Transcript ambiguity

Thomas Paine
“I have always strenuously supported the right of
every man to his own opinion, however different
that opinion might be to mine. He who denies
another this right makes a slave of himself to his
present opinion, because he precludes himself the
right of changing it.”
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794),
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like
administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” ―
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
1
Thomas Paine
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as
well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were
the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
(Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775)
“The circumstances of the world are continually
changing, and the opinions of men change also; and
as government is for the living, and not for the dead,
it is the living only that has any right in it. That which
may be thought right and found convenient in one
age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient
in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living,
or the dead?” as quoted by Joseph Lewis in
Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of
Thomas Paine
2
Philosophy 1100
Title:
Critical Reasoning
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm
Quia Class Website -- www.quia.com
Hand Back: Editorial Analysis #1
Tonight:
Finish Class Discussion on Chapter 3.
Class Presentations at Class Discussion on
Chapter 5.
Next Week – 10/13/2014
NO CLASS!
Take Home Midterm Exam due 10/13/14 at 6
pm either by email or postmark)
3
Philosophy 1100
Title:
Critical Reasoning
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm
Quia Class Website -- www.quia.com
Reading Assignment for Week
after Next (October 20)
Chapter 6 & 7 of your text.
Editorial Essay #2 will be due.
Portfolio #4 Assignment.
4
Student Portfolios:
Assignment #4
What is Clarity and why is it important? When is
vagueness and ambiguity a problem? Collect 2-3
“artifacts” that illustrated either you or someone
else not being clear “enough” or someone
thinking something was vague but in practice, it
turned out that it was NOT a problem.
For each, write a description or explanation of the
occasion and how things could have been made
more clear. What problem did it cause or not?
What was done, if anything, to resolve it?
(1-2 paragraphs each)
5
Chapter Three:
Vagueness
& Ambiguity
6
Vagueness
•
A vague statement is one whose meaning is
imprecise or lacks appropriate or relevant detail.
“Your instructor wants everyone to be
successful in this class.”
“Your instructor is bald.”
•
Vagueness is often evident when there are
borderline cases. Problem is not so much what the
concept is but what is the scope of the concept.
(e.g. baldness)
•
Some assertions may be so vague that they are
essentially meaningless (e.g. “This country is
morally bankrupt,” but most concepts though
vague can still be useful.
7
Vagueness in a Logical Argument
•
The bottom line in the context of analyzing or
proposing a logical argument, a claim is vague
when additional information is required to
determine whether or not a premise is relevant.
•
Such vagueness is always a weakness and
effort must be taken to avoid it. It is generally
considered to be “hiding the evidence” when it
is done intentionally.
•
You remove vagueness by adding the relevant
detail.
8
Ambiguity
•
A statement which can have multiple
interpretations or meanings is
ambiguous.
•
Examples:
“Lindsay Lohan is not pleased with our textbook.”
“The average student at Metro is under 35.”
“Jessica rents her house.”
“Alice cashed the check.”
“The boys chased the girls. They were giggling.”
9
Ambiguity
•
•
Ambiguities can also be quite subtle, e.g. “We heard
that he informed you of what he said in his letter.”
•
One ambiguity here is whether the person (the
“you” in question) received a letter at all. Did “he”
inform “you” of what he said but only we saw a
letter to that affect, thus “we heard in his letter (to
us),” or did “we hear” that within a letter “you”
were informed and we heard that you were
informed by means of a letter to “you”?
•
Such a point might seem tedious, but could in
fact legally be very significant.
Actually, Bill Clinton had a point when he said “It
depends on what the meaning of is is.” e.g. Are you
having a fight with your husband?
10
Ambiguity in a Logical Argument
•
The bottom line is that in the context of
analyzing or proposing a logical argument,
ambiguity is always a weakness and effort
should be taken to avoid it.
•
If you use it for “effect,” you should be
absolutely sure that the claim and your
premises are clear to your audience.
11
Ambiguity
•
Please note that while with the case of
vagueness, we resolved it by adding
information that clarified meaning, with the
case of ambiguity what we are interested in
is to eliminate the suggestion of the potential
alternate meaning that we do not desire.
•
“The Raider tackle threw a block at the
Giants linebacker.”
We want to eliminate the possibility that one
could think that one is “throwing a block (of
wood?)” Thus, we can say “ The Raider
tackle blocked the Giant’s linebacker.”
12
Ambiguity
•
Let’s discuss three kinds of ambiguity.
1. Semantic ambiguity is where there is an
ambiguous word or phrase, e.g. “average” price.
-- When Barry Goldwater ran for president, his
slogan was, "In your heart, you know he's right."
In what way is this ambiguous?
2. Syntactic ambiguity is where there is ambiguity
because of grammar or sentence structure, e.g.
--“Players with beginners’ skills only may use
Court #1.”
3. Grouping ambiguity is ambiguous in that the
claim could be about an individual in the group or
the group entirely,
-- Baseball players make more money that
computer programmers.” (fallacy of division)
13
Defining Your Terms
•
Defining terms helps one avoid vagueness
and ambiguity.
Video
•
Sometimes you need to use a stipulating
definition if perhaps you are using a word in
an argument in a different way than it is
usually understood or it is a word in which
there is itself some controversy.
•
It is frequently quite reasonable in a logical
argument to accept a stipulating definition that
you would not yourself have chosen, but does
not pre-judge the issue and allows the
discussion to precede without distractions.
14
Defining Your Terms
•
Most definitions are one of three kinds:
1.
2.
3.
Definition by example.
Definition by synonym.
Analytical definition.
•
Any of these might be appropriate.
•
Be careful of “rhetorical” definitions that use
emotionally tinged words to pre-judge an
issue.
•
Do not allow someone in an argument to
use a “rhetorical definition” as a stipulative
definition. If you do, the argument will likely
be pointless and subjective.
15
Chapter Five:
Persuasion Through
Rhetoric
16
•
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?
17
Never drive in a storm without wiper blades.
18
& 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
19
Chapter Five:
Persuasion Through Rhetoric
Presenters:
Nicole: Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
Megan: Innuendos
T.J: Stereotypes
Paul: Rhetorical Analogies, Definitions, and Explanations
Kim: Image Rhetoric
Dottie: Loaded Questions & Rhetorical Questions
Justin: Weaseling & Minimizing
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.
20
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”?
21
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.
22
•
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.”
23
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.
24
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.
25
Innuendo
•
Did President Bush in his 2003 State of the
Union address 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
26
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.
27
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?
28
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.
29
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.
30
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.
31
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.
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 no evidence for.
33
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.
34
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.
35
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
36
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”
37
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
38
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.
39
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.
40
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!
41
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.
42
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.
43