Clarity in Reasoning

Clarity in Reasoning

• This chapter addresses factors influencing reasoning that operates beneath conscious awareness, which causes systematic errors
• These factors have the greatest impact when one's mind is clouded by stress or fatigue
• Reduced clarity increases the likelihood of forming beliefs without understanding the underlying reasons

Three Essential Kinds of Clarity

• Clear inferences: Understanding how exactly reasons support beliefs
• Clear interpretation: Understanding the reasons people offer for their beliefs
• Clear language: Avoiding confusion when providing reasons for beliefs

Clear Inferences Explained

• Inferring often occurs subconsciously via System 1 or quick System 2 applications
• Reflective inference is sometimes necessary to see the steps one's mind takes
• Reflective inference is essential for avoiding mistakes and for reasoning itself
• Arguments help in reflective thinking, for example:
  • COVID lockdown measures in 2020 were wrong because they restricted individual freedoms
  • COVID lockdown measures in 2020 were the right thing to do since they reduced the spread of COVID
  • It has rained every day this week, therefore, it will rain tomorrow
  • All human beings have souls; I am a human being; So, I have a soul
  • It is 4:07pm because a woman on the street looked at her phone and told me so, and I have no reason to disbelieve her

Defining and Distinguishing Arguments

• An argument is a series of sentences where premises support conclusions
• Offering claim COVID lockdown measures made people less likely to catch COVID as support for the claim that COVID lockdown measures in 2020 were the right thing to do is an example
• Arguments and inferences are different
• Arguments are presented sets of things
• Inferences are activities of the mind
• Inferences are what we do, while arguments are collections of sentences used to do things
• Making an inference reflectively and clearly offers an argument
• Making an argument is not always making an inference
• An inference involves forming a new belief
• Some arguments present conclusions already believed
• Arguments are used to state inferences, consider inferences, and convince others
• Arguments are key in improving the search for truth

"Is a Series of Sentences..."

• Not all sentence series are arguments
  • It rained on April 14th, 1927, in Indianapolis; My shoe is brown.
  • My dad started dating my mother; Only a month later, they married.
• The first example are statements thrown together randomly
• The second example is a collection of thoughts presented as a narrative rather than an argument

"...Are Presented as Supporting..."

• Series presentation affects whether it forms an argument
• The following statements constitute an argument:
  • All human beings have souls
  • I am a human being
  • Therefore, I have a soul
• The word "so" indicates the presentational task of supporting a conclusion with premises, known as a conclusion indicator
• It might be unclear whether what someone says is an argument or something else like a narrative
• An argument that helps to be explicit about what counts as premises and what counts as a conclusion
• If stating something suggests some statements are reasons to believe others, it is an argument
• If not, it is an unrelated statement series or a narrative
• An argument need not be an attempt to persuade and might express an argument for clarity

Premises Supporting Conclusions

• An argument presents some statements as supporting others, but it does not mean they actually do
• Both "COVID lockdown measures in 2020 were wrong because they restricted individual freedoms" and "COVID lockdown measures in 2020 that made people less likely to catch COVID were the right thing to do" are arguments, even though accepting both is incoherent
• Determining whether premises actually support conclusions is one of the fundamental aims
• When someone is not persuaded by an argument, a right mindset should lead to genuine interest as to why one's conclusion is not accepted by others
• Discovering a weakness saves a person an inaccurate picture of the world

Improving Reasoning with System 2

• Representing inferences with arguments is a useful first step in using System 2 to improve reasoning
• Identifying the goodness of the inference is the next step

Climber Analogy for Assessing Inference Quality

• A climber suspended by ropes is only well-supported if she (1) has good ropes and (2) they are adequately tied
• Both are required for a climber to be well-supported
• Even the best ropes are useless if not tethered, and expert knots are useless if the ropes cannot hold her weight
• These two elements are independent
• One blames the knot tier if the climber falls because of a badly tied knot, and the ropes if they break
• Knowing an argument's premises are true is like having dependable ropes
• Trusting them to hold a particular conclusion requires properly connecting said conclusion

Two Features of a Good Argument

• True premises
• Adequate connection to the conclusion
• Knowing the premises are true is useless without relevance to the conclusion
• False premises cannot properly support a conclusion
• Logic is the study of the connections between premises and conclusions; the knots, not the ropes

Knot Analogy

• The qualities of a knot are separate from the rope
• How well a premise is tied to its conclusion is separate from its truth
• Logicians focus on the connection between premises and conclusions and set aside the question of whether the premises are true

Adequate Ties

• An argument's premises are adequately tied to their conclusion if they would support the conclusion if true
• Climbing knots are adequate if they would support a climber if the ropes were adequate
• One can assess if the premises are true

Suppositional Strength Defined

• How well the premises support a conclusion if they are true is referred to as their suppositional strength

Assessing Suppositional Strength

• One asks: How much evidence do the premises provide for the conclusion if we suppose they are true?
• Evaluating suppositional strength determines how much to adjust the confidence in a conclusion if learned the premises are true
• Knowing our argument is suppositionally strong, and we are sure the premises are true makes accepting the conclusion fairly safe

Strong Suppositional Strength

• An argument with false premises can still be suppositionally strong like badly tied ropes
• Sometimes even known false premises would still support the conclusion if true

Suppositional Strength Example

• The following argument is suppositionally as strong as any argument given the premises are true, and the conclusion must be accepted:
  • All giraffes can fly
  • I am a giraffe
  • So: I can fly
• Even an argument with obviously false premises can be suppositionally strong if the premises were true
• A good argument requires true premises and adequate support of its conclusion

Hopeless Arguments

• An argument can have obviously true premises that do not support its conclusion, making it hopeless
• The following argument has no suppositional strength:
  • All cats are mammals
  • Some mammals bark
  • So: some cats bark
• Knowing cats are mammals and some mammals bark does not mean that cats are among the mammals that bark

Bias

• The argument "All cats are mammals; Some mammals bite; So: some cats bite," is just as bad as the barking example only because the conclusion is true
• A good argument requires the premise to adequately support the conclusion, which this one does not
• The bite argument is suppositionally weak for the same reason as the bark argument
• Biased evaluation makes the bite argument look better due to acceptance of the conclusion
• Both arguments are equally bad

Separating Truth

• Logic can help fix systematic errors by teaching one to separate truth from suppositional strength
• This decouples prior beliefs about a conclusion from the reasons given

Implicit Premises Defined

• The suppositional strength of an argument sometimes depends on unstated information that is taken for granted

Example of Implicit Premise

• Consider the argument, "Fido is a dog; So: Fido has a tail"
• Fido being a dog gives reason to believe Fido probably has a tail due to most dogs having tails
• This fact can be left unspoken if that fact is assumed that everyone knows
• That claim is considered taken for granted so it is part of the argument
• A claim left unspoken but taken for granted when making our argument is referred to as an implicit premise

Working with Implicit Premises

• Things do not always work out well
• One might take something for granted without realizing the intended audience does not have common knowledge of it
• One might skip a premise because it is questionable and hope no one notices

Identifying Implicit Premises

• The exact content of an implicit premise is unclear
• The implicit premise for "Fido is a dog; so, Fido has a tail" argument, is "Most dogs have tails”
• One is often wrong about whether others share our assumptions
• It is best to be as explicit as possible: it might be revealing and can demonstrate that something taken for granted is less obvious

Degrees of Suppositional Strength

• Suppositional strength comes in degrees
• The highest degree of suppositional strength is when the connection between the premises and the conclusions is so tight that there is no wiggle room at all
• The premises of an argument entail the conclusion when they guarantee it completely: if they were true, the conclusion would have to be true with no exceptions
• If the premises entail the conclusion, the argument is as suppositionally strong as it can be and learning the premises would make the conclusion inescapable.

Terrible Arguments

• Arguments with the highest suppositional strength can be terrible
• The argument, "All giraffes can fly; I am a giraffe; So, I can fly," has premises that entail its conclusion
• But the argument still won't convince anyone because its premises are obviously false

Deductive Validity

• An argument is deductively valid when its premises entail its conclusion

Entailment

• Entailment and deductive validity will be discussed in further chapters with details
• We are working with our intuitive sense of possibility
• The conclusion must be true if the premises were true.

Daily Arguments

• Most real life arguments are not deductively valid or intended to be
• The truth of the premises is not supposed to guarantee the conclusion, only provide support with some certainty
• Compare the two arguments:
  • All ravens are black; So, if there is a raven in that tree, it's black (deductively valid)
  • All ravens I have observed so far have been black; So, if there is a raven in that tree, it's black (not deductively valid)

Conclusion

• Which argument is better is up to debate
• The first argument requires hard to establish premises while the very premise used in the second argument had to be backed up with another agreement in real life
• With the awareness most species have albino members, neither argument will have certain conviction
• One has a doubtful premise that would guarantee its conclusion if it were true
• The other has a well-supported premise that does not allow its conclusion
• Deciding how to formulate an argument requires a trade-off between suppositional strength and the plausibility of the premises

Argument Evaluation

• Evaluating an argument involves:
  • Whether the premises are true
  • Whether the premises are adequately tied to the conclusion

Argument Support

• Limited insights into requirement #1: How the premises are true
• How do the premises support the conclusion, and what supports the premises?

Belief Supports

• Most beliefs are supported by multiple tiers of fundamental beliefs
• Picture a building with many floors where the top is supported from below by additional floors
• The lowest floor is supported by the ground
• What corresponds with the ground floor of the structure of beliefs?

Ground Floor Beliefs

• These are beliefs that do not require or might not require support at all
• They fall into two sorts of beliefs:
  • Directly Perceptual beliefs
  • Self-evident beliefs

Directly Perceptual Beliefs

• First, are beliefs supported by perception instead of other beliefs
• "If I look up and see an apple on the table, I believe an apple is there"
• "Why do you think an apple is there?" "Because I see it"
• • The belief appears to not be based on other beliefs
• Maybe apples look like this, or I seem to see this because of hallucination
• Accepting perception should be reliable especially with a history of no suspicious activity

Perception

• Perception is a reliable way to form beliefs
• Questionable what counts as a direct perceptual belief
• Not clear what sorts of cognitive processes count as directly perceptual or require further support from other beliefs
• Should religious experience be a kind of direct perception?
• How to assess the reliability of these ways of forming beliefs?

Philosophy

• The questions around perception has been set aside, however epistemology studies the knowledge, belief, and rationality of beliefs

Self Evident Beliefs Explained

• A traditional belief category treated as ground floor includes self-evident beliefs
• These beliefs are so obviously true that supporting them with evidence is unimaginable
• Examples:
  • 1+1 = 2
  • Green is a color
  • If someone was murdered, they died.
  • If x is taller than y, and y is taller than z, then x is taller than z
• Is there evidence that claims even look like?

Assessing Self Evident Beliefs

• Verifying if everyone who was murdered has died involves identifying the murders and seeing if the victims died
• Death is a criteria towards identifying murders in the first place

The Hard Questions

• There are hard philosophical questions about how self-evident things are know
• Knowing some things comes from understanding concepts with views
• Understanding color concepts makes the concept green a color

The Truths of Self Evidence

• Some philosophers hold ordinary moral truths are self-evident while others believe that they are known through moral sense or perception
• It is very important to be careful when treating claims as self-evident because as we will see, things are more evident than they actually are.
• An example, humans have a bad track record and there are studies that when we claim to be 100 percent certain, we are actually only right 80 percent of the time and when claiming 90 percent certainty we are actually only right 70% of the time.

Clear Interpretation for Evaluating Arguments

• Understanding exactly what is believed and the structure of the beliefs requires getting clear about reasoning
• Stating every premise in clear language and clarifying the arguments is required to express our reasoning in the form of arguments

Reading and Hearing Arguments

• Requires effort to determine what the premises and conclusion are and what the structure of the argument is supposed to be
• Equally hard when the putting argument comes forward
• Ask the questions:
  • What is the argument driving at?
  • What claim is supported and other claims?
  • What is the speaker trying to persuade?
• The support of each claim made for the conclusion should be identified
• Sometimes a premise supports a conclusion on its own or after being linked with other premises
• A bad argument might not provide any support for the conclusion. Supporting the conclusion is what makes it a premise.

Premise Indicators Explained

• Expressions often indicate the presence of a premise, for example: since, given that, seeing as, after all
• Called premise indicators but they are not reliable because they can be used in other ways
• "Since Alice is happy, her team must have won the game," uses since as a premise indicator but "Since yesterday, I've had a terrible headache," uses Since in reference to the headaches durations
• It always helps to consider context for the role premise indicators are playing

Conclusion Indicators

• Conclusion indicators also exist such as: therefore, so, thus, and as a result
• The word "so" provides for an example:
  • "I am so-o-o done with this crap about indicators," concludes that nothing else needs to be know

Indicators Shortcomings

• The indicators require further thought for more clarification
• Worth paying attention to but doesn't take the place of asking what claim is supposed to establish, and what reasons are being offered for the claim

Clarifying Own Thinking

• Unclear belief reasons and how they specifically supposed to support belief and careful structure consideration
• Structure reflections help with our own thinking

Others Arguments

• Clear structure assessment presents challenges
• People fail to make arguments clear when deceptively trying to convince us of a bad argument, or be confused over the structure
• Carefully restating the argument should help everyone and assess whether premises adequately support the conclusion

Useful Representation

• To make strong clear arguments, represent a way that makes its structure clear
• Utilize standard form or argument map

Standard Form

• In standard form repersentation, arguments are written in an ordered series of sentences
• Premises and the conclusion are labeled

Standard Form Example

• Consider this argument:
  • P1. If it's morning, then the direction of the sun is east.
  • P2. It's morning.
  • C1. The direction of the sun is east. (from P1 & P2)
  • P3. We should be going east.
  • C2. We should be going in the direction of the sun. (from C1 and P3)
• Note that the conclusion has two steps:
  • Mini-argument establishing C1 is another usage of C1's premise in argument for C2 making it an interim conclusion.

Standard Form Note-Taking

• Remarks are present in parentheses telling the support source from premises or previous conclusions
• Note while P1, P2, and P3 fully support C2
• first premise indirectly notes the support
• support is already noted and not relisted again for C2

Notes on Conclusions

• Interim conclusions are not listed as premises, however, they present the same argument.
• An interim conclusion is both the argument and premise
• These items present something that is being supported and vice versa
• Main conclusion is the conclusion, the one aspect that is not the premise
• Assumptions only have on main conclusion.

Argument Mapping Utilized

• Another argument method involves argument mapping.

Argument Mapping Cloud

• You can create these maps on MindMup Cloud or Google Drive

Sentences in Bubbles

• An argument map says that if a sentence has bubbles below it, it is considered to be a conclusion
• These items provide statements that are bubble-based premises
• The main conclusion should be put as the primary choice, above other sentences
• It does not require interim conclusions; the diagram remains unaffected whether you choose to analyze arguments within context, or a premise-based format

Mapping Specifics

• Diagram based notes do not require parenthesis
• Maps emphasize the context and used components

Representing Others Arguments

• We must analyze and recognize the structure or best argument possible
• Consider items plausibly intended and make sure they are at the forefront

Nice Things To Do

• Recognition is not a "nice" thing to do
• If genuine you learn a lot and have some truth value
• Good and bad come in comparison over personal views/bias

Argument Standardization

• Restructuring someone's argument requires a look beyond their words
• Common statements are often taken for granted during conversations
• Interpretation helps identity those with implicit value
• requires careful attention to the details of the context of the argument

Argument examples

• Involving implicit premises, consider the following:
  • "God must be the cause of the universe. After all, everything with a beginning has a cause. And what else could have caused the universe except God?"

Reconstruction Analysis

• Identifying the conclusion should be a first step
• Attempt creation and universe exploration
• Showed up in the prior lines
• First premise is clear as a cause

Rhetoric Assessment

• the other has questions based on the rhetorical questions that take form
• Some questions might be better and require more clarity
• Content recognition from known context is important especially in creation
• A first premise creation is not complete and requires more explicit restructing
• Creation, explicit reconstruction

The Argument Premise

• Now included, the argument premise now is:
  • P1. Everything with a beginning has a cause.
  • P2. The universe has a beginning.
  • C1. The universe has a cause. (from P1 & P2)
  • P3. Nothing could have caused the universe except God.
  • C2. So, God is the cause of the universe. (from C1 & P3)
• The formal creation and identification process requires structure/recognition with detailed assessment

The Key Component

• Strength is impeccable because they are all clear
• There is rejection overall
• The three are the least used especially from the first.

Reconstruction Example

• Now someone is talking and mentions this
  • "An infinitely good and powerful being wouldn't allow children to die horribly. So God does not exist."
• Again, are there implicit premises to use
• That and the assumption are accepted

Key Component List

• Acceptance by most is not and should not entirely be un-controversial
• New key points are to be explicit and created on standard form