Quiz.. week 3 Study Guide
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Rio Hondo College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
347N
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by ColonelProtonHerring
WEEK THREE STUDY GUIDE – SEE SPECIFIC PAGES AND SECTION AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT
CHAPTER 6
Claims may be presented without reasons or background information
When presented with such a claim a critical thinker will assess the credibility of the source and the plausibility of the claim itself.
Credibility of the source – is the speaker knowledgeable and unbiased?
Plausibility of the claim – does it seem more likely than not that such a claim could
be true? “Plausible” means reasonable or probable.
When presented with a claim with no reasons, the critical thinker has options:
Evaluate the credibility of the person making the claim, examine the plausibility of the claim itself, investigate the claim independently
If the claim is plausible, but the critical thinker is unable to investigate a claim independently, then the critical thinker will evaluate the authority and expertise of the speaker.
In early stages of cognitive development, we trust authority figures, parents and teachers, As we mature, strong critical thinkers develop a healthy skepticism and the credibility and authority of a
speaker is evaluated.
A critical thinker will evaluate whether or not the speaker has the necessary expertise. An expert is a person who is learned and experienced in a particular area of study.
An expert is also up-to-
date in the area of study, unbiased and truthful, free ofconflicts of interest, informed about the case at hand (an expert of heart disease has general knowledge, but if we are interested in a specific patient, she must also be knowledgeable about the patient).
There are times when evidence is not available and/or we cannot evaluate the authority and expertise of the speaker, and the claim cannot be conformed or disconfirmed. The fact that evidence is not available does not mean the claim is false, it means only that we cannot find evidence. When a critical thinker is unable to confirm or disconfirm a claim, that is, can find no evidence to support the claim but also no evidence to show it is false, the critical thinker will suspend judgment.
CHAPTER SEVEN
When a person is offering an argument, we presume she is following the rules – that sheis speaking the truth, that she is offering reasons that justify her claim, that her reasons are relevant to her claim and that she is not arguing in a circle.
We evaluate whether or not an argument is worthy of belief by analyzing and evaluating how well the speaker has followed the rules. As critical thinkers, we also do our best to follow the rules.
FIRST RULE – truthfulness of the premises
. To the best of our knowledge, are the reasons, in fact, true? (“Best of our knowledge” could mean anything from accepting the reasons
because they fit with what we already know to a full-blown investigation of their truth.)
SECOND RULE – does the argument have logical strength
? Do the premises logically and reasonably justify the conclusion? Are the reasons a logical and reasonable basis for the speaker’s claim. Do the reasons given either offer proof the the truth of the conclusion or, at least, show that the conclusion is more probable than not? Sometimes arguments will have a number of reasons. A critical thinker will look at all of the reasons given for an argument. If even one of those reasons is sufficient to support the conclusion, the speaker should accept the argument. Dismissing an otherwise worthy claim because one of the reasons is false is one of the most common of human errors.
THIRD RULE - Are the reasons relevant to the claim
.
When reasons are given which have nothing to do with the issue of the argument, they break the rule of relevance. One of the best ways to identify an irrelevant reason is to determine the issue of the argument. It is not uncommon for arguments to be offered with irrelevant reasons – closely read and study the “Test
of Relevance” on pages 144-146. The first example offers highly relevant reasons for the conclusion. The second argument offers reasons that are less connected. At the end of the section the text lists three very common types of irrelevant argument – ones which seek to avoid responsibility.
FOURTH RULE – Non-circularity
. This is sometimes difficult to detect. One of the best
ways of determining if an argument is circular is to find the conclusion and then find the reasons.
Ask yourself, are the reasons true only if the conclusion is true? If that is the case, you have found a circular argument. EXAMPLE: “Women should have access to abortion services, so abortion should be legal and available.” OR “The State should not permit abortion because abortion should not be legally available.” In both examples, only if the conclusion is true is the reason true- these are examples of circular reasoning.
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
Fallacies of relevance are reasons that are unrelated to the issue of the argument. Ask yourself, what is the issue? What is the question the speaker is trying to answer
? Be very careful in identifying the issue. The issue is what the argument is about. The speaker’s claim about the issue – the answer to the question that the argument I about – is the conclusion.
Once we know the conclusion, examine the reasons. Do they have anything at all to do with the claim. Common fallacies of relevance are discussed in the text on pages 148-153. A very common fallacy of relevance is the ad hominem fallacy (sometimes called appeal to the person
). In this
fallacy, an argument is rejected solely because of some characteristic of the speaker. “This guy is such a womanizer! Don’t believe anything he says about the economy!” “Don’t believe her – she’s a young blond.”
Another common fallacy – sometimes hard to spot – is the strawman fallacy. The strawman fallacy misrepresents the issue of the argument. In the following example, James misrepresents the issue – the question to be answered is: To pass the course is it necessary to take the exam on October 11 and achieve a grade 75 or higher?
Professor Jones’ syllabus plainly states: In order to pass this course you must pass the comprehensive final by taking the exam in class on the last day of class, October 11, and achieving a grade 75 or higher. James fails the course. He complains to Professor Jones, “You can’t flunk me just because I took the exam on October 12 and passed with a grade of 76. Yes, I know it was
a day late, but I did get a passing grade and it was really only late by 5 hours because I took it at five o’clock in the morning. I intended to take it on the 11
th
but I forgot.
James changes the question: To pass the course is it necessary to take the exam on October 11 and achieve a grade 75 or higher or can I be a little late because I forgot about the deadline?
STUDY GUIDE
1. (Chapter 6 – Section 6.1 - Cognitive Development and Healthy Skepticism; also, see box: Levels of Thinking and Knowing)
2. (Chapter 6 – Section 6.1 - Authority and Expertise)
3. (Chapter 6 - Summing up this chapter)
4. (Chapter 6 – Section 6.3 Can the Claim Be Confirmed’ Can the Claim be Disconfirmed)
5. (Chapter 6 – Section 6.3 Suspending Judgment)
6. (Sections 7.2 – The Four Tests for Evaluating Arguments)
7. (Section 7.2 – The Four Tests for Evaluating Arguments)
8. (Section 7.2 – The Four Tests for Evaluating Arguments)
9. (Section 7.2 – The Four Tests for Evaluating Arguments)
10. (Section 7.2 – The Four Tests for Evaluating Arguments and Section 7.3 Common Reasoning Errors – Fallacies of Relevance)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
According to the text, how do the views of stronger more developed critical thinkers toward authority differ from those in earlier stages of cognitive development?
In the earlier stages of cognitive development, we look to our parents, teachers, coaches, etc., to guide us in the way we think. As we get older, critical thinkers begin to develop a healthy skepticism of those with authority. Just because someone has authority doesn’t mean that their behavior is correct or appropriate. As critical thinkers, we start to ask “why?” Briefly, in your own words, state how the text defines expert.
An expert is a person who is knowledgeable and learned in a subject matter area or in a field of professional practice. An expert is also free of bias and conflicts of interest, to name a couple of characteristics.
When presented with a claim unsupported by reasons, what 3 options does a critical thinker have
to evaluate such a claim?
Evaluate the person presenting the claim
Evaluate the plausibility of the claim itself Evaluate the claim independently Is the following statement true or untrue? Explain your answer. “If a claim cannot be confirmed by an independent investigation, then it must be false.”
Untrue. If a claim cannot be confirmed it doesn’t mean that the claim is false. Just because I am not able to confirm a claim, doesn’t mean someone else won’t be able to confirm it. Is the following statement true or untrue? Explain your answer. If we do not believe that a claim is true, then we must believe that the claim is false. Untrue. We may not want to accept the truth, be in denial, or there may not be enough information and facts to accept the claim. What 4 conditions must an argument meet if we are to accept the worthiness and reasonableness of its conclusions?
Truthfulness
Logical strength
Relevance
Non-circulatory In an argument with two or more independent reasons, if one of those reasons turns out to be false, how does a critical thinker apply the test of logical strength to the argument? Should the critical thinker reject such an argument? Explain your answer.
If one of the reasons turns out to be false, that doesn’t mean the argument should be rejected. An argument should only be rejected if ALL reasons turn out false. Irwin is charged with statutory rape, which is defined as a having sex with a minor, a person under the age of 18. Irwin argues “you can't arrest me because she's 17 and I'm 21. Yes, we had sex, but it was consensual, plus she will be 18 in two weeks, and we are planning to get married.” which of the four tests of worthiness does irwin's argument fail? Explain your answer.
Irwin fails the truthfulness of premises test of worthiness. The law states that a minor is anyone under the age of 18. At the time of intercourse, the girl was 17, and even if she was 18 in two weeks, Irwin did have sex with a minor. He broke the law. Janet says: “Daria is not a person of color, so I see no reason why we should listen to her on the issue of minority race relations. Jose is Hispanic, he's the one we should listen to.” As a critical thinker, can you describe in your own words, the flaw in janet's claim? Once you have completed
your description in your own words, state which of the tests of worthiness and reasonableness janet's argument fails and which fallacy she commits.
Janet attacks Daria’s character due to the lack of color in her skin. The flaw in Janet's claim is her assumption that only Jose would understand this issue since he is Hispanic. This is an example of ad hominem fallacy. Her claim implies that only people of color would be able to understand or discuss issues dealing with people of color.