this way, understanding the macro-argument involves apprehending the relationship of the atomic micro-arguments. It is this larger structure that affords a deeper understanding of what an author is trying to say. One’s reconstruction of the macro-argument may involve some tamper­ ing with the micro-arguments according to the principle of fairness set out in Chapter 4. The parts influence our understanding of the whole and vice versa. This dynamic tension between part and whole allows a fuller under­ standing of context in accordance with the pluralism principle. Sometimes a whole book has an argument that may be reconstructed from the chapter arguments. The difference lies in the levels of generality involved. As one describes a progressively larger and larger section of text, the premises of the macro-arguments themselves come from increas­ ingly general sections of text. These relations are pictorially depicted in Figure A.1.

140

The Big Picture

Atomic Micro-Arguments

Chapter Macro-Arguments

Book Macro-Argument

a b

A I

c d B e

Figure A.1 Macro- and Micro-Arguments

The same types of dynamic interaction can occur between chapter macroarguments and book macro-arguments. This complicates the contextual fabric and thus enhances comprehension through the pluralism principle. Examples of this level of argument are difficult to present in a slim volume such as this because of space constraints, however, some flavor for the macro-argument can be presented through an examination of the Declaration of Independence. This level of macro-argument more closely resembles the chapter-level macro-argument.

Example One—The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath

The Big Picture

141

shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accus­ tomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and for­ midable to Tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfort­ able, and distant from the Depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his Invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remain­ ing in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the condi­ tions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superior to the Civil Power.

142

The Big Picture

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protec­ tion and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is, at this time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most bar­ barous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeav­ oured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have

The Big Picture

143

been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do— And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. A few of the micro-outlines that may be constructed from this docu­ ment include: A. 1. A decent respect for mankind requires nations to declare any changes in their sovereignty—(assertion) [2. America wishes a change in its sovereignty—(fact)] [3. America has a decent respect for mankind—(assertion)] 4. America will now declare its intentions for self-rule—(1–3) B. 1. All humans have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—(assertion) 2. Governments are established to protect these rights—(assertion) 3. Governments are empowered by the citizens to perform their rightful tasks—(assertion) 4. Governments that do not protect rights can be changed by the citizens—(1–3) C. 1. There are high costs to be paid in switching governments—(fact) 2. Prudence dictates choosing the lowest cost, all things being equal —(fact) 3. A new government should be established only on serious grounds —(1, 2) D. 1. A new government should be established only on serious grounds —(chain argument from argument C)

144

The Big Picture

2. A long series of abuses under despotic rule constitutes serious grounds—(assertion) 3. A long series of abuses under despotic rule would permit a change in governments—(1, 2) 4. The colonies have suffered a long series of abuses under despotic rule—(assertion) 5. The colonies may change governments—(3, 4) E. [1. A tyrant and a despot are generally characterized by limiting their sub­ jects’ self-determination and inflicting harm upon them—(assertion)] 2. The king of England has refused assent to laws, forbidden gover­ nors to pass laws, tried to abolish popular representation, and obstructed the administration of justice—(fact) 3. The king of England has limited the colonists’ self­ determination—(2) 4. The king of England has plundered the seas, ravaged the coasts, burned the towns, and destroyed the lives of the colonists—(fact) 5. The king of England has inflicted harm upon his subjects—(4) 6. The king of England is a tyrant and a despot—(1, 3, 5) F. 1. Peaceful methods of resolving political conflict refer to working through channels—(fact) 2. Colonies have petitioned the crown—(fact) 3. Colonies have warned the crown—(fact) 4. Colonies have used moral suasion—(fact) 5. Colonies have tried peaceful methods to resolve their conflict— (1–4) G. 1. Tyrants and despots are unfit to rule—(assertion) [2. Every state needs a fit ruler—(fact)] 3. The king of England is a tyrant and a despot to the colonies— (chain argument from E) 4. The king of England is unfit to rule the colonies—(1, 3) 5. The colonies need a new government—(2, 4) H. 1. The colonists have tried peaceful methods to resolve their conflict —(chain argument from F) 2. The king of England has lent a deaf ear to their peaceful methods —(fact) 3. The citizens of a country have a right to self-determination— (chain argument from B)

The Big Picture

145

4. Overthrowing the king’s rule is the only way to ensure self­ determination—(assertion) 5. The American colonies may overthrow the king of England’s rule —(1–4) To construct a macro-argument from these eight deductive and inductive arguments, first study the relationships between the arguments. Try to see how all the arguments might fit together into a larger argu­ ment that encompasses the general sense of the micro-arguments with­ out going into the specific detail that they do. For example: A.

1. Governments that do not protect rights may be changed by the citizens of that country—(assertion from argument B) 2. A new government should only be established as the result of very serious grounds—(assertion from argument C) 3. Not protecting the rights of one’s citizens by a king constitutes very serious grounds—(assertion from argument D) 4. The king of England is a despot and a tyrant—(assertion from argument E) 5. Colonies may change governments—(1–4) 6. Every peaceful avenue should be explored in order for a people to be justified in changing governments—(assertion from argu­ ment F) 7. Colonies have used every peaceful avenue to address their griev­ ances but the king has lent a deaf ear—(fact from argument F) 8. Colonies may employ non-peaceful means to change govern­ ments—(6, 7) 9. Despots are unfit to rule—(assertion from argument G) 10. Rulers who lend a deaf ear to legitimate complaints are unfit to rule—(assertion from argument H) 11. The king of England is unfit to rule—(4, 7, 9, 10) 12. The colonies may change governments—(5, 8, 11)

Argument I takes a little something from each argument: Sometimes it is from the conclusion of the argument, sometimes it is from a crucial or controversial premise that is key to that micro-argument. It is important, however, that in constructing the macro-argument one pay close atten­ tion to representing the general sense of the entire passage. This is a tough task. What better way to accomplish this than by using the detailed micro-arguments at hand? These chapter arguments, in turn, will be used in a similar way to con­ struct book macro-arguments. In this way one can obtain exact

146

The Big Picture

understanding at a general level. This sort of comprehension is the most difficult to acquire. Often, people who pretend to this mastery level are really full of vagueness and ambiguity. They find it hard to acquire the same rigor and precision that are more readily obtained at the microlevel. And since much of a discipline’s meaningful discourse takes place on the macro-level, these critics are often in the position of not being able to clearly distinguish the good remarks from the bad, the appropriate widelevel generalizations from the callow and simplistic. Macro-level outlining can go a long way toward providing just such a standard and thus can be an appropriate tool for helping students con­ trol and understand the form of larger, general-level discourse.

Compare and Contrast One example of the above can be found in the compare-and-contrast evaluation. As a rule, this sort of standard calls for the student to discover two complementary facets of a macro-argument. Thus, this type of evalu­ ation can serve as an example of the use of macro-argumentation. Rules

1. Find the appropriate body of text for each author called for in the compare-and-contrast evaluation. 2. Find the micro-outlines that cover the texts mentioned in rule 1. 3. Addressing one author at a time, create chapter- or other-level macro-outline(s) from the body of micro-outlines. 4. When macro-outlines are complete for both authors, compare the outlines side by side. Examine the types of conclusions each is trying to draw. 5. Make a list of associated tenets that attach to these conclusions. This list should be similar to the elemental analysis described in Chapter 7. 6. Put each argument before you. Find the appropriate premises to evaluate according to the procedure described in Chapter 7. 7. Decide what you feel to be right or wrong with each premise, using the procedures discussed in Chapter 7—noting, where necessary, any logical fallacies (Chapter 2). 8. Construct your essay from the viewpoint of the “correct” position (which may be a third alternative), using the authors involved as foils (much in the way that the counterarguments are used in the pro evaluation). The contrast and comparison points are thus to be made only insofar as such insights bear upon the “correct” position. The two authors’ premises and conclusions thus become springboards by which the correct view of things is revealed. Mere exposition of the

The Big Picture

147

authors (which is where many student essays of this type begin and end) is not sufficient to create an entire essay. Such exposition merely sets the stage for the real action to follow. As props and scenery they are there to enhance the drama—not to be the drama itself.

General Questions The compare-and-contrast essay is one of many types of general questions. It is always most difficult for students to execute because it presupposes a rigorous limiting of the topic before beginning the essay. Just because a question is broad in scope does not mean that a tight outline cannot be found to represent it. A good outline always suits the scope of the inquiry. The skill acquired through practice with microarguments is easily transferred to macro-arguments. By completing one’s skills at this second level of discourse, one has mastered the essential outlining technique. If this primer is being used in conjunction with various course readings, then this final step can be prac­ ticed by using the outlines already completed at the micro level. In my own teaching I often collect and examine several micro-arguments throughout the term and spend some time at the end of the course sug­ gesting to the student ways to put their term’s work together through creating various macro-level outlines. Such a notebook of outlines, though time-consuming to prepare, is invaluable to the student. It provides an in-depth appraisal of some par­ ticular text ready for instant review. Learning how to prepare such rigorous reconstruction of a text allows the student to create an artifact of lasting value. Later, in business or some other profession, the same principles can be used to create hard-hitting reports and management presentations. The practical, applied value of this skill cannot be overemphasized. For the reader who is not using this as part of another course of study, I would suggest taking some book or article that is of interest or of importance to your work and applying the outlining and evaluation tech­ niques on the micro and macro levels.

Final Remarks We all want to confront the persuaders of this world with confidence. This modest volume proposes positive steps that can allow one to real­ ize such an aspiration. If we are indeed best defined as thinking, rational animals, and if logic is the language of reason, then mastering the techniques of outlining and evaluation of logical argument is one of the most fundamental activities we can pursue. Competence in

148

The Big Picture

outlining and evaluation means that each of us may move one step closer to more fully realizing our humanity—and that’s a goal well worth striving for.

Reading Questions 1. 2. 3. 4.

What is the difference between a macro- and a micro-argument? How can one analyze a macro-argument with precision? What is the general strategy of compare-and-contrast questions? How should one approach other types of general questions?

Glossary

Abduction An offshoot of pragmatic philosophy that gathers various possible explanations for a given event and then tries to discover the most plausible account. Accent A fallacy of ambiguity in which multiple meanings are created due to the inclusion of the passage in an unusual context. Amphiboly A fallacy of ambiguity in which two or more distinct mean­ ings are created from a poorly formed grammatical structure. Analogy, induction by Analogy rests on the assumption that objects that are similar in certain respects will also be similar in other respects. Appeal to pity This fallacy persuades via an emotional appeal. Argument An argument consists of at least two sentences, one of which purports logically to follow from the other. There are two large classes of argument: Deductive and inductive. Argumentum ad baculum See Argument from coercion. Argumentum ad hominem See Argument against the speaker. Argument against the speaker In this fallacy the argument itself is not attacked. Rather, one critiques the person putting forth the argu­ ment. This shifts the ground from where it should be. Argument from authority This fallacy has two forms: Connected and disconnected. In disconnected fallacy an expert from one field reports on something about which he is not an expert. In connected fallacy one accepts an expert’s testimony on a subject that goes beyond the evi­ dence and represents an analysis about something that is not agreed upon even by experts in that field. In this case the listener needs more than one expert’s opinion. A logical argument is also required. Argument from coercion A fallacy that rests on the premise that might makes right. Argument from ignorance This fallacy rests on the notion that a proposition is true simply because it has never been proven false, and vice versa.

150

Glossary

Assertion The weakest justification. It means that the premise is true simply because one person has said it. The truth of the premise may be doubted. Audience The people at whom the argument is directed. Begging the question A fallacy in which one assumes what one is trying to prove. Belief dogmatists In statistics, belief dogmatists set out that inductive rea­ soning should emphasize the belief dimension. By emphasing the believe-type probability, these practitioners generally set forth a single sort of frequency interpretation. After all, for these practitioners, going into the statistics from various directions takes time away from project­ ing the evidence into an interpretation within the general structure of accepted scientific explanation. Care Care is the emotional response of helping another that derives from the combination of empathy and sympathy. Causation, inductive argument This type of inductive argument seeks to show that a set of antecedent conditions brings about a subsequent set of conditions via a scientifically recognized mechanism. Changing the question A fallacy in which one shifts the grounds of the argument from the issue under discussion to another issue for which an answer is readily available. Classification One of the three divisions of the text. This is a mode of analysis in which classes are created on the basis of a division made in the common body of knowledge. This can become a useful element for the argument (in which case it is included as a fact or assertion), or it can be of no direct importance to the argument (in which case it is included in a topical outline but not in a logical outline). Cogent argument An inductive argument in which all inferences are highly probable (strong) and all the premises are true. Common body of knowledge One of the elements within the context of argument. It consists of a collection of facts and shared assumptions about what counts as a proper way to relate facts. Compare and contrast A form of general evaluation in which a macro-argument provides the structure. The compare-and-contrast essay is a vehicle by which one may illustrate the “correct” position on a given point of contention. Conclusion This is what an argument aims for. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. Often, we call such sentences conclusions within the finished argument and points of contention apart from this environment. Context of argument The context of argument contains five elements that comprehensively describe the dynamics of logical persuasion:

Glossary

151

Speaker, audience, point of contention, argument, and common body of knowledge. It may be adapted to pictorial argument as well. Contradictory opposites See Opposites. Contrary opposites See Opposites. Controversial premise A controversial premise is one that seems to have a greater number of disputable elements that are comprised within it. Crucial premise A crucial premise is usually an assertion or a group of assertions. Among several candidates the premise(s) that seem(s) logic­ ally more fundamental will be taken to be crucial. Thus, from among three premises—A, B, C—if B and C are shown to depend logically upon A, then A is more fundamental and, therefore, more crucial. Deductive argument An argument whose conclusion seeks to follow necessarily from the premises. Dependent events In statistics two events are dependent when the exercise of event1 affects the outcome of event2. Dilemma question This fallacy focuses attention away from the princi­ pal issue by offering false choices. Dividing the text The text may be divided into three parts: Argument, classification, and side comments. Enthymeme See Suppressed premise. Enumerative induction In enumerative induction the strategy is to list all the observed properties of something with the objective of making a generalization about that type of thing. Equivocation A fallacy of ambiguity that operates by using one term, and assigning two or more meanings to that term, and then using whichever meaning suits the purpose—moving back and forth between meanings. Evaluation of an argument An evaluation is a reasoned response to a logical argument or to a fallacy. A pro response supports the author in question. A con evaluation seeks to disprove the author’s contention. Evidence Data obtained in repeated trials in order to judge frequency and so ascertain the probability for an outcome and assesses a particular belief about some empirical event. The interpretation of raw data from an empirical trial according to the rules of the trial and statistical inter­ pretative techniques. Fact This is the middle-strength justification. It means that most lis­ teners would accept the given truth put forth as objectively correct. Facts, disputing of Facts may be disputed by developing one’s examin­ ation of the following categories: (1) Measurements and standards of the circumstances, including (a) Setting up a measurement standard and (b) measuring by that standard; (2) making value judgments within the standard; and (3) putting the standards into practice.

152

Glossary

Fairness, principle of Always reconstruct an argument in its strongest form even if it requires correcting trivial errors (though these may be noted elsewhere). Fake news On the Internet, fake news is when an actor tries to set out false statements as if they were facts in order to sell a product or to influence public opinion. Fallacy of ambiguity This is a classification of fallacy that contains three subclasses: Equivocation, amphiboly, and accent. Ambiguity means that multiple meanings are created so that the author may refer to one at one moment and another at another moment, all to his or her advantage. Fallacy of composition A false inference that states that properties properly assigned to the part may also be assigned to the whole. Fallacy of division A false inference that states that properties assigned to the whole may also be assigned to the part. Fallacy of repetition The repetition of some argument does not increase its likelihood of being true. False cause A false inference that occurs when there is no good evi­ dence by which to infer a causal relationship. False inference A classification of fallacy that occurs when the infer­ ences are drawn through improper exercise of the various rules of deduction and/or induction. There are three subclasses: False cause, composition, and division. Fictive narrative philosophy A mode of exploring abductive philoso­ phy. Certain narratives (novels, short stories, plays, and movies) make claims concerning points of contention that have philosophical relevance. Frequency dogmatists In statistics, frequency dogmatists believe that we ought to seek out multiple statistical sources in order to get a firmer grip on whether there is bias within one particular sourcing and inter­ pretation of data to obtain evidence. Hasty generalization This fallacy comes about when a broad con­ clusion is created from an atypical sample. Incomplete evidence A fallacy in which one makes a judgment without having the salient portion of data available. This is because the evidence presented is not exhaustive. Independent events In statistics two events are independent when the exercise of event1 does not affect the outcome of event2. Indirect argument This form of argument varies from direct argument because, instead of having the point of contention proved positively, the logical complement is disproved, or the possible choices are nar­ rowed to one. Inductive argument This form of argument uses statistics and prob­ ability to assess raw data in order to create generalizations that are

Glossary

153

highly probable (though not necessary). These sorts of argument are closely aligned to the scientific method. Inference This is formally the strongest justification. The inference is the vehicle that makes one accept some premise as a result of accepting other premises. The truth of the premise is thus dependent upon the truth of those other premises. Improper analogy This fallacy occurs by incorrectly shifting the grounds of argument from properties belonging to one statement to those of another. Generally the former is well-known and beyond dis­ pute, while the latter is controversial. There is no scientific mechanism to legislate this shift. Interlocking premises A property of an argument that states that all the premises are represented directly or indirectly in the conclusion’s inference. Justification A justification is the reason we accept a premise. In this book, the myriad of possible reasons has been simplified into three groups: Assertion, fact, and inference. Logical argument and reading comprehension Logical outlining requires exact, precise exposition of the mechanics of the argument and is more useful than a topical outline. Such precise reconstruction requires a high level of understanding on the part of the reader. Logical complements The argument assumes that if we want to prove a point (thesis), first we can assume its opposite (antithesis) and then show how that opposite leads us into an absurd (false) state of affairs. Logical fallacy A bad argument that does not persuade through logic. Logical outline A logical outline presents only the arguments within a passage. It carefully highlights premises and conclusions. There are three varieties of logical outline: Purely deductive, inductive under a deductive umbrella, and abductive under a deductive umbrella. Loose inference Whenever the relationship between a premise justified by inference and those listed to support it is such that this justification can be doubted, then the inference is considered loose. It is used only in deductive arguments. Macro-argument The argument contained within larger sections of text—a chapter of a book. Though this section of text is of a grander scale, outlining can still be used to illuminate the structure of the argu­ ment for more general evaluation. Micro-argument The argument found in short sections of text—any­ where from a few sentences to several pages. This scale of argument stands as the building block of larger macro-arguments. Opposites Contradictory opposites: Among two propositions that are contradictory opposites, these two propositions have opposite truthvalues. For example, if one is true then the other must be false. Con­ trary opposites: Among two propositions that are contrary opposites,

154

Glossary

one may not know for certain the truth-value of one given any truthvalue for the other. Order of genesis The order of genesis begins with the conclusion and works to establish premises. These operate as cause and effect respectively. Order of logical presentation In the logical order one begins with premises and works to the conclusion. These operate as cause and effect respectively. Personal Worldview Imperative “All people must develop a single comprehensive and internally coherent worldview that is good and that we strive to act out in our daily lives.” Persuasion The act of trying to win another over to your point of view. Phishing The use of logical fallacy in order to persuade someone to give them personal information so that the perpetrator can steal your money. Most often associated with the Internet. Point of contention The exact statement about which you are trying to persuade another. Within a finished argument this is called the conclusion. Premise The building block of an argument. Collectively, the premises cause one to accept the conclusion. Projection The use of an underlying mechanism that will enter into an explanation to offer a causal account of why one account should be believed. Most often used along with inductive logic to support a given scientific hypothesis. Proposition A declarative sentence with truth-value. Reductio ad absurdum See Logical complements. Remainders This principle of indirect argument assumes a limited number of cases. One can be shown to be the case if the others are shown not to be the case. Shifting the grounds A classification of logical fallacy that moves the focus of attention from the argument in question to something else (or uses something else to generate the conclusion). Shifting the terms A class of logical fallacy in which inferences are invalid because the terms themselves have been altered in some way. Side comments One of the three divisions of the text. Anything that is not an argument or a classification will be labeled a side comment. This information is more pertinent to a topical outline than to a logical outline. Social identification This fallacy relies upon social pressure and a “me too” principle. It suggests that popular acceptance can be equated with logical correctness. Sound argument An argument is sound if it is valid and all the premises are true. When an argument is sound, we must accept the conclusion.

Glossary

155

Speaker The person putting forth the argument. Statistics The beginning is with an empirical trial under the strictest conditions possible—such as the double-blind method. Raw data are collected and then interpreted into evidence. Suppressed premise These are premises that are needed to make an inference but are not explicitly made by the writer (aka enthymeme). Sure loss contract A sure loss contract is a probability bet (that because of the way it is structured) never wins. Thematic context Useful in determining what is a premise and what is a conclusion. By noting the point of the passage, the conclusion should become clear. The premises are the material used to support the conclusion. Tight inference Whenever the relationship between a premise justified by “inference” and those listed to support it is such that this justifica­ tion cannot be doubted, then the inference is tight. Used only in deductive arguments. Topical outline A summary of all the key points within a passage. Valid argument A deductive argument is valid when all the inferences are tight and all the premises are interlocking. In a valid argument, if one were to accept all the premises, he or she would have to accept the conclusion. Word clues Certain words that also aid one in determining what is a premise or a conclusion. Worldview Personal: The way a given individual views the world (facts and values). It is controlled by the Personal Worldview Imperative as a device of critical inquiry. For example, All people must develop a single comprehensive and internally coherent worldview that is good and that we strive to act out in our daily lives. Community: The general understanding of the facts and values in the world according to the common body of knowledge that each community member has a responsibility to update. For example, Each agent must contribute to a common body of know­ ledge that supports the creation of a shared community worldview (that is itself complete, coherent, and good) through which social institutions and their result­ ing policies might flourish within the constraints of the essential core, commonly held values (ethics, aesthetics, and religion).

Index

abductive logic 39, 61, 100–112

creating a logical outline using

abductive logic 106–112

the grounds of plausibility 100–104:

coherence 100–102

completeness 102–103

elegance 103

synonymy with personal

worldview 103–104 vicarious exploration of plausibility via fiction 104–106

fictive narrative philosophy 105

personal worldview exploration of

fictive worlds 105–106

accent see logical fallacies, accent

African Americans 42

ambiguity see logical fallacies, ambiguity

Amis, Kingsley 126

amphiboly see logical fallacies,

amphiboly

analysis see logical analysis

Aquinas, Thomas 108

argument 1, 5, 6

chain 71

conclusion 4, 5, 9 n.2

identifying 14–18

indirect 76–80

logical complements (reductio ad

absurdum) 77

macro v. micro 139–140, 143–146 compare and contrast 146–147 outlining the U.S. Declaration of Independence 140–146 premises 4, 5, 9 n. 2

suppressed 13, 18–20, 70

identifying 14–18

interlocking 70

sound arguments 61, 71

square of opposition (logical opposites) 77–80 valid arguments 70–71 Aristotle on friendship 118–120 appeal to pity see logical fallacies, appeal to pity argument against the speaker see logical fallacies, argument against the speaker argument by coercion see logical fallacies,

argument by coercion

argument from authority see logical falla­ cies, argument from authority argument from ignorance see logical falla­ cies, argument from ignorance

Aristotle 1, 4

assessing information sources 41

Atwood, Margaret 106

audience 1

begging the question see logical fallacies, begging the question

Bellow, Saul 126

belief 44–46

cause 4

formal 4

changing the question see logical fallacies,

changing the question

common body of knowledge 1, 9 n.1,

36–38, 39

normative elements 3; see also logical fallacies, common body of knowledge fallacies complete versus out-of-context presentations 47–49 composition see logical fallacies, composition

Index con essay see writing the essay, con essay conclusion see argument, conclusion conflicts of interest see professionalism and conflicts of interest context of the argument 1–2 contradictory opposites see opposites, contradictory contrary opposites see opposites, contrary deductive logic 39, 61

outlining 61–81, 118–120

Dickens, Charles 106

dilemma question see logical fallacies,

dilemma question division see logical fallacies, division Ellison, Ralph 106

enthymeme see argument, premises,

suppressed

essay writing see writing the essay

ethical theories 21

equivocation see logical fallacies,

equivocation evidence see inductive logic, probability, statistics, and evidence Facebook 39

fact(s) 2–4, 41–42

self-evident truths 45–46

fairness in reconstruction see logical out­ line, fairness in reconstruction

fake news 24, 39–49

multiple sources 40

independence of sources 40

fallacy see logical fallacies false cause see logical fallacies, false cause false inferences see logical fallacies, false inferences fictive narrative philosophy 61, 105–112 friendship see Aristotle on friendship God, belief in 107

hasty generalization see logical fallacies

Hornsby, Rogers 4, 5, 7

improper analogy see logical fallacies,

improper analogy

incomplete evidence see logical fallacies,

incomplete evidence

inductive logic 39, 61, 82–91, 91–95

Bayes’ Theorem 93–94

157

cogency 98

generalization 83–87

analogy 84–85

causation 85–87

enumeration 83–84

Mill’s Methods 87–91 joint method of agreement and difference 89–90

method of agreement 88

method of difference 88–89

residues 90–91

outlining 82–99 probability, statistics, and evidence 91–93, 94–95 belief dogmatists— 92–93 dependent and independent events — 94–95 frequency dogmatists— 92–93 inference 32, 70

tight 32, 70

loose (or false) 32, 70

internet and social media 49–56

anonymity and its effects 50–51

argumentum ad populum 51–52

E-commerce 53

phishing 54–56

trolls 52–53

King, Jr., Rev. Martin Luther 108

Latino Americans 42

law of excluded middle 47

law of non-contradiction 47

LGBTQ+ 42

logical analysis 7

logical argument see argument logical contradiction 46–47 logical outline 14, 61–68; see also topical

outline

common mistakes 75–76

fairness in reconstruction 65–66

mechanics 66–68, 71–75

sample editorial in Hometown

Gazette 67–68

purpose of 64

side comments 63, 69

vocabulary of key terms 68–71

argument 69

assertion 69

classification 69

conclusion 69

dividing the text 68

158

Index

fact 69–70 inference 70 interlocking premises 70 justification 69 premises 69 proposition 69 suppressed premises 70 logical fallacies 6, 23–38 common body of knowledge fallacies 36–38 shifting the grounds 24–32 argument against the speaker 24–25, 41 argument by coercion 25–26 argument from ignorance 26 appeal to pity 26–27 argument from authority 27–28 begging the question 28 changing the question 29 dilemma question 29–30, 41 hasty generalization 30–31 improper analogy 31 incomplete evidence 32 repetition 30 social identification 27, 41, 51–52 shifting the terms 32–36

ambiguity 32–34

accent 33

amphiboly 33

equivocation 32

false inferences 34–36

composition 35

division 35

false cause 34

logical inference see inference Muslims 42 Native Americans 108 online decimation of information 42–43 opinion 41–42 opposites contradictory 47

contrary 47

cub-contrary 47

Orange, Tommy 108 order of genesis 4, 6, 9 n. 2, 75 order of logical presentation 5, 6, 9 n. 2, 71–74, 96–97 Osborne, John 126

persuasion 1 personal worldview imperative see worldview, personal worldview imperative Plato 1, 108 point of contention 1, 4 Pope 39–40 prejudice 41–42 premises see argument, premises pro essay see writing the essay, pro essay probability see inductive logic, probability, statistics, and evidence professionalism and conflicts of interest 43–44 Pynchon, Thomas 126 repetition see logical fallacies, repetition shared community worldview imperative see worldview, shared commu­ nity worldview imperative Singer, Isaac Bashevis 107 skepticism 45 social identification see logical fallacies, social identification social media see internet and social media sorite argument see argument, chain speaker 2 statistics see inductive logic, probability, statistics and evidence sub-contrary opposites see opposites, subcontrary suppressed premises see argument, prem­ ises, suppressed thematic context see argument, premises, identifying argument conclu­ sion, premises, identifying theories of the good see ethical theories There, There 109–112; see also fictive nar­ rative philosophy Thomson, Ernest 126 topical outline 61–64; see also logical outline Trevor, William 126 trolls see internet and social media, trolls Trump, Donald 39–40 Vonnegut, Kurt 126 Wain, John 126 Whitehead, Colson 126

Index Williams, Ted 4, 5, 7

worldview 21–23

personal worldview imperative 39,

47, 106

defined 21

shared community worldview

imperative 4

defined 22

writing the essay 117–138

159

adding abduction 125

adding fictive narrative philosophy 126

adding statistics 125

brainstorming sheets 122–123

con essay 129–133

deciding which premises to write on

120–122

finishing the packet 123–124, 127

pro essay 134–138