principles-public-speaking textbook-68-83.pdf

Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org was sponsored by a multi- national distributor of wine. In...

Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org was sponsored by a multi- national distributor of wine. In fact, the study in question was published in a trade journal targeted to wine and alcohol retailers. If Shonda had taken a few extra minutes to critically examine the study, she may have been able to avoid the dreaded “D.” Shonda’s story is just one of many ways that critical thinking impacts our lives. Throughout this chapter we will consider the importance of critical thinking in all areas of communication, especially public speaking. We will first take a more in-depth look at what critical thinking is – and isn’t. Shonda was researching information for her upcoming Before we get too far into the specifics of what critical thinking is and The first key component of Dewey’s persuasive speech. Her goal definition is that critical thinking is how we can do it, it’s important to clear with the speech was to persuade up a common misconception. Even active. Critical thinking must be done her classmates to drink a glass of though the phrase critical thinking uses by choice. As we continue to delve red wine every day. Her the word “critical,” it is not a negative deeper into the various facets of critical argument revolved around the thing. Being critical is not the same thinking, we will learn how to engage thing as criticizing. When we criticize as critical thinkers. health benefits one can derive from the antioxidants found in something, we point out the flaws and Probably one of the most concise and errors in it, exercising a negative value easiest to understand definitions is that red wine. Shonda found an judgment on it. Our goal with offered by Barry Beyer: "Critical article reporting the results of a criticizing is less about understanding thinking... means making reasoned study conducted by a Dr. Gray. than about negatively evaluating. It’s judgments" (Beyer, 1995, p. 8). In According to Dr. Gray’s study, important to remember that critical other words, we don’t just jump to a drinking four or more glasses of thinking is not just criticizing. While conclusion or a judgment. We wine a day will help reduce the the process may involve examining rationalize and justify our conclusions. chances of heart attack, increase flaws and errors, it is much more. A second primary component of critical levels of good cholesterol, and critical thinking defined thinking, then, involves questioning. As critical thinkers, we need to help in reducing unwanted fat. Just what is critical thinking then? To help us understand, let’s consider a question everything that confronts us. Without conducting further Equally important, we need to question research, Shonda changed her common definition of critical thinking. The philosopher John Dewey, often ourselves and ask how our own biases speech to persuade her considered the father of modern day or assumptions influence how we judge classmates to drink four or more critical thinking, defines critical something. glasses of red wine per day. She thinking as: In the following sections we will used Dr. Gray’s study as her explore how to do critical thinking primary support. Shonda “Active, persistent, careful more in depth. As you read through presented her speech in class to consideration of a belief or this material, reflect back on Dewey’s waves of applause and support supposed form of knowledge in and Beyer’s definitions of critical light of the grounds that support thinking. from her classmates. She was shocked when, a few weeks later, it and the further conclusions to she received a grade of “D”. which it tends” (Dewey, 1933, p. Shonda’s teacher had also found 9). Dr. Gray’s study and learned it 6-2 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org critical thinking traits Table 6.1 Traits of Critical Thinkers and skills Open- Critical thinkers are open and receptive to all ideas and Critical thinkers tend to exhibit Mindedness arguments, even those with which they may disagree. certain traits that are common to them. Critical thinkers reserve judgment on a message until they These traits are summarized in Table have examined the claims, logic, reasoning, and evidence 6.1 (adapted from Facione, 1990, p. 6): used. Critical thinkers are fair-minded and understand that a message is not inherently wrong or flawed if it differs from their Recall that critical thinking is an own thoughts. Critical thinkers remain open to the possibility active mode of thinking. Instead of just of changing their view on an issue when logic and evidence receiving messages and accepting them supports doing so. as is, we consider what they are saying. We ask if messages are well-supported. Analytic Nature Critical thinkers are interested in understanding what is happening in a message. Critical thinkers ask questions of the We determine if their logic is sound or message, breaking it into its individual components and slightly flawed. In other words, we act examining each in turn. Critical thinkers dissect these on the messages before we take action components looking for sound logic and reasoning. based on them. When we enact critical thinking on a message, we engage a Systematic by Critical thinkers avoid jumping to conclusions. Critical thinkers Method take the time to systematically examine a message. Critical variety of skills including: listening, thinkers apply accepted criteria or conditions to their analysis, evaluation, inference and analyses. interpretation or explanation, and self- regulation (adapted from Facione, Inquisitive Critical thinkers are curious by nature. Critical thinkers ask 1990, p. 6) questions of what is going on around them and in a message. Critical thinkers want to know more and take action to learn Next, we will examine each of these more. skills and their role in critical thinking Judicious Critical thinkers are prudent in acting and making judgments. in greater detail. As you read through Critical thinkers are sensible in their actions. That is, they don’t the explanation of and examples for just jump on the bandwagon of common thought because it each skill, think about how it works in looks good or everyone else is doing it. conjunction with the others. It’s important to note that while our Truth-Seeking Critical thinkers exercise an ethical foundation based in discussion of the skills is presented in a Ethos searching for the truth. Critical thinkers understand that even the wisest people may be wrong at times. linear manner, in practice our use of each skill is not so straightforward. We Confident in Critical thinkers have faith in the power of logic and sound may exercise different skills Reasoning reasoning. Critical thinkers understand that it is in everyone’s simultaneously or jump forward and best interest to encourage and develop sound logic. More backward. importantly, critical thinkers value the power of letting others draw their own conclusions. most basic, hearing refers to the other bodily functions, it happens physiological process of receiving without our willing it to happen. sounds, while listening refers to the Critical thinking requires that we psychological process of interpreting or consciously listen to messages. We making sense of those sounds. must focus on what is being said – and Every minute of every day we are not said. We must strive not to be surrounded by hundreds of different distracted by other outside noises or the noises and sounds. If we were to try to internal noise of our own preconceived make sense of each different sound we ideas. For the moment we only need to would probably spend our day just take in the message. Without an open-minded mind, doing this. While we may hear all of you can never be a great success. Listening becomes especially the noises, we filter out many of them. difficult when the message contains ~ Martha Stewart They pass through our lives without highly charged information. Think further notice. Certain noises, about what happens when you try to however, jump to the forefront of our discuss a controversial issue such as listening consciousness. As we listen to them, In order to understand listening, we abortion. As the other person speaks, we make sense of these sounds. We do you may have every good intention of must first understand the difference this every day without necessarily listening to the entire argument. between listening and hearing. At its thinking about the process. Like many 6-3 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org However, when the person says number of other health typical questions we may ask, along something you feel strongly about you problems. When I was with an evaluation of the ideas in start formulating a counter-argument in conducting research for my Shonda’s speech. your head. The end result is that both sides end up talking past each other speech, I read somewhere that without ever really listening to what the heart attacks are the number one Is the speaker credible? other says. killer of men and the number two Yes. While Shonda may not be an killer of women. Think about expert per se on the issue of health that. My uncle had a heart benefits related to wine, she has made analysis attack and had to be rushed to herself a mini-expert through Once we have listened to a message, conducting research. the hospital. They hooked him we can begin to analyze it. In practice we often begin analyzing messages up to a bunch of different while still listening to them. When we machines to keep him alive. We Does the statement ring true or analyze something, we consider it in all thought he was going to die. false based on common sense? It sounds kind of fishy. Four or more greater detail, separating out the main He’s ok now, but he has to take a glasses of wine in one sitting doesn’t components of the message. In a sense, bunch of pills every day and eat seem right. In fact, it seems like it we are acting like a surgeon on the a special diet. Plus he had to might be bordering on binge drinking. message, carving out all of the different pay thousands of dollars in elements and laying them out for further consideration and possible medical bills. Wouldn’t you like action. to know how to prevent this from Does the logic employed hold up to scrutiny? happening to you? Based on the little bit of Shonda’s Let’s return to Shonda’s persuasive speech to see analysis in action. As speech we see here, her logic does part of the needs section of her speech, If we were to analyze this part of seem to be sound. As we will see later Shonda makes the following remarks: Shonda’s speech (see Table 6.2), we on, she actually commits a few could begin by looking at the claims fallacies. she makes. We could then look at the evidence she presents in support of these claims. Having parsed out the What questions or objections are various elements, we are then ready to raised by the message? evaluate them and by extension the In addition to the possibility of message as a whole. Shonda’s proposal being binge drinking, it also raises the possibility of creating alcoholism or causing other evaluation long term health problems. When we evaluate something we continue the process of analysis by assessing the various claims and How will further information arguments for validity. One way we affect the message? evaluate a message is to ask questions More information will probably about what is being said and who is contradict her claims. In fact, most saying it. The following is a list of medical research in this area Table 6.2 Analysis of Shonda’s Speech Claims Evidence  Americans are unhealthy  Some news stories about America Americans today are some of the  America is the fattest country as the fattest country unhealthiest people on Earth. It  Americans suffer from many  Research about heart attacks seems like not a week goes by health problems  Story of her uncle’s heart attack without some news story relating  Heart attacks are the number how we are the fattest country in one killer of men the world. In addition to being  Heart attacks are the number two overweight, we suffer from a killer of women 6-4 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org contradicts the claim that drinking 4 or more glasses of wine a day is a good “Imply” or “Infer”? thing. For two relatively small words, imply and infer seem to generate an inordinately large amount of confusion. Understanding the difference Will further information between the two and knowing when to use the right one is not only a strengthen or weaken the claims? useful skill, but it also makes you sound a lot smarter! Most likely Shonda’s claims will be weakened. Let’s begin with imply. Imply means to suggest or convey an idea. A speaker or a piece of writing implies things. For example, in Shonda’s speech, she implies it is better to drink more red wine. In other words, What questions or objections are she never directly says that we need to drink more red wine, but she raised by the claims? clearly hints at it when she suggests that drinking four or more glasses a In addition to the objections we’ve day will provide us with health benefits. already discussed, there is also the Now let’s consider infer. Infer means that something in a speaker’s problem of the credibility of Shonda’s words or a piece of writing helps us to draw a conclusion outside of expert “doctor.” his/her words. We infer a conclusion. Returning to Shonda’s speech, we can infer she would want us to drink more red wine rather than less. She never comes right out and says this. However, by considering her A wise man proportions his belief overall message, we can draw this conclusion. to the evidence. Another way to think of the difference between imply and infer is: ~ David Hume A speaker (or writer for that matter) implies. The audience infers. inference and interpretation Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that Shonda infers we should or explanation drink more rather than less wine. She implies this. To help you The next step in critically examining differentiate between the two, remember that an inference is a message is to interpret or explain the something that comes from outside the spoken or written text. conclusions that we draw from it. At this phase we consider the evidence and the claims together. In effect we are you’re writing a speech on why we injuries. For example, if you’re in an reassembling the components that we should wear our seatbelts at all times accident where your car is partially parsed out during analysis. We are while driving. You’ve researched the submerged in water, wearing a seatbelt continuing our evaluation by looking at topic and found solid, credible may impede your ability to quickly exit the evidence, alternatives, and possible information setting forth the numerous the vehicle. Does the fact that this conclusions. reasons why wearing a seatbelt can evidence exists negate your claims? Before we draw any inferences or help save your life and decrease the Probably not, but you need to be attempt any explanations, we should number of injuries experienced during thorough in evaluating and considering look at the evidence provided. When a motor vehicle accident. Certainly, how you use your evidence. we consider evidence we must first there exists contradictory evidence determine what, if any, kind of support arguing seat belts can cause more A man who does not think for is provided. Of the evidence we then himself does not think at all. ask: ~ Oscar Wilde 1. Is the evidence sound? 2. Does the evidence say what the self-regulation speaker says it does? The final step in critically examining 3. Does contradictory evidence a message is actually a skill we should exist? exercise throughout the entire process. 4. Is the evidence from a valid With self-regulation, we consider our credible source? pre-existing thoughts on the subject and any biases we may have. We examine how what we think on an issue may Even though these are set up as yes have influenced the way we understand or no questions, you’ll probably find in (or think we understand) the message practice that your answers are a bit and any conclusions we have drawn. more complex. For example, let’s say Just as contradictory evidence doesn’t 6-5 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org automatically negate our claims or Table 6.3 thought, we know intuitively that invalidate our arguments, our biases simply buying a product will not don’t necessarily make our conclusions Universal Standards of Reasoning magically change our lives. Even if we wrong. The goal of practicing self- All reasoning has a purpose. can’t identify the specific fallacy at regulation is not to disavow or deny our work in the argument (non causa in this opinions. The goal is to create distance All reasoning is an attempt to case), we know there is some flaw in between our opinions and the messages figure something out, to settle the argument. we evaluate. some question, to solve some By studying logic and fallacies we problem. can learn to formulate stronger and All reasoning is based on more cohesive arguments, avoiding assumptions. problems like that mentioned above. The study of logic has a long history. All reasoning is done from some We can trace the roots of modern point of view. logical study back to Aristotle in All reasoning is based on data, ancient Greece. Aristotle’s simple information, and evidence. definition of logic as the means by which we come to know anything still All reasoning is expressed provides a concise understanding of through, and shaped by, logic (Aristotle, 1989). Of the classical concepts and ideas. pillars of a core liberal arts education of All reasoning contains inferences logic, grammar, and rhetoric, logic has or interpretations by which we developed as a fairly independent draw conclusions and give branch of philosophical studies. We meaning to data. use logic everyday when we construct statements, argue our point of view, All reasoning leads somewhere and in myriad other ways. or has implications and Understanding how logic is used will consequences. help us communicate more efficiently the value of critical thinking and effectively. In public speaking, the value of being a critical thinker cannot be logic and the role of defining arguments overstressed. Critical thinking helps us arguments When we think and speak logically, to determine the truth or validity of We use logic every day. Even if we we pull together statements that arguments. However, it also helps us have never formally studied logical combine reasoning with evidence to to formulate strong arguments for our reasoning and fallacies, we can often support an assertion, arguments. A speeches. Exercising critical thinking tell when a person’s statement doesn’t logical argument should not be at all steps of the speech writing and sound right. Think about the claims we confused with the type of argument you delivering process can help us avoid see in many advertisements today – have with your sister or brother or any situations like Shonda found herself in. Buy product X, and you will be other person. When you argue with Critical thinking is not a magical beautiful/thin/happy or have the your sibling, you participate in a panacea that will make us super carefree life depicted in the conflict in which you disagree about speakers. However, it is another tool advertisement. With very little critical something. You may, however, use a that we can add to our speech toolbox. logical argument in the midst of the As we will learn in the following pages, we construct arguments based on logic. Understanding the ways logic can be used and possibly misused is a vital skill. To help stress the importance of it, the Foundation for Critical Thinking has set forth universal standards of reasoning. These standards can be found in Table 6.3. When the mind is thinking, it is talking to itself. ~ Plato 6-6 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org 3. Therefore, Sydney should clean is therefore stuck with scrubbing the the bathroom. toilet. Harrison’s argument here is a form of deductive reasoning, specifically a syllogism. We will consider syllogisms in a few minutes. For our purposes here, let’s just focus on why Harrison’s argument fails to persuade Sydney. Assuming for the moment that we argument with your sibling. Consider agree with Harrison’s first two premises, then it would seem that his this example: argument makes sense. We know that Brother and sister, Sydney and Sydney is a girl, so the second premise Harrison are arguing about is true. This leaves the first premise that girls are better at cleaning whose turn it is to clean their bathrooms than boys. This is the exact bathroom. Harrison tells Sydney point where Harrison’s argument goes she should do it because she is a astray. The only way his entire girl and girls are better at argument will work is if we agree with defining deduction cleaning. Sydney responds that the assumption girls are better at Deductive reasoning refers to an cleaning bathrooms than boys. argument in which the truth of its being a girl has nothing to do premises guarantees the truth of its with whose turn it is. She Let’s now look at Sydney’s argument conclusions. Think back to Harrison’s reminds Harrison that according and why it works. Her argument can be argument for Sydney cleaning the to their work chart, they are summarized as follows: bathroom. In order for his final claim responsible for cleaning the 1. The bathroom responsibilities to be valid, we must accept the truth of bathroom on alternate weeks. alternate weekly according to the his claims that girls are better at She tells him she cleaned the work chart. cleaning bathrooms than boys. The key 2. Sydney cleaned the bathroom last focus in deductive arguments is that it bathroom last week; therefore, it must be impossible for the premises to is his turn this week. Harrison, week. 3. The chart indicates it is be true and the conclusion to be false. still unconvinced, refuses to take The classic example is: Harrison’s turn to clean the responsibility for the chore. bathroom this week. All men are mortal. Sydney then points to the work 4. Therefore, Harrison should clean Socrates is a man. chart and shows him where it the bathroom. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. specifically says it is his turn this week. Defeated, Harrison digs Sydney’s argument here is a form of We can look at each of these out the cleaning supplies. inductive reasoning. We will look at statements individually and see each is inductive reasoning in depth below. true in its own right. It is virtually Throughout their bathroom For now, let’s look at why Sydney’s impossible for the first two argument, both Harrison and Sydney argument succeeds where Harrison’s propositions to be true and the use logical arguments to advance their fails. Unlike Harrison’s argument, conclusion to be false. Any argument point. You may ask why Sydney is which rests on assumption for its truth which fails to meet this standard successful and Harrison is not. This is claims, Sydney’s argument rests on commits a logical error or fallacy. a good question. Let’s critically think evidence. We can define evidence as Even if we might accept the arguments about each of their arguments to see anything used to support the validity of as good and the conclusion as possible, why one fails and one succeeds. an assertion. Evidence includes: the argument fails as a form of testimony, scientific findings, statistics, deductive reasoning. Let’s start with Harrison’s argument. physical objects, and many others. We can summarize it into three points: Sydney uses two primary pieces of A few observations and much 1. Girls are better at cleaning evidence: the work chart and her reasoning lead to error; many bathrooms than boys. statement that she cleaned the observations and a little reasoning 2. Sydney is a girl. bathroom last week. Because Harrison has no contradictory evidence, he can’t to truth. logically refute Sydney’s assertion and ~ Alexis Carrel 6-7 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org or soundness. Another significant difference between deduction and induction is inductive arguments do not have a standard format. Let’s return to Sydney’s argument to see how induction develops in action: 1. Bathroom cleaning responsibilities alternate weekly according to the work chart. 2. Sydney cleaned the bathroom last week. 3. The chart indicates it is Harrison’s turn to clean the bathroom this week. 4. Therefore, Harrison should clean the bathroom. What Sydney does here is build to her conclusion that Harrison should existence of a fallacy in an inductive clean the bathroom. She begins by 2. The terrorists hated America. argument weakens the argument but stating the general house rule of does not invalidate it. alternate weeks for cleaning. She then 3. Therefore, all Muslims (or adds in evidence before concluding her Arabs or Middle Easterners) It is important to study fallacies so argument. While her argument is hate America. you can avoid them in the arguments strong, we don’t know if it is true. you make. Studying fallacies also There could be other factors Sydney provides you with a foundation for has left out. Sydney may have agreed Clearly, we can see the problem in evaluating and critiquing other to take Harrison’s week of bathroom this line of reasoning. Beyond being a arguments as well. Once you start cleaning in exchange for him doing scary example of hyperbolic rhetoric, studying and thinking about fallacies, another one of her chores. Or there we can all probably think of at least one you’ll find they are everywhere. You may be some extenuating counter example to disprove the could say that we live in a fallacious circumstances preventing Harrison conclusion. However, individual world! from bathroom cleaning this week. passions and biases caused many otherwise rational people to say these The study of fallacies can be dated things in the weeks following the back to the start of the study of logic. You should carefully study the Art In ancient Greece, Aristotle classified of Reasoning, as it is what most attacks. This example also clearly illustrates how easy it is to get tripped fallacies into two categories – linguistic people are very deficient in, and I and non-linguistic. Within these two up in your use of logic and the know few things more importance of practicing self- categories, he identified 13 individual disagreeable than to argue, or regulation. fallacies. Through time we have even converse with a man who has reclassified fallacies using various no idea of inductive and deductive typologies and criteria. For our purposes, we will focus on formal and philosophy. understanding fallacies When we form arguments or examine informal fallacies. ~ William John Wills others’ arguments, we need to be cognizant of possible fallacies. A Let’s return to the world stage for fallacy can be defined as a flaw or error another example. After the 9/11 in reasoning. At its most basic, a attacks on the World Trade Center, we logical fallacy refers to a defect in the heard variations of the following reasoning of an argument that causes arguments: the conclusion(s) to be invalid, 1. The terrorists were Muslim unsound, or weak. The existence of a fallacy in a deductive argument makes (or Arab or Middle Eastern). the entire argument invalid. The 6-9 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org formal fallacies require a certain look or the ability to conclusion is necessarily true. Even if A formal fallacy exists because of an put together interesting outfits. (Just Ginny did steal Chris’s car, this fact error in the structure of the argument. look around your campus or workplace doesn’t make the conclusion true. The In other words, the conclusion doesn’t and you’ll probably see how true this existence of this fact cannot be follow from the premises. All formal is.) As such, the reasons for presumed to change what Chris told the fallacies are specific types of non concluding the new faculty member police. sequiturs, or arguments in which the should be fired are bad. We commit a conclusions do not follow from the fallacy if the conclusion to fire him is premises. Formal fallacies are also bad or wrong. While the given identified by critically examining the reasons don’t necessarily support the structure of the argument exclusive of conclusion, there may be others that the individual statements. As you read do. through the following types of formal fallacies and examples, this definition will become more clear. Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the bad reasons fallacy practical side of logic. (argumentum ad logicam) In this fallacy, the conclusion is ~ Charles Sanders assumed to be bad because the Peirce arguments are bad. In practice, a premise of the argument is bad and masked man fallacy fallacy of quantitative logic therefore the conclusion is bad or (intensional fallacy) Fallacies of quantitative logic revolve invalid. This fallacy is seen often in The masked man fallacy involves a around the grammatical structure of the debate or argumentation. We substitution of parties. If the two things proposition. The focus is on the use of summarize the fallacy as: He gave bad we substitute are identical, then the some sort of quantifying word such as reasons for his argument; therefore, his argument is valid: “all” or “some.” Consider this argument is bad. Consider the example: following claim: Rosamond Smith wrote the book Nemesis. All philosophers are wise. Rosamond Smith is an alias for Joyce Carol Oates. We can show the flaw in this statement by simply finding a counter- Joyce Carol Oates wrote the example. And since the fact of being book Nemesis. wise is abstract, how do we truly know if one is wise or not? Consider how the This argument is valid because statement changes with the use of a Rosamond Smith is in fact an alias for different quantifier: Joyce Carol Oates, so there is no flaw in the structure of the argument. Some philosophers are wise. Consider the following example: This statement is stronger because it Chris told police that a red- allows for the possibility there are haired woman stole her car. counter-examples. However, the error Ginny is a red-haired woman. arises from the fact that it is not a Therefore, Chris told police that known quantity. We must infer from the statement that some philosophers Ginny stole her car. are not wise. The new employee is too quiet Let’s look at another example: The fallacy in this example occurs and has no sense of style. We between the second premise and the should fire him. All conservatives are conclusion. Looking at each premise Republicans. individually, we can see that each is The problem here should be obvious. true. However, simply because each Therefore, all Republicans are To be a good employee does not premise is true doesn’t mean the conservatives. 6-10 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org Without thinking too hard you can Jane: Well, you’re a big jerk probably think of one counter-example. Let’s try one more: and don’t know anything, so we don’t have to go back to class. Some doctors are not MDs. Therefore, some MDs are not If we examine this exchange we can see that Bill’s arguments are sound and doctors. supported by what appears to be good evidence. However, Jane ignores these While the first premise is true (there and focuses on Bill’s supposed are other types of doctors), the second character – he’s a big jerk. The fallacy is clearly not true. happens when we connect the truth of a The fallacy here should be clear. I love dogs and coyotes, but I don’t proposition to the person asserting it. know that I would want a coyote for a pet. The fallacy in this case could be easily fixed with the use of a simple qualifier such as the word “some.” If we changed the first premise to read “Some dogs make good pets,” then we can see how even if the second premise is true it doesn’t automatically lead to the stated conclusion. The basic problem here is that a sometimes true statement is assumed to be universally informal fallacies true. An informal fallacy occurs because Let’s consider a more serious of an error in reasoning. Unlike formal example that we see in many political fallacies which are identified through I do personal attacks only on campaigns. We can map out the fallacy examining the structure of the people who specialize in personal as follows: argument, informal fallacies are attacks. identified through analysis of the My opponent has trait X. content of the premises. In this group ~ Al Franken Therefore, she is not qualified to of fallacies, the premises fail to provide do the job. adequate reasons for believing the truth genetic fallacy of the conclusion. There are numerous (ad hominem) The focus here is on the individual’s different types of informal fallacies. In The ad hominem fallacy occurs when trait, even when the trait in question has the following, we consider some of the we shift our focus from the premises nothing to do with the job. We saw this more common types. and conclusions of the argument and fallacy in play in the early days of the focus instead on the individual making 2012 U.S. presidential campaign: accident the argument. An easy way to (sweeping generalization) remember this fallacy is to think of it as We will never get out of debt if A fallacy by accident occurs when a the personal attack fallacy. It is the we allow a Democrat to remain generally true statement is applied to a weak form of arguing that many of us specific case that is somehow unusual as president. employed on our elementary school or exceptional. The fallacy looks like playgrounds such as this exchange: this: The focus here has nothing to do with Bill: I think we should go back any individual candidate’s skills, Xs are normally Ys. Z is an (ab- to class now. experience, or abilities. The focus is normal) X. Therefore, Z is an Y. solely on their political affiliation. Jane: I don’t think we need to worry about it. Let’s look at a specific example to Bill: Well, the bell rang a few see how this fallacy can easily occur: There is no greater impediment to minutes ago. We’re going to be the advancement of knowledge Dogs are good pets. late. than the ambiguity of words. Coyotes are dogs. ~ Thomas Reid Therefore, coyotes are good pets. 6-11 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org ambiguity fallacies of appeal proposition with the person stating it. (equivocation) This type of fallacy is actually a Instead of considering the strength of Fallacies caused by ambiguity occur, group of fallacies. At its most basic, the argument and any evidence not surprisingly, when some ambiguous the truth of the argument rests on associated with it, we focus solely on term is used in the argument. An reference to some outside source or the individual. ambiguous term is one that has more force. We will consider four of the It can be easy to fall into the trap of than one meaning. The structure of the most popular appeal fallacies – appeals this fallacy. For many of your argument may be clear, and there may to authority, emotion, ignorance, and speeches, you will be asked to research be solid evidence supporting the pity. the issue at hand and present supporting propositions. The problem arises from evidence. This is a prime place for the having nothing solid on which to base fallacy to occur. While it is important our conclusion. We saw this fallacy in appeal to authority to support your arguments with outside play during the Clinton/Lewinsky (ad vericundiam) research, it is also important to investigations. If you recall, when When we appeal to authority we critically evaluate all aspects of the questioned about his relationship with claim the truth of a proposition is information. Remember the example Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton guaranteed because of the opinion of a of Shonda’s speech that opened this responded that he never had “sexual famous person. Appeals to authority chapter? Her blind reliance on the relations” with that woman. The look like this: research of Dr. Gray is an example of phrase “sexual relations” can include a the appeal to authority fallacy. whole range of sexual behaviors. Authority figure X says Y. Therefore, Y is true. Let’s look at a more recent example: Anyone who conducts an We won’t be safe until we win We see this fallacy in play regularly argument by appealing to the war on terrorism. in commercials or other advertisements featuring a doctor, lawyer, or other authority is not using his professional. Think about, for example, intelligence; he is just using his ads for the latest weight loss memory. supplement. A doctor will discuss the ~ Leonardo da Vinci science of the supplement. At times she will mention that she used the supplement and successfully lost appeal to emotion weight. Even though we do learn This fallacy occurs with the use of something about the specifics of the highly emotive or charged language. supplement, the focus is on the doctor The force of the fallacy lies in its and her implied authoritative ability to motivate the audience to knowledge. We are to infer that the accept the truth of the proposition supplement will work because the based solely on their visceral response doctor says it will work. to the words used. In a sense, the audience is manipulated or forced into accepting the truth of the stated Can you spot the ambiguity? conclusions. Consider the following Actually there are two: safe and example: terrorism. What is safe to one person is much less so to another. Likewise, Any campus member who thinks behaviors that appear terrorist-like to clearly should agree that Dr. one person are simply impassioned acts Lenick is a flaming, radical, to another. feminist, liberal. Dr. Lenick has made it clear she believes that equal rights should be granted to An appeal to the reason of the everyone without regard to the people has never been known to traditions and history of this fail in the long run. campus or this country. ~ James Russell Lowell Therefore, Dr. Lenick is a bad teacher and should be fired The fallacy in this type of reasoning occurs when we confuse the truth of the immediately. 6-12 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org definitively that ghosts don’t semester. If I don’t play, the exist. Therefore, ghosts are real. team will lose. Will you please make sure that you give me at Though rather simplistic, this least a C for my final grade? example makes clear the thrust of this fallacy. The focus is not on supporting evidence, but on a blatant lack of evidence. While ghosts may exist, we don’t know for sure they do – or don’t for that matter. As such, we could also argue that because we can’t prove that ghosts are real they must not exist. The student here acknowledges he does not deserve a grade of C or higher. He has missed assignments, failed the The thrust of this argument revolves midterm, and accrued a number of around two interrelated components – absences. His argument asks the Dr. Lenick’s advocacy of equal rights professor to ignore these facts, though, for all and her alleged disregard for and focus on the fact that without him tradition and history. The emotional the team would lose. In other words, appeal rests in the phrase “flaming, he hopes the professor will feel sorry radical, feminist, liberal” – words that for him and ignore the evidence. indicate ideological beliefs, usually beliefs that are strongly held by both sides. Additionally, hot button words begging the question like these tend to evoke a visceral (petitio principii) response rather than a logical, reasoned A begging the question fallacy is a response. appeal to pity form of circular reasoning that occurs (argumentium ad when the conclusion of the argument is misericordium) used as one of the premises of the The highest form of ignorance is Appeals to pity are another form of argument. Arguments composed in this pulling on the emotions of the way will only be considered sound or when you reject something you audience. In the appeal to pity, the strong by those who already accept don't know anything about. argument attempts to win acceptance ~ Wayne Dyer their conclusion. by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will fall upon the appeal to Ignorance speaker. In effect, the goal is to make us feel sorry for the speaker and ignore Dilbert: And we know mass (argumentum ad contradictory evidence. This form of creates gravity because more ignorantiam) When we appeal to ignorance, we fallacy is used often by students. dense planets have more gravity. argue that the proposition must be Consider this message a professor Dogbert: How do we know which accepted unless someone can prove recently received at the end of the planets are more dense? otherwise. The argument rests not on semester: Dilbert: They have more gravity. any evidence but on a lack of evidence. We are to believe the truth of the I know I have not done all the work for the semester and have To see how begging the question argument because no one has disproven develops as a fallacy, let’s turn to it. Let’s look at an example to see how been absent a lot. However, I standard arguments in the abortion appeals to ignorance can develop: am the key point guard for the debate. One of the common arguments basketball team. If I get any made by those who oppose legalized People have been seeing ghosts grade lower than a C, I will not abortion is the following: for hundreds of years. No one be able to play basketball next has been able to prove 6-13 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org Murder is morally wrong. two possible alternatives, when in fact more than two exist. Abortion is murder. Therefore, abortion is morally Returning to the abortion debates, we wrong. can see a form of this fallacy in play by simply looking at the way each side refers to itself. Those who oppose Most people would agree with the legalized abortion are Pro-Life. The first premise that murder is morally implication here is that if you are for wrong. The problem, then rests in the abortion then you are against life. The second premise. Not all individuals fallacy in this case is easy to figure out would agree that abortion is murder. – there are many facets of life, not just However, as presented, the premise abortion. Those who favor legalized creates a presumption it is valid in all abortion are Pro-Choice. The cases. implication here is that if you are Those who advocate for legalized against abortion, then you are against abortion are not immune from this choices. Again, the reasoning is faulty. fallacy. One of their standard arguments is: To make this fallacy more clear, let’s There is no black-and-white look at a humorous, though not so The Constitution guarantees situation. It's all part of life. appetizing example: Americans the right to control Highs, lows, middles. their bodies. I like smoothies for breakfast ~ Van Morrison Abortion is a choice affecting because I can drink them on the women’s bodies. run. My favorite breakfast foods Therefore, abortion is a Let’s look at another hot button topic to see how this fallacy develops in are scrambled eggs, fresh fruit, constitutional right. action. In recent years many family bagels with cream cheese, soy advocacy groups have argued that, sausage links, cottage cheese, Like the previous example, the what they call, the “liberal media” has oatmeal, cold pizza, and triple second premise generates a potential caused the rapid moral decline of stopping point. While the choice to espressos. Therefore, I would America. They usually ask questions like a breakfast smoothie made have or not have an abortion does like: Do you support families or moral clearly impact a woman’s body, many depravity? This question ignores the of scrambled eggs, fresh fruit, individuals would argue this impact is whole range of choices between the bagels with cream cheese, soy not a deciding issue. two extremes. sausage links, cottage cheese, oatmeal, cold pizza, and triple espressos. composition This fallacy occurs when we assume If you’re not feeling too nauseated to that if all the parts have a given quality, keep reading, you should be able to see then the whole of the parts will have it the composition fallacy here. While as well. We jump to a conclusion each of these breakfast items may be without concrete evidence. We see this appetizing individually, they become fallacy at work in the following much less so when dropped into a example: blender and pureed together. All of the basketball team’s players are fast runners, high division jumpers, and winners. The opposite of the composition Therefore, the team is a winner. fallacy, a division fallacy occurs when black-or-white Fallacy we think the parts of the whole contain (bifurcation) The problem here is the individuals the same quality as the whole. Let’s This fallacy is also known as an turn to another food-based example to must work together to make the team a Either/or fallacy or False Dichotomy. see how this fallacy occurs: winner. This might very well happen, The thrust of the fallacy occurs when but it might not. we are only given the choice between 6-14 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org Blueberry muffins taste good. Accidental or coincidental practice of dragging a dried smoke connection occurs when we assume a herring across the trail so as to throw Therefore, the individual connection where one might or might off the hound from the scent. In logical ingredients comprising blueberry not exist. We say event C caused event reasoning, the red herring fallacy works muffins also taste good. E when we have no clear proof. Here’s in much the same way. No, this an example: doesn’t mean you make the argument while smelling like an old fish. What it Yesterday Jen went out in the does mean is that we attempt to distract rain and got soaked. The next the audience by introducing some day she was in bed with the flu. irrelevant point, such as this: Therefore, the rain caused her to get sick. Each year thousands of people Most of us probably grew up hearing die in car accident across the statements like this without ever country. Why should we worry realizing we were being exposed to a about endangered animals? logical fallacy in action. Flu is caused On the surface, this argument may by exposure to a virus, not to bad This argument is trying to get us to not appear to be problematic. weather. focus on dead people instead of However, think about the individual The other type of causal fallacy animals. While car accidents and the ingredients: blueberries, raw eggs, occurs with a general causation deaths resulting from them are a serious flour, sugar, salt, baking soda, oil, and between types of events. For example, issue, this fact does not lessen the vanilla. Of these, blueberries are the we know that drinking excessive only items that generally taste good on amounts of alcohol leads to alcoholism their own. I don’t know about you, but and cirrhosis of the liver. However, not sitting down to a bowl of baking soda every individual who drinks doesn’t sound too appetizing. excessively develops either of these Here’s one more example to make diseases. In other words, there is a the fallacy clearer: possibility the disease will occur as a result of excessive drinking, but it is Women in general make less not an absolute. money than men. Therefore, Brenda Barnes, CEO of the Sara Lee company, makes less money importance of worrying about than the male delivery drivers endangered animals. The two issues who work for the company. are not equated with each other. Political campaigns are a fertile Common sense will tell you the CEO ground for growing red herring of a company makes more money than fallacies. If you think back to the 2004 the hourly delivery drivers. Presidential campaign you will find a Additionally, a few quick minutes of number of red herrings. For example, research will confirm this inference. at one point we were inundated with ads reminding us that John Kerry’s wife was heir to the Heinz ketchup false cause fortune. The implication was that by (non causa, pro causa) extension John Kerry was a rich elitist Sometimes called a Questionable incapable of understanding the plight of Cause fallacy, this occurs when there working class and middle class exists a flawed causal connection individuals. between events. The fallacy is not just red herring a bad inference about connection (Irrelevant thesis) slippery slope between cause and effect, but one that This fallacy occurs when we This fallacy occurs when we assume violates the cannons of reasoning about introduce an irrelevant issue into the one action will initiate a chain of events causation. We see two primary types argument. The phrase “red herring” culminating in an undesirable event of this fallacy: comes from the supposed fox hunting later. It makes it seem like the final 6-15 Chapter 6 critical thinking & reasoning www.publicspeakingproject.org event, the bottom of the slope, is an follows Islam and identifies as Muslim house I was looking at was an older inevitability. Arguments falling prey to they clearly can’t be American or house needing some TLC. I asked how the slippery slope fallacy ignore the interested in America. While there are old the roof was and the real estate fact there are probably a number of many potential flaws in this argument agent responded: other things that can happen between as presented, for our purpose the most the initial event and the bottom of the obvious is that there are many I don’t know for sure, but it’s slope. Americans who are Muslim and who either 10 or 20 years old. You We hear examples of the slippery are quite interested and concerned know, though, I put a roof on a slope fallacy all around us: about America. house similar to this when I was younger and we haven’t had to If we teach sex education in worry about it. It’s been over 20 school, then students will have years now. more sex. If students have more sex, we will have a rash of Ignoring for the moment that there’s unplanned pregnancies and a big difference between a 10-year-old sexually transmitted diseases. roof and a 20-year-old roof, the real Students will be forced to drop estate agent mistakenly assumes that out of school and will never have his roof and the roof of the TLC house are the same. They both provide a the chance to succeed in life. covering for the home, but that’s about where their similarities end. Clearly, just learning about sex false analogy doesn’t automatically mean that you When we use analogies in our will engage in sex. Even more unlikely reasoning, we are comparing things. A conclusion is the fact that merely learning about fallacy of weak analogy occurs when In this chapter we have examined sex will force you to drop out of there exists a poor connection between what critical thinking is and how it school. examples. Structurally, the fallacy involves more than simply being looks like this: critical. Understanding critical thinking helps in formulating and strawman A and B are similar. studying arguments. We see arguments This fallacy occurs when the actual A has characteristic X. every day in advertising, use arguments argument appears to be refuted, but in Therefore, B has characteristic to persuade others, and we use them to reality a related point is addressed. The X. benefit us. The overview of fallacies individual using a strawman argument showed not all arguments are valid or will appear to be refuting the original even logical. Always critically think This fallacy often occurs when we try point made but will actually be arguing and examine any argument you to compare two things that on the a point not made in the original. The confront, and remember that if it surface appear similar. For example: best strawman arguments will argue the sounds too good to be true, it probably new point to a conclusion that appears Humans and animals are both is a fallacious argument. solid; however, because their point is living, breathing beings. We practice critical thinking on a not the original point, it is still a fallacy. Humans have civil rights. daily basis, often without any extra Therefore, animals have civil effort. Now that you know a bit more Examples of the strawman fallacy are rights. about how to do these things better, you everywhere and can appear to be quite should find that you can put together persuasive: more persuasive arguments that avoid The problem in this argument is that the pitfalls of fallacious thinking. More President Obama cannot truly while humans and animals are alike in importantly, when you hear a statement have American interests in mind their living and breathing status, there such as, “You should drink at least four are numerous other ways they differ. because he’s not truly American glasses of wine per day,” you’ll know We commit a fallacy when we infer but Muslim. that based on this initial similarity, they that something isn’t right. And if you do hear a statement like this, you will are similar in all other ways as well. Statements similar to this were quite be prepared to think critically about the prevalent during the 2008 Presidential The other day while looking at statement, and will be in a position to election and still appear on occasion. houses, I heard another version of this make a more educated decision about The assumption here is that if a person argument from a real estate agent. The the information. 6-16