1

Philosophy 1100Title: Critical ReasoningInstructor: Paul DickeyE-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.eduWebsite:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm

Today:

Editorial Essay DiscussionChapter Seven – More FallaciesVideo – A Time For Burning

Next Week:

Read Chapter 8, pp. 253- 261, 264-268.Editorial Analysis #2

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

1) Summarize the article as it is written.

According to the editorial, a serial killer who last was known to have murdered victims thirteen years ago, again is threatening the neighborhoods of South Los Angeles. Eleven African American women have been shot and sexually assaulted. One man also has been victimized. The editorial asserts that given this situation, it was wrong for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) not to notify the community that a predator was on the loose. This had not happened until the L.A. Weekly last month (August, 2008) published news of recent killings.

Explain what is happening. Don’ t just “cut andPaste.” Be clear, brief, factual, and precise. Avoidany rhetoric that slants our understanding of theissue. Make sure that you do not add irrelevantissues or topics.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

2) Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous?

Determine exactly what is the claim/conclusion!!!

Remember: A claim can always be stated in asingle sentence.

What is the claim or conclusion that the author istrying to make and wants you to believe? Or inother words, what is the issue that she wants you tobelieve is true or the right thing to do.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

For this article, I suggest to you that the major claim or conclusion is:

The LAPD should have released information to

the public sooner than it did.

The article makes a claim that the LAPD should have released information to the public sooner than it did. This is the major claim or conclusion the author proposes. There is a secondary claim that the author appears to suggest – the LAPD’s lack of making such an announcement was in part racially motivated. The first of these claims is a normative claim and the second claim is a factual claim.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

2) Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous?

Now determine what are the premises. What are the reasons the author gives that we should believe the conclusion

Remember: Each premise can always be stated in asingle sentence.

The premises MUST BE reasons to believe thisparticular claim or conclusion, not just some similar orother interesting claim about the topic.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

For this claim, I suggest to you that only one premise is given:

When the public is informed, there is a

reasonable chance that witnesses will come

forward and provide information to help

solve the crimes. Thus, the argument being proposed is inductive – if the premise is true, then the premise would give evidence and support for the conclusion but does not make it certainly or necessarily true.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

2) Identify the logical argument, including all parts. What is the claim? What are the premises? Is the claim and premises clear and unambiguous?

Now ask yourself if the conclusion and premise(s) are clear and without vagueness orambiguity.

Remember: Whether a claim is “too” vague or not depends typically on whether we can agree on a criteria of whether the premise is relevant or not and various “borderline” cases.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

The claim seems to be vague on how soon the LAPD should have released the information, either within 24 hours or within 7 days? Or what? The claim & premises are both vague in what way the public is to be informed, that is, by a press conference, providing details to the newspaper, or what?

Such vagueness however does not keep us from analyzing the author’s argument, but do remain a weakness in the argument. Other vagaries do not hurt the argument at all, such as “as well as one man” does not inform us whether the man was shot, sexually molested, and/or “stuffed in a trash bag” as apparently were all the women.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

3) What is the evidence given for the primary claim? Is there evidence given for the premises or are they just asserted?

Analyze the strength of support that the premise(s) you found gives to the claim. Does the evidence provided make the conclusion Very likely, somewhat likely, or perhaps only possible.

If you were wanting to make a bet that the conclusion is true knowing the premise is true, would you expect to give or be given odds and, if so, how much?

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

No doubt true, sometimes witnesses will come forward with details that help crimes to be solved. This article however does not give us any evidence that tells the frequency that this occurs or whether this occurs more or less frequently in serial killings as opposed to other types of crime.

In particular, the article gives no information or evidence whether witnesses typically come forward and help solve a case more often than a serial killer is caught because the lack of publicity has given the officers the advantage.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

Identify any rhetorical devices, analogies, irony, etc. Identify any subjective components.

Use your WIPER SHIELD.

W easeling,I nnuendo,P roof SurrogatesE xplanations, Analogies & Definitions (Rhetorical)R idicule/Sarcasm

S tereotypesH yperboleI mage RhetoricE uphemisms/DysphemismsL oaded Questions, and D ownplaying/Minimizing

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

The article relies heavily on rhetoric. Much of the descriptive language in the editorial is rhetorical (e.g. “terrorizing the neighborhoods, ” “gruesome body count,” “the deadliest serial killer in California history (hyperbole)” meant to evoke a sense of outrage. There are cases of minimizing (in the use of the phrase Expert “Profilers”), sarcasm and rhetorical analogy (“Few crimes are solved because a David Caruso-like detective outwits a criminal.”), and argument by outrage (it prompted a community outcry).

The minimizing and satire are used to dismiss without any argument the point that sometimes it helps to catch a serial killer if the public is not informed. The argument from outrage seems meant just to achieve some vague but emotional assent from the audience.

The author gives other assertions that seem to suggest other premises than the one we proposed. For example, he implies that the race of the women played a role in the LAPD action by using a rhetorical question containing inuendo : If the victims had been well-to-do white women living on the Westside, would police have kept mum for so long?

Since, it is unclear here how the embedded assumptions (even if true) would provide relevant support to the major claim, it could only be regarded as an independent assertion and claim and not a premise for the major claim.

Furthermore, even as a secondary claim, it is not convincing. The author gives no premise for this claim, just rhetoric. Thus, there is no argument here. In this article, we have not been given any reason to believe either that the LAPD did or did not act with racial bias.

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

5) Is the argument strong? How could the argument have been made stronger?

If the evidence provided makes the conclusion very likely, then you have a strong argument. If the evidence makes the conclusion only possible, then you have a weak argument. Your article will probably be somewhere in the middle. Tell us where you think it lies on the scale.

Then consider WHAT premises and evidence could have been given that would have made a strong argument. Ask yourself if the author had assumed these and just left them unstated or did he fail to give a good argument?

5 Steps for the Editorial Analysis

The single premise seems to give weak evidence for the claim and thus the argument presented here is poor and not convincing.

The argument for the major claim would have been much stronger if additional premises were given to argue that serial killers in particular were almost always caught because of “tips” provided by the general public. Various statistics and facts could have been researched to try to make this case.

Or pursuing a different thread of premises, the author could have argued that the situation should have been made public because public knowledge was necessary for individuals to remain safe in their community. To keep the information from citizens was to put them individually at high risk. The author could have argued that the LAPD did not have the ethical or legal right to do that just for the benefit of “solving the case.”

16

Chapter Seven

More Fallacies

17

• Maybe the most common of all logical mistakes.

• The Ad Hominem Fallacy mistakes the qualities of the argument itself with the the person or personality of the individual making the claim.

“BOB: Reality consists of more than just what can see and feel. God is real.

BIKER: “If you weren’t so removed from reality, I might be more inclined to discuss it with you.”

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

18

• Most ad hominem arguments are negative and typical examples of ad hominem arguments will be negative, but not always.

• e.g. Heather is very nice and is always a very positive person, so if she is opposed to the war in Iraq, there must be something terribly wrong with it.

•E.g. Ms. Gullible: “The Jehovah Witnesses that come to the door always seem to be the “sweetest” people so there must be something to what they believe.”

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

19

• Say you twist the example about Heather around.

• e.g. My boss is a very negative person, so although he is opposed to the war in Iraq, that means nothing. He is against everything.

• e.g. remember Rush Limbaugh in the video:“If you are going to start agreeing with Rosie O’Donnell, I would suggest rehab and treatment.” (Ridicule & Sasrcasm)

The Personal Attack Ad Hominem

Video

20

• The Inconsistency Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if one can show that a person has made contradictory claims at different occasions, then the claims are thereby refuted, e.g. Hilary can’t be right that Obama is ready to be president as she is saying now. She said exactly the opposite during her political campaign.

• The Circumstantial Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if one’s claim is associated to the claimant’s circumstances in life, then the claim is refuted e..g. Of course, Sen. Nelson is for farm subsidies. He is from Nebraska.

• Poisoning the Well occurs when an ad hominem is issued prior to allowing someone to make their argument. Interestingly, a speaker might have “the well poisoned against her” by the opponent making a denial of something unsavory about her, such as “Hilary is not a bleeding heart liberal, but….”

Specific Forms of Ad Hominems

Video

21

• The Genetic Fallacy suggests erroneously that a claim is refuted by disputing its origin or history.

• e.g. The constitution is a bogus document since it was primarily written with the intent to protect the property of the wealthy.

• e.g. God does not exist because the whole idea of God originated with superstitious people who had no knowledge of science or the universe.

The Genetic Fallacy

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

22

• The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when a claim is made that distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misinterprets an opponent’s position such that it becomes easy to refute.

• e.g. “Congressmen who want us to set a timetable to leave Iraq are just saying that we should surrender.”

The Straw Man or “Straw Figure”

Important Video

Is this a Straw man Bill Clinton is presenting?

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

23

• The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available.

• e.g. Either we keep all of our current forces in Iraq until victory or we just pull out now unconditionally and let the terrorists win. It is either one or the other, dude.

• e.g. You don’t believe in allowing prayer in public schools? So what are you an atheist?

• You want this?

The False Dilemma

OR

THIS?

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

24

• A specific type of The False Dilemma is the Perfectionist Fallacy which suggests that if a policy or a claim is not perfect then it must be rejected.

• e.g. “If they don’t fit, you must acquit.”

•Johnny Cochran’s defense of O.J. Simpson, referring to his purported gloves.

• e. g. The National Football League’s instant replay rule is no good because you are still going to still have some bad calls.

•The National Football League’s instant replay rule is no good because they seem to have to make adjustments to it every year.

The Perfectionist Fallacy

25

• Another type of The False Dilemma is the Line-Drawing Fallacy which suggests that a distinction cannot be made because there is no precisely known, agreed upon point at which a line can be drawn.

• e.g. In the Rodney King case, when exactly did the beatings become excessive force?”

• e.g. When did Bill Gates become rich? When he earned his first dollar? His first $100,000? His first $1M? $10M? $1B? Nonetheless, I can assure you that Bill Gates is rich.

The Line-Drawing Fallacy

26

• The Slippery Slope Fallacy asserts that we can’t let one thing happen because it could lead to something else where there is no argument or a weak argument that the first action does in fact lead to the second.

• e.g. Making people register hand guns is just the first step to making guns illegal.

• e.g. Marijuana use should be illegal because it can lead to harder drugs.

The Slippery Slope

Important Video

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

27

• The burden of proof in an argument rests on the person making the claim. It is her responsibility to give the premises and the reasons to believe her claim is true.

• To try to shift the burden of proof onto the person who is listening to your argument and trying to make him show that you are wrong is called misplacing the burden of proof.

• A particular example of this logical error is the appeal to ignorance which suggests that we should believe something because no one has proven or shown it to be wrong.

• Another example is when a proponent of a claim suggests that his position is right because you haven’t give a good argument for the opposite claim.

Misplacing/Shifting the Burden of Proof

Video

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

28

• BE VERY CAREFUL!

• This terminology is misleading and seems to confuse the issue that we clarified in class earlier about proof and evidence.

• Even if you agree to allow someone to say “proof” when they really mean evidence, be sure that you are clear about the difference between the forms of support in deductive and inductive arguments..

The Burden of “Proof”?(But Mr. Dickey, you said ….)

29

The Top Ten Fallacies of All Time(according to your author)

Group ThinkRed Herring“Argument” From Outrage“Argument” from PopularityPost Hoc, Ergo Propter HocStraw Man

Jump to ConclusionAd Hominem ArgumentWishful ThinkingScare Tactic

“GROPES JAWS”

BREAKING NEWS!Hominy Strawman outrageously steals jumpsuits, grouping reds with popular pinks.

Movie Discussion(if time available)

&

Assignment Due on the Last Night of Class

Write one page ARGUMENT (complete with a clear claim and strong relevant premises) giving your view what the movie we viewed says on the issue of whether and/or how critical thinking is important in your life.

Movies:

A TIME FOR BURNING

This movie makes a passionate statement exploring racism in Omaha in the 1960’s. As you watch this movie, you may be tempted to think this movie is ONLY about that. As such, it clearly is a moving experience. But as you watch this movie, I want you also to consider and evaluate what it suggests about the nature of critical thinking and its necessity in our lives and society.