Critical Thinking and Arguments PDF

CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMEN TS THINKIN – A65C DISCUSSION Module 1: Critical Thinking, Fairmindedness, and Intellectual Standards OUTLINE 1. 2. Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model Intellectual Standards...

CRITICAL THINKING AND ARGUMEN TS THINKIN – A65C DISCUSSION Module 1: Critical Thinking, Fairmindedness, and Intellectual Standards OUTLINE 1. 2. Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Model Intellectual Standards 3. Elements of Reasoning 4. Intellectual Traits and Fair-mindedness Break / Guide Questions Module 2: What is an Argument? 5. Claims, Issues, and Arguments 6. Logic as the Study of Arguments 7. Recognising Arguments 8. Non-Arguments Reminder for our Asynchronous Session this Week MODULE 1: CRITICAL THINKING, FAIRMINDEDNESS, AND INTELLECTUAL STANDARDS In this module, we cover the following: What framework Paul and Elder promotes in order for one to be a critical thinker. What intellectual standards we uphold for thinking / reasoning. What traits are considered important to become fair-minded. PAUL-ELDER CRITICAL THINKING MODEL INTELLECTU AL STANDARDS ELEMENTS/PARTS OF REASONING/THOUGHT Thinking and reasoning are often interchanged, but reasoning has a more formal flavor as it highlights the intellectual dimension of thinking. Reasoning occurs whenever the mind draws conclusions on the basis of reasons; when we make sense of things. The elements of thought are essential dimensions of whether we are reasoning well or poorly. Working together, the elements shape reasoning and provide a general logic to the use of thought. INTELLECTUAL TRAITS AND FAIR- MINDEDNESS Intellectual Humility: to develop knowledge of the extent of one’s ignorance. It means being aware of one’s biases and prejudices, as well as the limitations of one’s viewpoint. Its opposite is intellectual arrogance. Intellectual Courage: facing and fairly addressing ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints even when this is painful. It means closely examining beliefs toward which one has strong negative emotions and to which one has not given a serious hearing. Its opposite is intellectual cowardice. Intellectual Empathy: to put oneself imaginatively in the place of others on a routine basis, so as to genuinely understand them. It requires one to reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of others accurately and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than one’s own. Its opposite is intellectual self-centeredness. Intellectual Integrity: striving to be true to one’s own disciplined thinking and holding oneself to the same standards that one expects others to meet. It means practicing daily what one advocates for others, and it requires honestly admitting discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own though and action. Its opposite is intellectual hypocrisy. Intellectual Perseverance: the disposition to work one’s way through intellectual complexities despite frustrations inherent in the task. It also entails a realistic sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended time to achieve understanding or insight. Its opposite is intellectual laziness. Confidence in Reason: based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of humankind at large are best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusion through the use of their own rational faculties. Its opposite is intellectual distrust of reason. Intellectual Autonomy: thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality. It means thinking through issues using one’s own thinking rather than uncritically accepting the viewpoints of others. Its opposite is intellectual conformity. Fair-mindedness: exhibiting the abovementioned intellectual traits and understanding the interdependent nature of these intellectual virtues. BREAK / GUIDE QUESTIONS On intellectual courage – complete the following statements: One belief I have that might be questioned is… (here, identify at least one belief that may or has led you to behave irrationally). This belief might be questioned because… On intellectual empathy: Think of an international political leader who is represented negatively. Try to consider where they are coming from. Ask yourself whether you’d be able to explain how they might defend themselves against the charges made in recognising that person as simply “evil.” MODULE 2: WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT? In this module, we cover the following: What claims, issues, and arguments mean. What logic as a discipline that studies arguments entails. How one can recognise arguments from non-arguments.  An argument is a set of statements (one or more CLAIMS, premises and a conclusion) that has an inferential ISSUES, AND relation. ARGUMENTS Claims or statements are linguistic expressions that are either true or false. Critical thinking is the careful application of reason in determining whether a claim is true. CLAIMS, Whenever you ask whether a claim is true or not, you raise an issue. The concept of an issue is very ISSUES, AND simple. An issue is nothing more than a question. The question is simply whether a given claim is true ARGUMENTS or not. When you try to support or prove a claim, you provide an argument that offers a reason for believing another claim is a premise. The conclusion is the claim for which the premise is meant to provide support. LOGIC AS THE STUDY OF ARGUMENTS Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (Copi, Cohen, 2014; 2). In reasoning about what we believe to be the case, the evidence we provide to support our beliefs may be insufficient or coloured by a personal grudge against a person involved. Example: Why should I care about the reasons our teacher gives about abortion? He never accommodated any of my requests. While it may be suitable for a teacher to accommodate specific student requests, this has no bearing on the merit or demerit of reasons for or against abortion. The reason provided is different from what it is reasoning for. In reasoning for something, we produce an argument. A good argument is one where the conclusions logically follow from its premises. In other words, the conclusions are a direct result of the premises. But what does it mean to follow conclusions from premises? What is it for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? In many respects, those questions are at the heart of logic (Beall, Restall, 2019). An argument involves a reason or reasons and what this reason/s is/are reasoning for or about. These refer to the premise/s (the reason/s) and the conclusion (what this reason/s is/are reasoning for or about). An argument is a set of propositions of which one follows from the other/s (Copi & Cohen, 2014; 6). Propositions are also known as "claims,” “statements,” and “assertions.” A proposition is a sentence that asserts that something is the case or that something is not the case (Ibid, 2). As such, a proposition can be either true or false. A proposition is always truth- evaluable. A question, “Do you know what time it is?” does not assert anything and, as such, is not a proposition. So is it with exclamations (Oh my God!) and commands (Bring him here.) and requests (Kindly pass the salt). None of them assert what is the case or what is not the case. Propositions are not about what is claimed to be true or false, but about the potential for discovery. For instance, the claim 'There is life on other planets besides the Earth' may be a claim that we may not find out to be true or false at present. However, it remains a proposition that can be found out, as circumstances allow, to be either true or false. This opens up a world of possibilities for exploration and learning. Arguments are made up of propositions. The truth or acceptability of the conclusion can only be justified through the propositional content of the premise/s. A conclusion can only follow if the premise/s are propositions. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS An argument has a conclusion, which is claimed to follow from its premise/s. Premise, Conclusion, and the Inferential Relation Understanding the logical process of argument formation is vital. Any proposition can serve as a premise only when it provides a reason or evidence for a conclusion. An argument is always composed of at least one premise and conclusion, and it's fascinating to note that there can be more than one. In the following argument, we have an infinite number of conclusions: X > 8, therefore, X is 9, X is 11, X is 20,... Inferential relations are powerful tools for making logical connections. It's the relation in which the conclusion logically follows from the premise, allowing us to reason and understand complex ideas. Since Joy is in room B52, it follows that someone is in room B52. Because workers head home by 5:00 p.m., traffic flow will be heavier by 5:00 p.m. Spotting an inferential relation between propositions involves discerning what is implied and what consequentially follows from the given proposition/s. Let's take a relatable example. If I say that I didn’t study at all for my THINKIN exam, what can you infer? I will probably fail or, at the least, get a low grade on my THINKIN exam. This is how the inferential relation works in real-life situations. Let us look at this example of Jeff. A) Jeff lost his watch, forgetting he left it at the canteen table while having lunch. His so- called friends make him a fool by tricking him into giving them what he owns (which he does, thinking that they need it more than he does). Jeff also lost that bicycle birthday present he received, leaving it unchained beside the street. B) Jeff lost his watch, forgetting he left it at the canteen table while having lunch. His so- called friends make him a fool by tricking him into giving them what he owns (which he does, thinking that they need it more than he does). Jeff also lost that bicycle birthday present he received, leaving it unchained beside the street. Jeff doesn’t take good care of the things he owns. In the case of A, all we have are propositions concerning Jeff’s behavior regarding the things he owns. There is no other relation between these propositions. In the case of B, an argument can be spotted. The last proposition, “Jeff doesn’t take good care of the things he owns.” follows from, is implied by, is a consequence of the previous propositions. We can be aided in spotting premises and conclusions by Premise Indicators and Conclusion Indicators. These refer to words or phrases used in an argument, usually indicating that what follows is a premise or a conclusion. Some Conclusion Indicators are: Therefore, Thus, So, Consequently, Hence, as a result, This implies that, Which allows us to infer that Consider this passage from Manuel G. Velasquez's ‘‘The Ethics of Consumer Production’’: An agreement can only bind if both parties to the agreement know what they are doing and freely choose to do it. This implies that the seller who intends to enter a contract with a customer must disclose exactly what the customer is buying, and it is crucial to understand the contract terms. What is the customer buying? What are the terms of the sale? What's the conclusion here? What's the premise? Let's try to set this in the premise-conclusion form: PREMISE: An agreement cannot be binding unless both parties know what they are doing and freely choose to do so. CONCLUSION: The seller, as the initiating party in a contract with a customer, bears the responsibility of providing clear and comprehensive information about the product or service being sold, as well as the terms of the sale. Some Premise Indicators are: Since, Because, as shown by, since, in view of the fact that, and follows from. While Premise and Conclusion Indicators may be helpful, they could be more foolproof. Here are instances in which the use of premise and conclusion indicators do not signal a premise or conclusion: I haven’t seen you since high school. The word ' since' does not introduce a premise in this context, highlighting the importance of language nuances in interpreting premise and conclusion indicators. Thus far, everything has been great. “Thus” does not introduce a conclusion. Besides, some arguments do not make use of Premise and Conclusion Indicators: Cats are more intelligent than dogs. You can’t get eight cats to pull a sled through snow. If you do something extraordinary, people may imitate it. Though there are no premise and conclusion indicators, we can read the first passage supporting the claim, “Cats are more intelligent than dogs,” while the second passage supports the claim, “Do something wonderful.” NOT AN ARGUMENT Arguments and non-arguments Once more, an argument is defined as a set of propositions that one is said to follow from the other/s. The inferential relation between propositions (the following from relation) is the distinguishing mark of an argument. It is not an argument if a given passage does not have this inferential relation. Loosely associated statements Consider this passage about love: Everybody wants to give and receive love. Love is not identical to sex but may be closely related. Mature love involves mutual respect and shared values. Unconditional love is confined to the love parents have for their children. Let's differentiate between arguments and loosely associated statements. Consider this passage about love. The sentences here talk about the same topic. But since there is no inferential relation present, it's not an argument. This distinction will enlighten you and enhance your knowledge in this area. NOT AN ARGUMENT Reports Consider this old news report: President Aquino clarified yesterday that his Cabinet and sub-cabinet members were all under evaluation, but he had yet to decide on changes. Again, since no inferential relation exists here, it's not an argument. While some reports may contain arguments, we should distinguish them from the act of presenting an argument. These reports are simply reporting an argument, not presenting one. Furthermore, we could use reports as part of an argument. For example, gas prices will rise if there's a report about it. NOT AN ARGUMENT Illustrations Illustrations are intended to provide examples of a claim rather than prove or support the claim. Example: Our creations have always brought a measure of bad and good. Think of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Here, the second statement about fossil fuels and nuclear power does provide some evidence for the first statement, but the main purpose of the passage is to illustrate the first statement. In some cases where examples are given to prove something, we argue. NOT AN ARGUMENT Conditional statements Conditional statements of the form: "If this, then that,” standing alone, are not arguments. If interest rates rise, then home sales decline. If it rains, then the ground gets wet. If I study, I pass. A conditional statement might figure in an argument. As in the case where you take the last conditional statement above as a premise and conclude that you will pass because you studied. NOT AN ARGUMENT Explanations 1. The Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg. 2. Capital Punishment should be abolished because innocent people may be mistakenly executed. The first passage is an explanation; the second is an argument. An explanation tries to show why something is the case. An argument intends to prove that it is the case. Consider explaining why there is a brownout and providing evidence that there is a brownout. DLSU-Manila was established because the Lasallian Brothers saw the need to cater to the educational needs of the poor in the Philippines during the American Regime's early days. Explanations are composed of the explanandum (the fact to be explained) and the explanans (the explanation). The establishing of DLSU-Manila is the explanandum, and what follows after “because” is the explanans. The word “because” here cues us that an explanation and not a premise will be given. Typically, explanations are about well- accepted matters of fact. REFERENCES Bassham, Gregory, Irwin, William, et. al. 2023. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, 7th ed. McGraw Hill LLC, New York. Beall, Jc, Greg Restall. 2019. Logical Consequence. Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical- consequence/#pagetopright. Accessed: 3 December 2023 Copi, Irving, Carl Cohen, et. al. 2014. Introduction to Logic, 14th ed. Pearson Education Limited, England. ASYNCHRONOUS SESSION THIS WEEK Individual activity: Identify whether the example is an argument or not. 10 items Unlimited attempts Open all day on Thursday