Transcript Class #4 - 10/5/15

Philosophy 1100
Title:
Critical Reasoning
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Hand Back: Editorial Analysis #1
& Discuss
Tonight:
Class Presentations & Discussion on
Chapter 5.
1
Next Week – 10/12/2015
No class on-site
Midterm Exam (Take-home)
Portfolio #4
The Midterm Exam will be posted on Quia by Wednesday noon,
10/7. Most questions are multiple choice. Complete the exam by
composing a Microsoft Word file providing YOUR answers. You
may consult your notes, the laminated card, or textbook while
taking the exam, but NOT OTHER STUDENTS. Your answer
sheet does not need to have the questions themselves copied to it.
On your exam, please discuss which 3 (at least, more if you like)
questions did you find the most difficult and what other answers
did you find “plausible.” This will help me to evaluate the exam.
Your exam will not be considered complete without this feedback.
After you have finished taking the exam, email your exam (with
feedback) to me at [email protected]. E-mail with exam
attached must be received by me no later than 6:00 P.M. on
Monday, 10/12. Then take the evening off and do something nice
for yourself. Please Note: For every 8 hours (or partial) the exam
is late, a full grade will be reduced. NO EXCEPTIONS.
2
Student Portfolios:
Assignment #4
What is Clarity and why is it important?
When is vagueness and ambiguity a
problem? Collect 2-3 “artifacts” that
illustrate either you or someone else not being
clear “enough.”
For each, write a description or explanation of
the occasion and how things could have been
made more clear. What problem did it cause?
What was done, if anything, to resolve it?
3
Assignments for 10/19/2015
Read Chapters Six & Seven
That week you will teach the class how to
identify a particular logical fallacy.
Study Editorial Analysis Workshop
Powerpoint posted on Quia.
Second Editorial Analysis Due.
--- Instant Democracy is Never Doable
4
Chapters Six & Seven:
Logical Fallacies
Presenters:
Estelle: Argumentum Ad Hominem
Cindy: The Straw Man / False Dilemma
Rachael: Misplacing Burden of Proof / Begging the Question
Ari: Appeal to Emotion
James: Irrelevant Conclusions / Slippery Slope
Michele: Generalizations
Maria: Weak Analogy
Instructor: Fallacious Appeals to Authority, Popularity, Cause &
Effect; Untestable Explanations
In your presentation, you must define your fallacy
type, give examples, and distinguish it from other
logical fallacies that are similar. I encourage you to
use powerpoint slides in your presentation if
possible, but it is not necessary.
5
Chapter Five:
Persuasion Through
Rhetoric
6
•
Rhetoric tries to persuade through
use of the emotional power of
language and is an art in itself.
•
Though it can be psychologically
influential, rhetoric has no logical
strength.
•
Rhetoric does not make your
argument any better, even if it
convinces everyone.
•
Can you recognize rhetoric?
7
Never drive in a storm without wiper blades.
8
& Never go into the fierce storms of an
argument without your
WIPER SHIELD
to protect you from the evil forms of rhetoric devices:
W easeling,
I nnuendo,
P roof Surrogates
E xplanations, Analogies & Definitions
(Rhetorical)
R idicule/Sarcasm
S tereotypes
H yperbole
I mage Rhetoric
E uphemisms/Dysphemisms
L oaded Questions, and
D ownplaying/Minimizing
9
Chapter Five:
Persuasion Through Rhetoric
Presenters:
Estelle: Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
Cindy: Rhetorical Analogies, Definitions, and Explanations
Rachael: Stereotypes & Image Rhetoric
Ari: Innuendos
James: Loaded Questions & Rhetorical Questions
Michele: Weaseling & Minimizing
Maria: Proof Surrogates
Instructor: Ridicule / Sarcasm & Hyperbole
In your presentation, you must define your rhetoric
type, give examples, and distinguish it from other
types of rhetoric that are similar. I encourage you
to use powerpoint slides in your presentation if
possible, but it is not necessary.
10
Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
•
A euphemism attempts to mute the
disagreeable aspects of something.
•
If I say a car is “pre-owned,” does that
sound better and a person would be more
likely to buy it than if I said the car was
“used?” There is no logical difference. it
is the same car.
•
Would you be more willing to support a
“revenue enhancement” or a “tax
increase”?
11
Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
•
Fox news put out an internal memo to its
staff to refer to U.S. servicemen in Iraq as
“sharpshooters” not “snipers.”
•
Often, we try to make something
“politically correct” by using euphemisms.
•
I would suggest perhaps a better strategy
might be to identify clearly and logically
analyze biases and thus we would likely
discard them.
12
•
Oppositely, a dysphemism attempts to
produce a negative association through
rhetoric.
•
How do you feel about “freedom fighters?”
How do you feel about terrorists? Often,
the difference is only based upon which
side you are on.
•
Please note that it is NOT a dysphemism
to state an objective report that just
sounds horrible, e.g. “Lizzy killed her
father with an ax.”
13
Innuendo
•
An innuendo is a deceptive and veiled
suggestion or a slanting device applying
negatively to an opponent’s character or
reputation or to insert a claim though which
a direct statement of the claim is avoided
(perhaps because there is no evidence).
• e.g. “Ladies and gentlemen, I am proof
that there is at least one candidate in
this race who does not have a drinking
problem.”
•
Please note that in an innuendo the
statement given will typically be absolutely
true.
14
Innuendo
•
The innuendo is based on the expectation
that the reader will “read into” the
statement something more than what is
actually said, possibly thus making
unwarranted assumptions about why the
speaker may have said it.
In this case, the speaker wants the
listener to believe without giving
evidence that there is some reason to
believe that one or more of his
opponents has a drinking problem.
15
Innuendo
•
Did President Bush in his 2003 State of the
Union make the claim that Saddam Hussein
was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack?
•
Or did he only “say” that Saddam in general
sponsored terrorists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgwqCdv3YQo&feature=related
16
Stereotypes
•
A stereotype is used when a speaker
groups multiple individuals together with a
name or description, suggesting that all
members of the group are the same in
some basic way.
•e.g. women are emotional, men are
insensitive, gays are effeminate,
lesbians hate men, Black men are good
at sports.
•
Stereotypes are generalizations that are not
supported by adequate evidence and
ignore the psychological principle of
individual differences.
17
Stereotypes are often manipulated as propaganda
to incite a nation to support a war or actions during
time of an emergency crisis.
• Hitler’s use in WWII of ethnic propaganda
not only was against Jews, but also Blacks,
gypsies, but certain other religious groups.
• In the United States, we re-located
Japanese families on the West Coast.
• Some people believe today that the teaparty protests against the health care bill
are manipulations for racist agendas (based
on stereotypes). But careful, do you have
GOOD PREMISES to believe either that
they are or they are not?
18
Analogies –
Are they Rhetorical or Not?
•
An analogy is a form of reasoning in which one thing is
inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain
respect, on the basis of the known similarity between
the things in other respects.
•
An argument from analogy involves the drawing of a
conclusion about one object or event because the
same can obviously be said about a similar object or
event.
•
An argument from analogy can be a good inductive
argument that supports its conclusion.
•
The strength of any argument from analogy largely
depends on the strength and relevance of the
employed analogy.
19
Rhetorical Deceptions & Dirty Tricks
•
But a rhetorical analogy attempts to
persuade by use of a comparison (often
clever and humorous) without giving us an
argument.
Hilary’s eyes are bulgy like a
Chihuahua.
Video
Dick Cheney has steel in his backbone.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
20
Rhetorical Definitions
•
An honest definition attempts to clarify
meaning. A rhetorical definition uses
emotionally tinged words to elicit an attitude
that is vague (often intentionally) and prejudges the issue.
Bill Maher’s defined a conservative as
“one who thinks all problems can be solved
either by more guns or more Jesus.”
Abortion is the murder of innocent, unborn
children.
21
Rhetorical Explanations
•
A rhetoric explanation is similarly
deceptive and attempts to trash a person
or idea under a mask or pretense of
giving an explanation.
•
The War in Vietnam was lost because the
American people lost their nerve.”
•
Students who drop my classes do so
because they are idiots.
•
Liberals who criticize the U.S. Army’s actions
in Iraq do so only because they are disloyal to
their country.
22
Weaseling
•
Weaseling protects you from criticism by
watering down your claim.
• e.g. What if I would have previously said,
“Probably most individuals of the early
20th century who harbored biases against
Native Americans and African-Americans
knew very few personally?”
• If so, would have my statement been a
good premise? No, not much. If you
questioned it, I have a “way out.” Thus, it
seems to lack much meaning.
23
Weaseling
•
Weaseling is a method of hedging a bet.
You can sometimes spot weaseling by
an inappropriate and frequent use of
qualifiers, such as “perhaps,” “possibly,”
maybe,” etc.
•
Be careful. qualifiers also are used often
to carefully say what can legitimately be
said about an issue and are not weasel
words. You need to assess the context
carefully.
24
Weaseling
•
Three years later, does President Bush
“weasel” on his earlier justification for the Iraq
war or does he “clarify?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKd71JxEYzE
25
Minimizing or Downplaying
•
Words and devices that add no
argument but only suggest that a
source or a claim is less significant than
what the claim or premises suggest is
called downplaying or minimizing, e.g.
Are you going to vote for a “hockey
mom?” Or “just another liberal?”
•
You can sometimes spot this by a use
of words or phrases like “so-called,”
“merely,” “mere,” or “just another.”
•
Downplayers often also make use of
stereotypes.
“That’s just Dick Cheney”
26
Ridicule / Sarcasm
•
Ridicule and sarcasm is a powerful
rhetorical device (often called The Old
Horse Laugh Fallacy).
•
Keep in mind that it adds absolutely
nothing to the logical force of an
argument.
•
Questioning the “intelligence” of the
person that makes a claim is logically
irrelevant to whether the claim itself is true
or false.
Video
27
Ridicule / Sarcasm
•
•
It is interesting after watching a spirited
debate (for example, one of political
candidates) to analyze whether the
person who came off more “humorous”
or “entertaining” and the one whom we
might have thought “won” the debate
actually took advantage of his
opponent unfairly through this method.
Video
If so, we should re-examine ourselves
whether we were thinking critically
during the debate.
28
Hyperbole
•
Hyperbole basically means
exaggeration or an extravagant
overstatement.
• e.g. “My boss is a fascist dictator.
He won’t let anybody do things
their own way. It is always his way
or the highway.”
•
This kind of statement, considered for
exactly what it says, is silly and lacks
credibility.
29
Hyperbole
•
Interestingly, hyperbole often works even
when no one believes it. In this example,
we probably don’t believe the statement
is actually true, but we would probably be
reluctant to take a job working for this guy
thinking something like “where there’s
smoke, there must be fire.”
•
Be careful: As critical thinkers, we have
no more reason to believe the claim that
the boss is a problematic one to work for
than we do to believe the hyperbole.
•
BREAKING NEWS!
30
Proof Surrogates
•
A proof surrogate is an expression that
suggests that there is evidence or
authority for a claim without actually
citing such evidence of authority.
• e.g. “informed sources say,” ”it is
obvious that” or “studies show” are
typical proof surrogates.
•
Proof surrogates are not substitutes for
evidence or authority.
31
Proof Surrogates
•
The introduction of a proof surrogate does
not support an argument.
•
They may suggest sloppy research or even
propaganda.
•
The use of proof surrogates, on the other
hand, should not be interpreted that
evidence does not exist or could not be
given. You just don’t know.
32
The Loaded Question
•
A loaded question is a question that suggests
strongly an unwarranted and unjustified
assumption.
• e.g. Do you still hang around with petty
criminals? Have you stopped beating your
wife? Why have you not renounced your
earlier crimes? When are you going to stop
lying to us?
•
This technique is often used quite intentionally
in police interrogations to get a suspect to
confess to acts that the police have insufficient
evidence for. “David, how did Joyce help you
to escape?”
33
The Rhetorical Question
A question asked solely to produce an
effect or response. Not intended primarily
to elicit an answer to the question.
●
"Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who
would want to live in an institution?“
●
"If practice makes perfect, and no one's perfect,
then why practice?“
●
"Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they
do 'practice'?“
●
Do you know how fast you were going?”
●
“Mr. Sweat, wasn’t it pretty bad out there in the
woods? Did you really think it was going to be
picnic out there?”
34