Reading Beyond the Lines PDF

9 reading beyond the lines \ In our previous chapters, you've learned a lot about arguments. In this chapter we discuss the differences in perspective that give rise to them. Because these differences can be hidden in the assumptions that lie behind an argument, you will often need to "read beyon...

9 reading beyond the lines \ In our previous chapters, you've learned a lot about arguments. In this chapter we discuss the differences in perspective that give rise to them. Because these differences can be hidden in the assumptions that lie behind an argument, you will often need to "read beyond the lines" to recognize them. Once they are recognized, we must decide whether an arguer's perspective has in any way interfered with good argument. To help you make such judgements, we highlight systems of belief, different types of bias, and deep disagreement. We recommend supplemented diagrams as a way to introduce these elements of argument into argument analysis. \ At the beginning of this book, we noted that our arguments and beliefs are rooted in our systems of belief. In many cases, it is the clash of systems of belief that gives rise to argument. The issues this raises are complicated by the role that audiences play in argument, for different audiences---made up of diverse social and cultural groups---often understand statements and symbols in various ways and may have different views of what can be taken for granted, and what needs to be defended, when one constructs an argument. The need to understand the role these factors play in belief means that we must, when we analyze an argument as strong or weak, *read beyond the lines* of what is actually said or written, and take them into account when we try to understand and assess an argument. \1 Belief Systems Arguments are communicative acts that are used in attempts to establish some point of view. Usually the arguer is an individual, but it could be a group of people or a corporate body of some sort---a company, a branch of government, a grassroots advocacy group, or some other organization. When we construct arguments, we ourselves are arguers. An arguer uses an argument to try and establish, or to reinforce, a point of view, with reasons that support it. Arguments are rooted in **belief systems** that an arguer possesses. Some aspects of belief systems may be determined by an arguer's gender, race, age, and nationality. In addition, our education, our career, the organizations we join, and our personal experiences and reflections are also reflected in our systems of belief. An arguer's belief systems may change over time. Many people retain the religious beliefs they grew up with; others reject or change their perspective in a way that has a dramatic effect on their world view. Because our various convictions and beliefs are integrated, it can be difficult to separate them. Together, they circumscribe our self-identity and our personal perspectives, and they give rise to the various opinions we subscribe to. Our opinions are the embryos from which our arguments typically develop. Deeply held beliefs often function as assumptions that guide our reasoning and the consequences that follow from it. Consider the following excerpt from a famous essay by Canadian philosopher George Grant (1918-1988) which appeared as "The case against abortion" (*Today Magazine*, 3 November 1981, pp. 12--13). In arguing against abortions for convenience, Grant introduces the following consideration into the debate (p. 13): \ Mankind's greatest political achievement has been to limit ruthlessness by a system of legal rights. The individual was guarded against the abuses of arbitrary power, whether by state or by other individuals. Building this system required the courage of many. *It was fundamentally based on the assumption that human beings are more than just accidental blobs of matter. They have an eternal destiny and therefore the right to rights.* But the large-scale destruction of human beings by abortion questions that view. \ We have italicized two key sentences in Grant's discussion. Our system of legal rights, he maintains, is "based on the assumption that human beings are more than accidental blobs of matter." This "more" is that human beings have a "right to rights" because they "have an eternal destiny." This implies many important propositions: that our existence is not accidental, and that there is something eternal or immortal about us, presumably as individuals. All this makes us created rather than "accidental blobs." Though no mention is made of "God," belief in a deity (a creator) is implied. In drawing out this meaning, we have moved beyond what Grant explicitly stated, but reasonably so. Grant's reasoning is grounded in a religious commitment: that he believes we are part of a divine, eternal plan. There is nothing wrong with such a belief; our point is simply to show how it is quietly working in the background of his arguing, influencing what he says. In a case like this, a key element of a belief system is evident in someone's arguments. It is important that we identify these influences as we go about assessing others' arguments and attempting to convince others of our own conclusions, as they may reject an argument's premises or assumptions in view of them. In the case at hand, Grant's argument needs to be reinforced if he wants to address it to a broad audience, for his premises are unlikely to be accepted by people who do not share his religious point of view. We cannot remove an arguer's belief systems in order to prevent their influence, nor is it necessary or advisable to try to do so. But it is important to guard against its unconscious or illegitimate influence. In our own case, this requires self-evaluation. We need to ask ourselves what assumptions underlie our claims and make sure that these assumptions are defensible in an argument. Just because we believe something strongly, we cannot assume that others will, or that the next argument we see supporting it will be good. Even when the conclusion of an argument is true, the argument and premises offered for it may be weak (recall our discussion of invalid arguments in Chapter 2). Scrutinizing our own and others' arguments and assumptions will help us build stronger systems of belief. Our scrutiny of others' arguments may lead us to ask which beliefs and influences lead to the views that they propound. Those influences include gender, race, religion, and nationality, but also educational background, political views, and economic and social standing. A profile of an arguer's belief systems helps us understand why the arguer reasons in a particular way. In some cases, the strength of arguments is founded on the credibility of the arguer---on their *ethos*, a Greek term that designates one's character and trustworthiness. In Chapter 14, we consider a whole family of arguments---called **ethotic arguments**---in which the assessment of the arguer plays a central role. In these and other cases, assessing the perspective and the credibility of arguers and their belief systems may be an important part of argument evaluation. Exercise 9-1 1\. Consider your own belief systems and construct a personal profile of major features that help determine them. In other words, develop a visual map where you are in the centre and all the facets of your life that affect your beliefs are included, Some of these facets may be unchangeable (e.g., race, age), and others may be more flexible (e.g., vegetarianism, atheism, a major illness, a hobby you are involved in, etc.). 2\. Pick someone who has different systems of belief than you do (blogs or podcasts are a good source for this). Provide a profile of their belief system's major features. How does your subject's belief system differ from your own? 3\. The following are quotations relevant to arguments. In each case, construct a profile of the writer by explaining some of the beliefs that can be attributed to them. \2 Cognitive Bias Psychological research has uncovered many biases that can interfere with ordinary reasoning. We introduce a few here that we think are common in the interference of strong reasoning, but of course there are others that you can explore on your own beyond this book. A bias that states that we tend to be overconfident in our judgements and our reasoning is called the **overconfidence effect**. Consider the results of a set of studies by Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, and Ross (*Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, Vol. 58, No. 4, 1990, pp. 610--621) that examined the impact of overconfidence on social prediction: \ We compared people's expectations of success in predicting the actions of their peers with their actual performance, and our findings seem unambiguous and consistent. People proved to be markedly overconfident in general. Moreover, they proved to be most overconfident precisely when they were most confident. \ In one of their studies, the researchers found that students significantly overestimated the accuracy of their predictions about the behaviour of roommates with whom they had extensive day-to-day contact. The overconfidence effect suggests that we think too highly of our understanding of the situations in which we find ourselves. **Confirmation bias** suggests that we favour arguments that confirm the biases and beliefs we already have, ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts them. Lord, Ross, and Lepper (*Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, Vol. 37, No. 11, 1979, pp. 2098--2109) presented students with opinions on capital punishment with two studies, one confirming and one disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Though there was no reason to favour one study over the other, they found that the students clearly favoured the study that supported their pre-existing views. In discussing the study that provided evidence against the deterrent effect of the death penalty, an opponent of capital punishment wrote that "No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented." In response to the same study, a proponent of capital punishment dismissed the findings, writing that "The research didn't cover a long enough period of time." The over confidence effect and confirmation bias suggest that we are too confident of our beliefs and tend to dismiss the evidence that might change them. A host of other biases that have been studied raise questions about most people's ability to objectively assess the evidence for and against points of view. There is evidence that we accept or reject some perspectives, not because of the reasons for accepting (or rejecting) them, but because of the way they are "framed" (in a way that emphasizes losses rather than gains or gains rather than losses). Tversky and Kahneman (*science*, Vol. 211, No. 4481, 1981, pp. 453-458) presented participants of a study with the decision to treat 600 ill patients with either a remedy that would save 200 patients (a positive option), or a remedy that would result in 400 deaths (a negative option). 72% chose the first option of this hypothetical life and death situation when presented with it. When presented with the negative option (which is the same option), only 22% of participants chose it. These results demonstrate the **framing effect**, where decision-making has little to do with the "facts" and rather is influenced by the preferences of the decision-makers---which is a concern for our common goal in practicing strong reasoning skills. A bias called the **halo effect** occurs when people assume, as they often do, that people with good looks (or other positive attributes) are intelligent, pleasant, moral, and so on. More generally, the evidence suggests that people have a natural tendency to depend on simplistic stereotypes (about Americans, Canadians, the Chinese, the French, "foreigners," men with beards, professional women, welfare recipients, and so on) when making decisions and forming opinions. This may explain why celebrities---rather than dentists --may be featured in advertisements for toothpaste, and are asked to advocate for most products, like furniture, or soda pop, and so on. We leave it to you to further investigate research studies that demonstrate our trust in arguers based on the halo effect. In many cases, we are not even aware of biases that interfere with our assessment of the evidence at our disposal. In a famous set of experiments by Nisbett and Wilson (*Psychological Review*, Vol. 84, No. 3, 1977, pp. 231--259), an experimenter conducted a "consumer study" in which he laid out four pairs of pantyhose and asked consumers to pick the pair that they preferred. All four pairs were identical, but consumers were significantly more likely to select whatever pair was placed furthest to the right. For some reason, it seems that people in the experiments had a strong preference for the right-most object in a series. One might speculate on the reason for this (Is it because most people are right-handed? Is it because we read from left to right?) but the important point is that the people considering the pantyhose did not know that this was why they favoured it. When asked, they explained their preference by saying something about the strength or the sheerness or some other quality of the pantyhose. When the experimenter explicitly suggested that the position might have been a contributing factor, the subjects rejected this as peculiar. There is a great deal that might be said about such biases and the reasons we incline toward them. For that kind of theorizing, we recommend a course in cognitive psychology. In this book, it is enough to say that there are all sorts of ways in which these biases influence, and sometimes undermine, attempts to argue, even in scientific and theoretical contexts. In the course of our lives, the issues that this raises are exacerbated by many conscious and unconscious attempts to exploit these biases in argument. In marketing, politics and law courts, they often inform successful advertisements, political campaigns, and appeals to a judge or jury. In many cases, poor arguments successfully convince an audience of a particular point of view, not because they present compelling evidence for the perspective they propound, but because they illegitimately play upon our biases. Exercise 9-2 1\. List at least 5 examples of topics where individuals exemplify overconfidence bias. Perform an internet search to help you brainstorm a list. 2\. Describe a concrete instance where you were guilty of confirmation bias. For example, have you ever researched online and only paid attention to the search results that align with your view? Explain this process (or a different context altogether). 3\. Review question 3 in Exercise 9-1. Are there any analyses or connections you can make for each of the excerpts with overconfidence effect, confirmation bias, framing, or halo effect? What potential cognitive biases might be at play? What should you be looking for? Careful about? Etc. \ 3 Illegitimate bias According to the *Oxford English Dictionary*, a **bias** is an "inclination or prejudice for or against." When we say that an arguer has a bias, we often mean that he or she unfairly favours a particular point of view. The cognitive biases that we noted are examples of this sort. Confirmation bias occurs because we are, for example, inclined to unduly favour evidence that supports our beliefs and dismiss evidence against them. It is important to be wary of biases of this sort because we need to try and avoid them, but it would be a mistake to conclude that all biases are illegitimate. All arguers favour the positions they believe in and argue for. Everyone has perspectives on issues that arise naturally from their belief system, and this implies biases in favour of those perspectives. It is a mistake to think that there is something inherently wrong with this. All of us rely on our commitments and beliefs when we formulate our opinions. Problems arise only when our inclinations *illegitimately* influence the way we support our claims or interfere with our ability to listen to the reasons that others advance. In such cases, we may be said to have ***illegitimate biases***. Good reasoners work hard to maintain a perspective that is not characterized by biases of this sort. We need to be wary of illegitimate biases, especially our own, for all of us have a natural tendency to favour some positions over others. In a broad review of the psychological literature on **motivated reasoning**, Ziva Kunda cites many studies that provide "considerable evidence" that people try to arrive at those conclusions "they want to arrive at" (*Psychological Bulletin*, Vol. 108, No. 3, 1990, pp. 480--498). One of the studies Kunda mentions concludes that smokers are less likely than non-smokers to be persuaded by the scientific evidence against smoking. In another study, a group of women were asked to read an article that argued that caffeine was bad for women. Women in the group who normally drank caffeinated beverages were much more skeptical of the article than the women who did not. In a third study, subjects who were given lower marks after an intelligence test showed a marked tendency to agree with arguments that maintained that such tests were not reliable. In studies such as these, a person's judgement of an issue seems to be determined not by a careful review of the quality of the arguments, but by the individual's desire to preserve his or her beliefs or to believe a particular conclusion. Though such forces make illegitimate biases a common feature of everyday argument, we must be careful when we charge someone with biases of this sort, for such charges are often made unfairly. Consider the following letter to the *National Post* (31 October 1998), written in response to an editorial cartoon that suggested that a doctor who performed abortions was murdered by a pro-life advocate: \ As a long-time pro-lifer, I was saddened by your cartoon. I have no idea about the identity of the cruel person who killed Dr Slepian, but I do know that he or she is not pro-life. For pro-lifers, there is no difference between an unborn child and a baby, child, teen, adult or older person. \ This arguer probably overstates her conclusion when she says that she "knows" that the murderer was not pro-life, but her argument is still clear. It can be summarized as follows. \ For pro-lifers, there is no difference between an unborn child and a baby, child, teen, adult, or older person (*premise*), so the cruel person who killed Dr Slepian is not pro-life (*conclusion*). \ This is an argument by a pro-life advocate who is defending pro-life advocates against the suggestion that one of them was responsible for the murder of Dr Slepian. Given that the arguer is so clearly committed to the pro-life perspective, you might wonder whether we should dismiss the argument as biased. We think the question may be clearer if we rephrase it to ask whether this is a case in which an arguer's strong commitment to the position she defends creates an illegitimate bias that interferes with her judgement or her reasoning. We can find no reason to think so. The arguer is open about her commitments, and there is no obvious way in which they distort her views, her arguments, or her depiction of opposing points of view. We may disagree with her perspective, but she presents her argument in an open-minded, reasonable way. Illegitimate biases can arise when arguers present arguments that do not fairly represent their own views or the views of their opponents. In such cases, arguers present issues in a way that favours a particular perspective. Usually, this perspective is rooted in their own convictions, but there are cases in which arguments are biased because they reflect perspectives that originate not in the arguer but in arguments, articles, reports, and other material they rely on. Whatever their origin, and whether or not the arguer is aware of them, illegitimate biases lead to arguments that minimize, ignore, or dismiss evidence that invites a conclusion other than the one proposed. In the final analysis, the question of whether a particular argument reflects illegitimate biases must be answered by carefully assessing the extent to which the arguer has fairly and accurately presented their own and their opponents' points of view. Because someone with an illegitimate bias will usually misrepresent the views of their opponents, the attempt to identify these views can help us determine whether we are dealing with a case of problematic bias. \Vested Interest and Conflicts of Interest The danger of illegitimate bias is particularly strong in situations in which an arguer has a **vested interest**. This occurs when someone will benefit in some significant way if arguers see issues in a particular way. Such interests often play a role in a person's system of belief. In such cases, arguer may be attracted to (or implicitly support) conclusions for the wrong reason---because it benefits them or those they are close to---and not because there are convincing premises that show that it should be accepted. In some cases, vested interests are so significant that they give rise to a **conflict of interest**. This occurs when someone, usually in a professional situation, is in a position to make a decision that might unfairly provide them with important benefits. Though the legal and ethical issues that arise in such contexts are too complex to be discussed in detail here, it can generally be said that someone who has a conflict of interest has a duty to declare it and to refrain from the decision it might interfere with. In 2020, the WE Charity scandal arose when the Canadian federal government awarded a \$19.5 million contract to WE Charity to administer a \$912 million Canada Student Summer Grant program (CSSG). Critics claimed that it was awarded to WE for questionable reasons---because its founders, Craig and Marc Kielburger, were friends and supporters of the Prime Minister and others in the federal government. Most notably, it was discovered that the Prime Minister's mother Margaret had received \$250,000, and his brother Alexandre \$32,000, for speaking at WE events. WE had also paid travel expenses for Finance Minister Bill Morneau, who had a close relationship with the Kielburgers and played a central role in the decision to award them the CSSG contract. The federal Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion, investigated and concluded that Morneau had breached the *Conflict of Interest* *Act* by failing to remove himself from the decision-making process (ultimately he resigned from his position and left government). Governments have a responsibility to the public which requires that they make their decisions on the basis of good, impartial, reasoning (which, as you now know, implies good *arguments*). If giving a company a contract means that an official---their friends or relatives---earn a profit, this is a serious issue---for their interest may make them inclined to do so even if there are good reasons to award the contract to a different company (because they are cheaper, do better work, and so on). In this way, their interests conflict with their duty to make their decisions in an impartial way. To avoid such situations, decision makers in government have a responsibility to *remove* themselves from decisions in which they have conflicting interests. When questioned in the WE scandal, the Prime Minister responded by saying "I should have recused myself, but I didn\'t. I decided to push back instead" (CBC, 7/9/2020). Minister Morneau was in a somewhat different situation, for he appeared to be very good friends ("besties") with the WE founders, who had paid for trips he took, and he played a central role actively promoting the CSSG program and the idea that the WE Charity should be given a grant to run it. During investigations, it turned out that *no* other organization was even considered. When the government explained this by saying that that no other organization was qualified, the president of YMCA Canada publicly rebuked this claim, saying that it was qualified and interested. Some alleged that the WE Charity itself was guilty of conflict of interest when it agreed to run the CSSG program, for it created hundreds of the volunteer opportunities for students who would have worked for WE Charity. This was seen as its way to deal with some of its own financial challenges, allowing it to replace employees who were laid off with students who would conduct WE Charity work at a reduced wage. This made the WE Charity both a beneficiary and distributor of the award money. Another example of vested interest is highlighted in discussions of Google that have criticized its power in the digital world. In a 2010 blog on Google (www.angrylemming.info/2010/04/21/t-800-android-follow-up-google), we read that Google, "which fuels and controls the vast majority of search engine traffic, has a vested interest in turning us to their products and obscuring the products of their competition." The claim is not that Google does this (the blogger does not definitely claim that it does) but that we can't trust Google because (a) there is no way to know this isn't the case and (b) the financial interests of Google are so significant that it can't be trusted not to do so. The same issue was raised in the lead story in a 2004 issue of *Time* magazine, which asked whether it was possible to "trust Google with our secrets" given its growth and its interest in creating and branding products with the Google name. Others have raised the same conflict issues. In 2011, Scott Cleland and Ira Brodsky published a book called *Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google, Inc.* (St Louis, MI: A dinosaur wearing a garment Description automatically generated **Illustration** "Search and Destroy" Source: Telescope Books. Used with permission. Telescope Books), in which they argue that Google cannot be trusted, that it violates its users' privacy, and that it should be regulated by the government. They suggest that Google is not the benevolent lamb it has been thought to be, and is better identified with its mascot, the Tyrannosaurus Rex ("a terrifying predator"). In keeping with this theme, their cover, Illustration 9.1, depicts Google as a T-Rex in sheep's clothing. A veiled criticism of Google along similar lines appeared in the London underground, in a "guerilla" advertising campaign that asked whether it was proper for one company to have so much control over the information on the web. One of the subway advertisements is reproduced in Illustration 9.1.  **Illustration 9.2** "Information-Revolution.org" Lars Plougmann/flickr Behind these issues is the principle that we should be wary of sources that have a significant financial interest in a particular point of view. This is a principle that must be applied to Google's critics as well as Google itself. In the case of Scott Cleland, some have argued that his attack on Google should not be taken seriously because he has worked for Microsoft and other Google competitors. In the case of the guerilla campaign in London, the advertisements that criticized Google referred viewers to an "Information Revolution" website which was later discovered to be run by one of Google's competitors, Ask.com. These observations don't show that the arguments against Google are necessarily mistaken, but they do show that vested interests and conflicts of interest often surround us in cases like this, and that we need to be wary of the role they play in attempts to convince us of this or that point of view. In cases that involve advantages other than financial benefits, it is especially important to be wary, for vested interests may be less obvious. It is helpful to remember that an arguer may benefit from a particular perspective in all kinds of ways that are not directly tied to monetary gains. The acceptance of particular conclusions may serve one's pride or one's view of right and wrong rather than one's wallet. An arguer may be attracted to a particular conclusion because the argument increases the prestige of the institution from which the arguer graduated, because it vindicates a stand she has publicly defended, because it fosters a particular image of his congregation, ethnic group, or political party, or because it promotes policies or beliefs that are in some ways in keeping with the arguer's loyalties and commitments. The existence of a vested interest need not in itself show that an argument is mistaken. When an arguer has a vested interest, you should treat his or her arguments with caution. You should be circumspect and careful to ask whether the arguments are characterized by illegitimate biases and have unfairly presented the issues that are to be discussed. But an arguer may have a vested interest in an issue and still offer strong premises for a conclusion. Anyone defending himself or herself against a charge that he or she has done wrong has a considerable vested interest in the discussion of his or her case. It would be a mistake to think the individual's arguments can be dismissed offhandedly on this account. It is important to detect an arguer's vested interests and to be aware of his or her biases. But the question of whether an argument is to be accepted or rejected should ultimately lie with the quality of the premises and their relationship to the conclusion. In cases of conflict of interest, the issue is someone's ability to act as an impartial decision maker in some circumstance in which he or she has a vested interest in the outcome of the decision. In such contexts, the very possibility that one might be swayed by personal interest is enough to undermine one's role as a decision maker, for this is a possibility that could cast doubt on the validity of the process by which the decision is made. \ Slanting Some cases of bias can be judged illegitimate through what is said and what is not said. In 2017 (Jan. 23), much was made of a significant rise in the number of American students attending Canadian universities. Many attributed this to the unpopularity of President Trump, concluding that American students were coming to Canada to escape Trump's America. The *Globe and Mail* published an argument commenting on this trend. It was very careful, noting at the outset that "This year's surge in the number of Americans applying to Canadian universities is not a clear sign that today's students are dodging Donald Trump the way their grandparents dodged Vietnam, university admission experts say." The article then described the trend as follows. \ \ Here we want to note the sentence we have italicized. It is true---Trent University had seen an increase of more than 60% in applications---but it is still misleading. It makes it sound as though there has been a tremendous increase in the number of American applications to Trent: something that was picked up and repeatedly commented on by the national media, usually cited as evidence that there was a "Trump effect." To see why the report in question is true but misleading we need to add some facts omitted in the *Globe and Mail* story. In the year before it was published, Trent University had 3 applications from American students. In the following year it had 5. This *is* a 66% increase in applications, but the numbers are so small that they provide *no* indication of a tremendous surge in applications from American students wanting to escape the United States. The reality is that almost no American students apply to Trent (even less attend), and its American applications were not an indicator of any trends in this regard. Like many other cases which are associated with misleading arguments, this example arises in a situation in which arguers are dealing with matters that are of great importance to them---matters that pertain to their deeply held beliefs and convictions. In this situation, many in the media (and many Canadians) had great disdain for President Trump. One might defend this disdain with arguments, but in this case, it made them too ready to uncritically accept the view that his presidency was prompting an exodus of Americans to Canada. This view fit their system of beliefs well---fit with and confirmed their already existing biases---they did not carefully weigh the evidence for and against it carefully and dispassionately (even though the issues it raises are evident as soon as one asks the simple question "How many applications were involved?"). \Slanting By Omission and Distortion Illegitimate biases tend to manifest themselves in techniques that are used to distort reports and arguments. Learning these techniques of ***slanting*** can help you detect biased arguments that have been distorted in one way or another. Even more importantly, you need to avoid such techniques in the construction of your own arguments. The example we have already noted is an instance of ***slanting by omission***. Anyone who describes a situation has to select particular facts and issues to emphasize. Given that time and space are limited, it is unavoidable that other facts or issues must be summarized or ignored entirely. In the process of deciding what will and will not be reported and emphasized, it is easy for arguers to report those facts and details that favour the impression the arguer wishes to create. In the process, they can leave out those facts that suggest an alternative conclusion. In such cases, an arguer presents "nothing but the truth" but fails to give "the whole truth" by avoiding aspects of the situation that may raise doubts about his or her perspective. Consider an example associated with two news reports on an American law authorizing military trials for terrorism. The US Supreme Court had ruled that trying detainees in military tribunals violated American and international law, so the administration of President George W. Bush introduced changes to American law, which would allow such trials, ones that did not require detainees to have legal counsel and prohibited them from filing habeas corpus (which requires that it be proved in court that there is a reason for detaining the accused). The first report is from *The* *Windsor Star* of 17 October 2006; the second is from the *Detroit Free Press* of the same date. *Both* papers use a common source for their information---an Associated Press writer. *The* *Windsor* *Star* report notes that President Bush had signed the legislation, calling it a vital tool against terrorism. It gives the history of court decisions that had led to the new law and lists the names of some individuals who would now face justice. It quotes Bush saying that with this bill he would save lives, linking it to the 11 September 2001 attacks. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is praised, and some details of the law, including the restrictions we have noted, are provided. Finally, it notes Bush's claim that "the \[resulting legal\] process is 'fair, lawful and necessary'." *The* *Windsor* *Star*'s wholly positive account of the new law should strike the critical reader as surprising. For the law in question was extremely controversial, taking away rights previously granted to a class of individuals in a way that was, given the earlier Supreme Court ruling, a violation of international law. In a discussion of a law like this, one expects to hear about dissenting voices who object to the legislation, but the *Star* avoids any critical comment of this sort. That Bush saw fit to stress the fairness of the law suggests that he was responding to some criticism, but it is never made clear what that criticism is. Across the river from Windsor, the *Detroit Free Press* provides a more complete report. It includes the facts in *The Windsor Star*'s story (in the same language, since they have a common source) but also emphasizes the considerable opposition to the bill from several sources, including members of Bush's own party. The lengthier *Detroit* *Free Press* report stresses that the bill authorizes "harsh interrogations of terror suspects" and comes after months of "highly publicized dispute with key Republicans;" identifying and quoting civil libertarians and leading Democrats who "decried the law as a violation of American values." It notes protests by a coalition of religious groups and provides further details of the nature of the bill, including special powers of interpretation of international prisoner standards that it grants to the president. Finally, the *Free Press* reports the White House's refusal to disclose any of the techniques of interrogation that would be allowed. When we consider both reports, it seems clear that *The Windsor Star* report is guilty of slanting by omission. Of course, the space used to report a story can reasonably vary from one newspaper to another, and some omissions are understandable. But *The Windsor Star*'s omissions are noticeable in that what is explicitly omitted is one side of the story---the dissenting side. As a result, the story is slanted in favour of the Bush Administration and its statements on the new law. Readers without access to other sources for the same events will be left with a false impression of the new law and the issues that it raises. As in this case, slanting by omission is common in news reporting that promotes short accounts of a news story rather than in-depth analysis. It is a frequent problem with television news, which relies on short, memorable copy and accompanying visuals. Two minutes is a long television news report, but it is difficult to fit all the relevant aspects of a complex issue into such a short span of time. Some critics conclude that [tv]{.smallcaps} news is inevitably misleading, for it always omits important aspects of the issues and events that it reports on, usually focusing on sensational visuals that grab our attention. Issues of omission raise complex questions about the decisions the news media makes in its reporting. In April 2024, Uri Berliner, the senior business editor at NPR (National Public Radio) resigned after publishing an article arguing that his institution's news coverage was biased. He gave numerous examples, and reviewed the voter registrations of those in editorial positions in the NPR newsroom in Washington, D.C. He found that there were 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and 0 Republicans. We won't pursue the issues Berliner raises here, except to note that they raise the question whether this kind of newsroom (which seems to lack decision makers who reflect the views, not only of committed Republicans, but of independent voters not committed to either of the two major U.S. parties), is more likely to produce reporting that is slanted by omission. A second slanting technique is called ***slanting by distortion***. It occurs when one describes or exaggerates or colours the facts that one is reporting in a manner that enhances an impression one wishes to create. Newspaper reporters or editors can twist the facts that they report by using terms with suggestive overtones in place of words that are neutral and descriptive; by inserting insinuating phrases; or by using headlines, the position on a page, or accompanying illustrations to foster the perspective that they favour. Slanting by distortion can be very subtle because it can be hard to find words that are entirely neutral and easy to use descriptions that lean one way or another. The adage that "a half-empty glass is half-full" well captures the point that the same fact can be cast in a positive or negative light. Instances of slanting by distortion are evident in the following Paris newspaper headlines, borrowed from Eleanor MacLean's *Between the Lines: Detecting Bias and Propaganda.* Each headline announces Napoleon's progress across France on his return from Elba (9--22 March 1815), reporting that he is in such-and-such a place---in a way that reflects the (sometimes extreme) bias of the newspaper in which the headline appears. The slanted messages are not themselves arguments, but it is easy to imagine how they might provide the background for argumentative debate. \ 9 March **[the anthropophagus]{.smallcaps}** \[the monster who eats people\] **[has quitted his den]{.smallcaps}** 10 March **[the corsican ogre has landed at cape juan]{.smallcaps}** 11 March **[the tiger has arrived at cap]{.smallcaps}** 12 March **[the monster slept at grenoble]{.smallcaps}** 13 March **[the tyrant has passed through lyons]{.smallcaps}** 14 March **[the usurper is directing his steps towards dijon]{.smallcaps}** 18 March **[bonaparte is only sixty leagues from the capital]{.smallcaps}** **He has been fortunate to escape his pursuers** 19 March **[bonaparte is advancing with rapid steps, but he will never enter paris]{.smallcaps}** 20 March **[napoleon will, tomorrow, be under our ramparts]{.smallcaps}** 21 March **[the emperor is at Fontainebleau]{.smallcaps}** 22 March **[his imperial and royal majesty]{.smallcaps}** \ None of these headlines explicitly says that Napoleon is good, bad, loved, feared, hated, admired, or despised, but the choice of words very clearly implies that this is so. The slanting by distortion that results reflects the vested interests of the newspapers that carried these headlines, for these interests are more likely to be furthered by positive headlines as Napoleon comes closer and closer to Paris. Slanting by distortion or omission is a likely possibility whenever an individual or group has a perspective, a product, or a cause they are dedicated to promoting. Slanting is found not only in newspaper and television news but in strategic analyses, feasibility studies, union and management reports, political platforms, scholarly defences of particular points of view, and attempts to promote "special interests" of one sort or another (milk producers, the dot-com industries, a particular religious perspective, a sports franchise, etc.). The crux of slanting is the use of omission and distortion to create an illegitimate bias that insinuates a particular interpretation of the facts or issues that are reported and debated. A good critical thinker always watches for the possibility that someone arguing has imposed a particular "slant" on the issues. \Looking for Balance Slanting is an indication of illegitimate biases that can help us determine how we should respond to arguers and arguments. But an argument may be influenced by such bias even if it is not obvious that it is slanted. Especially if the slanting is by omission, someone reading an article or watching a video presentation may not know that it has left out important aspects of the issues it discusses. The best way to guard against slanting is by exploring and examining the arguments of those who oppose the point of view favoured in an argument or report. Especially when you assess an arguer's attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of some issue or concern, it is important to see what those with opposing views maintain, for this is the only way we can be sure that the comprehensive overview is fair to them and their arguments. When you are dealing with an argument which may be slanted in ways that reflect illegitimate biases, you may investigate this possibility by following a three-step method which can be outlined as follows: In the course of constructing your own arguments, be mindful of the dangers of illegitimate biases, and strive to avoid them. If your perspective is informed by vested interests and previous commitments that are pertinent to the case at hand, be open about them. Be explicit about your views, and do your best to ensure that any opinions or feelings you express are justified by an unbiased understanding of opposing views of the issue or situation you discuss. Be cautious about emotionally charged modes of expression. Obvious symptoms of slanting include the use of inflammatory terms where neutral ones suffice, sensational words that promote moralistic judgements, unnecessary phrases filled with innuendo, and suggestions that are implied but never explicitly stated. It is appropriate to feel strongly about some things, but strong claims need to be backed by strong arguments, and that requires that you be cautious of overstatement and terms that colour your claims in a way that is slanted in favour of your own view. In the end, you will strengthen your arguments and make the best impression on others if you demonstrate your willingness to be fair to the views of your opponents. As you read an argument, you should be able to identify some of the facts an argument depends on. Once you do, you can ask whether the account proposed is slanted. As you read or watch or listen, ask yourself: Does this commentary push its audience unreasonably toward a particular perspective? By assessing the facts and issues in a loaded way or by letting the facts "speak for themselves"? Has the arguer made appropriate judgements in deciding which details should be emphasized and which should be treated as inconsequential or as secondary matters? Could one "juggle the facts" in a way that creates a very different impression? In many cases, you may be aware of slanting only when someone who has been offended raises their voice to correct some omission or some distorted commentary. But there are ways to take a more active role in diagnosing and exposing illegitimate biases. If you detect significant vested interests (and especially vested interests that have not been declared) or if the terms used in an argument jump out at you, try to compare the argument before you with a report or argument written by someone with a competing point of view. Studying two reports of the same event---especially reports from sources with opposing commitments and loyalties---is one of the best ways to establish a more accurate understanding of the issues you discuss. Exercise 9-3 1\. Suppose the federal government has established an initiative program that provides grants to businesses in order to stimulate the economy in depressed areas of the country. It is discovered that a good friend of the president or prime minister has received a large grant to support the building of a golf and country club. Is this a case of illegitimate bias? What kind(s)? Why or why not? What would you need to know to be certain? 2\. In 2020-21 an exhibit of Giorgio Armani designs sponsored by the Guggenheim Museum in New York caused some controversy. In debates about this show, the central issue was whether the Guggenheim genuinely judged Armani designs to be worthy of the label "art" or reached this conclusion because Armani offered a gift of \$15 million dollars to the Guggenheim Museum. From the point of view of argumentation, the issue is whether those deciding to show Armani, or some other artist or designer, were influenced by an illegitimate bias founded on a vested interest. Explain what you would need to know if the Guggenheim was guilty of a vested interest (i.e. the \$15 million they were able to procure for their museum from Armani). You can google this issue to read more on the situation if you like. 3\. In each of the following cases, there are conflicts of interest. Explain what they are in each case. \(a) You are a shareholder in a corporation that has been accused of polluting the river that runs through the city in which you live. The government has decided to investigate. They appoint you to the expert panel that has been established to investigate the matter. \(b) You are a judge in criminal court. Your sister has been charged with theft, and break and enter. You are assigned the case. \(c) You are a member of the hiring committee of the Archaeology Department at your university or college. Your committee plays a major role in deciding who is hired for new appointments that are open. The department has advertised an opening for an expert in Near Eastern archaeology. Your partner, who is qualified, has decided to apply. 4\. Read this report and answer the following questions: \ End block quotation\> b\) Is there evidence of *illegitimate* bias in this case? Support your answer with details that indicate the difference between legitimate and illegitimate bias. \4 Audiences and Deep Disagreement Biases---cognitive, illegitimate, and legitimate---often reflect the belief systems of a group of individuals who share perspectives, interests, and core convictions. As we have seen in other chapters, a great deal of arguing goes on between people we might describe as "familiars"---people we know well, or relatively well, family members, friends and colleagues. After all, these are the people with whom we interact most of the time. There is a place for exchanges of this sort, but critical thinking requires that we step outside our own "in group" and consider issues from other points of view. And there will be times when we need to address not so much non-familiars, but audiences made up of a variety of different kinds of people---what we call composite audiences. When familiars converse---argue---with one another, they may constitute a shared intended audience. In such a situation, everyone may take the same biases for granted. Issues of bias are much more complicated when arguers must deal with diverse audiences that include different cultural and social groups who do not think and behave as they do. When disagreements arise between groups or between cultures, it is often because the belief sets that make those groups or cultures what they are seem so incompatible. In the field of argumentation, this gives rise to one of the most difficult issues to deal with, called the problem of **deep disagreement---**disagreements which are difficult (some say, impossible) to resolve in view of the contrary views to which different arguers subscribe. Suppose one society is built upon the belief that individual rights matter and should be protected from the "tyranny" of the majority; whereas another society is underlain by a belief in collective rights and thinks they should be protected from unreasonable demands made by individuals. When argumentation arises between these two societies around the question of political rights, we are likely to see deep disagreement. You might imagine how such a division would influence the question whether vaccinations should be mandatory. In such cases, it is extremely difficult for the disagreement to be resolved because the positions from which sides begin are not just far apart, they are rooted in different belief systems, or what are often called different "frameworks". Parties to deep disagreements do not just think differently, they *see* things differently, and their different kinds of seeing influences everything they might believe. What do you see when you see a man with a mustache? What might a culture see? In January of 2020 CNN reported on a diplomatic controversy that had arisen between South Korea and the United States. The US ambassador to South Korea, Harry Harris, wears a mustache, something that resulted in wide criticism on social media. The CNN report explained the commotion in the following terms: "The gist of the criticism is that with the mustache, Harris resembles the reviled Japanese leaders who ruled the Korean Peninsula with an iron fist during the Japanese occupation." Several of the more prominent Japanese leaders during the war had similar mustaches, and Harris's appearance has provoked emotional memories of the Japanese occupation---especially as Harris was born in Japan and his mother was Japanese. On the face of things, Harris's appearance is irrelevant to his role as ambassador and his ability to represent his country in South Korea. But his appearance represents an impediment because of the emotions it evokes. One might argue for or against different ways of responding to this situation. We simply want to note that when the audience for one's argument is composite and includes the Japanese, this is something that needs to be taken into account when one constructs an argument. Argument as we have explored it has many goals. One of them is resolving disagreements, which is a happy outcome when that is possible. Another one is an understanding of different positions in a dispute, and that requires an attempt to understand the relevant beliefs that inform a dispute. We say "relevant" beliefs because, of course, not all beliefs will be relevant to a particular issue. This often means that we should ask *why* are people saying what they are saying. When the politician speaks in a television debate, she faces the difficult task of addressing not just those with whom she is debating, but a more composite audience comprised of both hostile and sympathetic people. She must consider the range of interests represented in that audience, and those among them whom she most wants to reach. In such circumstances, a sophisticated arguer will consider a mixing of belief systems, looking for places in which they most overlap. She will look for ways to overcome (or at least avoid) deep disagreements in a search is for shared, common ground on which premises can be built. For example, people generally believe in the fair distribution of health services, and that might be a shared value that the speaker or writer can tap into and develop in her argument. Not every member of a composite audience can be addressed in the same way, but one cannot be an effective arguer if one ignores the diverse makeup of composite audiences. In 2019, images from 2001 surfaced of Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau with his face painted black or brown, resulting in a so-called "blackface" controversy. In an interview on September 19, 2019, Trudeau offered the following apology (the second of several): \ \[https://globalnews.ca/news/5925495/trudeau-apologizes-to-canadians-over-blackface-controversy-heres-what-he-said/\] I want to begin by saying a few words directly to racialized Canadians who face discrimination every single day in their lives even in a country like Canada. What I did hurt them, hurt people, who shouldn't have to face intolerance and discrimination because of their identity. This is something that I deeply, deeply regret. Darkening your face, regardless of the context of the circumstances is always unacceptable because of the racist history of blackface. \[I\] should have understood that then and I never should have done it. \ In this situation, Trudeau begins by "directly" addressing a specific audience---racialized Canadians. His remarks to that audience reflect the highly emotional implications of the issue he is addressing (his own earlier behaviour). In so far as he can as a white Canadian, he expresses empathy for this audience, acknowledging the challenges they face, recognizing that he has hurt them. It is important for him to communicate contrition and sincerity if he wants this audience to accept his apology. At the same time, the Prime Minister is indirectly addressing others. There had been calls for his resignation in the middle of a federal election, so he is concerned to reassure the many supportive voters who will be disappointed in him, at the same time that he shows the rest of Canada that he is a strong leader on this important issue. He is addressing a composite audience, but he knows what the different components of that audience expect of him. Trudeau does not attempt to justify his behaviour. Instead, he makes the general claim that no one should darken their face, and gives as a reason in support of this claim the racist history associated with doing so. A further conclusion follows: Therefore, he should not have done it. He reasons from the general to the specific. As we will see in a later chapter, he is at the same time engaging in ethotic reasoning, attempting to *show* that he is the kind of person who recognizes and acknowledges their own mistakes and the hurt that can be caused, and accepts responsibility for doing so without excuses. Left for Canadians in all their diversity to decide is whether this type of character matches what they look for in a leader. Considered as an argument in support of his own leadership, one might ask how successful his response was. How much did the "blackface" incident harm Trudeau's image and how successful was his apologetic argument in his attempt to overcome the criticism that surfaces when it came to light? We leave it for you to decide and will only note that, a month after this apology, Trudeau led his party to a victory in a Canadian federal election, though one with a reduced number of seats and a minority government. Exercise 9-4 1\. \`The following scenarios describe disagreements between groups of people. Identify those that are deep and those that are not, explaining your decision in each case. For those that you judge to be deep, what relevant beliefs stand in the way of agreement? c) \[*Shell plans to cut GHG by 20% within a decade--- that\'s not enough, Dutch court rules, Financial Post, May 26, 2021\]* ============================================================================================================================= *Royal Dutch Shell Plc court verdict in the Netherlands. Reported in Financial Post, May 30, 2021. Judge Larisa Alwin: Companies have an independent responsib*ility, aside from what states do. Even if states do nothing, or only a little, companies have the responsibility to respect human rights. \[Therefore\] Royal Dutch Shell Plc must slash emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. ================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================= \5 Supplemented Diagrams As we have seen, diagrams are efficient ways to summarize the content of an argument. Their standardization presents the premises and conclusion(s). The diagram provides a visual representation of the relationships that exist between an argument's components. When we want to assess an argument, constructing a diagram is a good way to begin our assessment of the reasoning it contains. As we have been working with them, however, diagrams do not in themselves provide all the information we need to assess any argument. We have already noted that there is more to an argument than premises and conclusions. Arguments are situated in a context of communication that includes arguers, audiences, and opponents. A careful analysis of an argument must frequently discuss these parties. In order to prepare the way for this discussion, we may, in drawing the diagram for an argument, decide to identify one or more of the parties involved. In determining the strength of the argument, this information may provide the basis for a discussion of the arguers (which may address their credibility or our past experience in dealing with their arguments, etc.), the audiences for whom the argument is constructed (which may explain aspects of the argument that might otherwise make little sense), or the opponents to the position being advanced (for we may need to assess the extent to which the arguers have adequately dealt with objections to their views). In some cases, we may want to also note that the requirements for good argument are further constrained by the context in which an argument occurs. What counts as convincing evidence for some conclusion will vary, depending on whether the argument is presented in court (where it must respect established rules of evidence and procedure), in a scientific paper, in a government debate, or in interpersonal communication. This means that there are situations in which it is important to recognize the context in which an argument occurs. A ***supplemented* diagram** is a diagram of an argument to which has been added information about the arguer, the audience to which the argument is directed, or those who oppose this point of view. A *fully supplemented* argument contains information on all three. The following advertisement for Scotiabank illustrates the construction of a fully supplemented diagram. It appeared in a variety of university newspapers in an effort to promote the bank among students: \ Being a student has its advantages. With Scotia's student bank account---*Student Banking Advantage®* Plan for post-secondary students, there is no monthly fee and no transaction limits. PLUS other free benefits include: Speak to your local branch for details. ^2^ *Bank the Rest* savings program can only be set-up on Personal *ScotiaCard* bank cards. Conditions apply. \ To construct a fully supplemented diagram for this argument, we proceed by preparing a standard diagram, combining it with an account of the arguer, the audience, and the opponents. When we do so, the resulting account of the argument might look like this: P1 P2 P3 P4 C1 MC This fully supplemented diagram provides a very complete background for argument analysis. On the one hand, it clearly delineates the premises and conclusion of the argument and the pattern of support within the reasoning. At the same time, it provides us with the information on the arguer, the audience, and the opponents that may play an important role in our attempt to determine whether this is a good argument. For example, the recognition that the arguer is Scotiabank is not inconsequential, for this is a case where the arguer has an obvious vested interest, where there are financial benefits that accrue to Scotiabank if the intended audience accepts its conclusion. This is something we may need to consider in deciding whether the argument is biased in a way that reflects this vested interest. In dealing with most arguments, we will not provide fully supplemented diagrams. Why? Because this is a time-consuming task, especially if we are analyzing a whole series of arguments. Instead of providing fully supplemented diagrams, we will normally provide diagrams that are supplemented only with whatever information about the arguer, the audience, or the opponents we believe is relevant to a critical assessment of the argument. We suggest you do the same, while keeping in mind that someone who fully understands an argument should be able to provide a fully supplemented diagram that discusses the features of argument we have outlined in this and earlier chapters. Even when you don't provide a fully supplemented argument, you should, in principle, be able to do so. Exercise 9-5 1\. Decide whether each of the following passages is an argument. If it is an argument, provide a supplemented diagram that illustrates its structure. **[Major Exercises 9-M]{.smallcaps}** A. **[Knowledge Exercises]{.smallcaps}** 1\. The following are key terms discussed in this chapter. Review them. If there are any that are unfamiliar, or confusing, look them up in the Glossary. You should leave this chapter comfortable with this language. 2\. "Bias" tends to have a negative connotation when we hear the word. We can redefine it, for our purposes, so that this isn't necessary: compare **bias** to **illegitimate bias** in our terms. In your discussion articulate who has bias, what we should be cautious of, etc. 3\. What are you adding to a diagram when you **supplement** it and how can it be helpful to you as an analyst (or audience) of an argument? 4\. You learned about types of audience in Chapter 1. How does **composite audience** connect (or how is it different) with any of the Chapter 1 terms related to audience (i.e., universal, specific, sympathetic, openminded, and hostile audience)? 1\. Each of the following passages is a comment on the kinds of issues discussed in this chapter. First, if the passage contains an argument, identify its premise(s) and conclusion. Do you think this is a case of illegitimate bias? Why or why not? Explain with direct reference to terms of illegitimate bias (vested interest, conflict of interest, and slanting). If any other concepts introduced in the chapter relate, expand your analysis with them. If you would need more evidence to make decisions related to illegitimate bias, where would you go to get it? Make sure you explain what the author is saying *before* you judge their claims. 2\. For each of the following passages, decide if it is an argument, and if so, identify the specific audience involved and ways the writer specifically attempts to address those audiences. Are there deep disagreements implied? For each argument, provide a supplemented diagram that illustrates its structure. 3\. How is the diversity of audience acknowledged in the following pieces? Identify the composite audiences involved and how the argument designs the message to address different components. 4\. Read the article on how someone's reputation was ruined by high-profile news reporting at https://quillette.com/2020/07/06/jeffrey-epsteins-money-tainted-my-workplace-then-ronan-farrows-botched-reporting-trashed-my-reputation/. Explain the slanting that occurred. Discuss how often you think this happens in newspaper, magazine, and internet reporting. What are the implications? This is a good exercise to pair up with a peer, to learn about different perspectives. **[(C) Reflective Questions]{.smallcaps}**  1\. It's clear that we are all biased. Can you reflect on ways that you have been illegitimately biased? Are there any topics you are passionate about, where you presented illegitimate bias in the past? What kind of bias exactly (e.g. vested interest)? How can you avoid this in future without changing your point of view? 2\. Cognitive biases tend to be unconscious to those who make them. After learning about some of the ones in this chapter, can you reflect back on times where you exhibited a particular cognitive bias (e.g. confirmation bias)? If you explored other cognitive biases---do any jump out at you that you may employ? How does resorting to them effect your reasoning skills? If you avoid cognitive bias, generally, why do you think this is so? 3\. Not only do people have biases, cognitive and illegitimate, but AI has biases as well. A simple google search will yield information on this. To learn more, you can also watch a recent documentary on AI bias; it's called *Coded Bias* by filmmaker Kantayya. For the purposes of this reflection, consider the implications of using AI software to source evidence for arguments and how biases can be inherent, avoided, noticed, unavoidable, invisible, etc. 4\. Choose one or more questions below and respond to each of them in writing taking no more than five minutes. a. At what moment while reading Chapter 9 were you most engaged with the material? b. At what moment while reading Chapter 9 were you most distanced from the material? c. What material while reading Chapter 9 did you find most affirming or helpful? d. What material while reading Chapter 9 did you find most puzzling or confusing? e. What about the material in Chapter 9 surprised you the most? (This could be about your own reactions to the content or exercises, something that someone (e.g. your peer or instructor) did, or anything else that relates to reading this chapter). \ For more online exercises, review questions, and quizzes related to the material in this chapter, please go to https://sites.broadviewpress.com/reasoning