Transcript Class #4 - 7/1/13

Philosophy 1100
Title:
Critical Reasoning
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm
Next class: Midterm Exam
(Chapters 1-3, 5-6)
Homework: AT LEAST TWO HOURS ON
QUIA ACTIVITIES !!!
1
Chapter Five:
Persuasion Through
Rhetoric
•
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?
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”?
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.
•
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.”
Analogies
•
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.
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.
Dick Cheney has steel in his backbone.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
Video
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 pre-judges 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.
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.
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 not supported by adequate
evidence and ignore the psychological
principle of individual differences.
Stereotypes
•
People who do not think critically often
accept stereotypes because of limited
experience.
•Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan are
good at sports. Thus,….
•
Stereotypes typically originate and become
popular because of a cultural agenda (e.g.
economic privileges) and in a environment
of ignorance.
Native American tribes of the Great Plains
were generally considered noble people by
most white Americans until it became
economical advantageous to confiscate
their lands.
Most individuals of the early 20th century
who harbored biases against Native
Americans and African-Americans knew
very few personally or knew them only in
specifically defined roles.
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
tea-party 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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”
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
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.
If so, we should re-examine ourselves
whether we were thinking critically
during the debate.
Video
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.
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!
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.
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.
Never drive in a storm without wiper blades.
& 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
Chapter Six:
Psychological and
Related Fallacies
31
Psychological & Related Fallacies
•
Logical fallacies pretend to give an argument with
a premise and conclusion, but the premises do not
support the conclusion and only evoke emotions
that make us “want” to believe or “satisfy” some
pre-judgment.
•
There are of course many different kinds of logical
errors. There are some recurring patterns of these
that are found so frequently that they have been
characterized and defined as common “logical
fallacies.”
•
Thus, a logical fallacy is a particular type of logical
error that occurs frequently and can be understood
in terms of general characteristics or in the form of
the supposed argument.
32
The “Argument” From Outrage
•
This fallacy consists of inflammatory words (or
thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some
sort. According to our text, it substitutes anger
for reason or judgment.
•
Increasingly on TV, overt anger is being replaced
with a “milder” form of “argument from outrage,”
substituting a sense of incredulity (with a
generous mix of facial expressions, etc) for overt
anger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2-9sPeSoA
•
The fallacy involved is basically the same –
suggesting that the “other side” are “fools” or
have a suspicious agenda.
33
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
One particular dangerous type of the “argument
from outrage” is scape-goating – blaming a
certain group of people or a single person
(“illegal aliens” -- notice the dysphemism, Bill
Clinton, George Bush, President Obama.)
•See Limbaugh quote in the text. (p.184)
•
Scape-goating sends us on a “witch hunt”
looking for “who to blame” rather than to
determine what is reasonable to believe or how
to solve the problem.
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
34
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
Trying to scare people into doing something or
accepting a position is using scare tactics.
• Democrats claimed in the last Presidential
election that George Bush was using 9/11
and terrorism as a scare tactic.
• Both Democrats and Republicans claim
that the other side is using scare tactics on
the issue of Social Security.
35
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
Many current controversial issues are very
prone to the use of scare tactics, e.g. samesex marriage, global warming, abortion,
failing banks, and on and on.
•
How can you tell the difference between a
“scare tactic” and when a good reason to
believe happens to be “scary?”
•
Question for the class: Was the “financial
crisis” last fall used as scare tactics to push
emergency legislation that would not have
otherwise passed?
36
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The “argument from pity” and the “argument
from envy” are also fallacies.
•
Whatever feelings one has for a victim of
some situation or injustice is not in itself an
argument for a claim although it can well be
a justification for behavior on our part,
including increasing our passion to search
out and champion a logical argument for a
position that will benefit the individual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06qgaJ2A3Zs
37
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
Apple polishing occurs when an appeal to
our pride is made by a proponent of a claim.
“Come on, relax. Have a beer. Don’t worry
about your parents. The one thing I like most
about you is that you think for yourself and
don’t let your parents tell you what to do.
Video
A guilt trip occurs when an appeal to our
shame in taking an opposite position is
made.
38
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
Our hopes, desires and personal
needs can delude us and make us
vulnerable to the fallacy of wishful
thinking.
•
If a desire for acceptance within a group
motivates us to accept a position without
a logical argument, we have become
victims to the fallacy of peer pressure.
•
Peer pressure can be quite subtle and is
often very strong. People feel peer
pressure even with strangers.
39
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The group think fallacy occurs when one
is motivated to accept a claim without
argument because of membership in a
group.
An example of this is nationalism –
my country right or wrong.
“Ron is not guilty of anything. He is a
member in good standing of TKE
fraternity. He is one of us and we
support him.”
40
•
Rationalizing is the process by which a false
pretext is used (or a false reason given) to
satisfy our own desires or needs.
•
In Psychology, this is referred to as a defense
mechanism and may be pathological.
•
Video
Rationalizing generally is done “after the fact”
or after a behavior or decision is completed.
In a logical decision making process, the
decision and action typically comes after
consideration of the premises.
41
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The “argument” from popularity suggests
that if everyone or a majority “knows” or
believes something, it must be true. Two
variations of this are:
•The “argument” from common
practice defends a position on the
basis that it is common.
•The “argument” from tradition defends
a position on the basis that has always
been done that way.
42
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
The relativist fallacy consists in
thinking a moral standard of your own
group is the “right” way but it doesn’t
“apply to everyone.”
•
The subjectivist fallacy consists in
thinking that something is true
necessarily because someone thinks it
is true. It also applies whenever
objective standards of analysis are
ignored in favor of suggesting that one
can believe whatever they like.
43
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy
that asserts that a wrongful act on one
person’s part can be justified based
on a previous wrongful act of the other
person.
Two pretty good examples:
Video
Video
44
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
A Red Herring occurs when a topic or
claim is introduced that is irrelevant to the
claim at issue with the intent only of
distracting the argument.
Cowgirl: “The animal rights people shouldn’t
pick on rodeos. They should all come see how
much fun all the kids are having. And those
dudes who ride the bulls. Are they hot or what?
Important Video
45
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
Similarly, a smokescreen is when
topics or claims are introduced that
are irrelevant to the original issue
with the specific intent to make the
issue appear to be too complex or
complicated to resolve.
•
So, trying to “clarify” a vague
argument by “giving all the facts you
have” may indeed be the absolutely
WORST thing you can do.
46