First Week

1
First Week

• Introducing Critical and Ethical Reasoning

2

• In addition to the readings you received over the
  summer, I have used the following sources in this
  presentation
• Whats so good about a college education?
  Andrew P. Mills.
• College Thinking. Jack Meiland
• My Year of Meats. Ruth Ozeki
• The Immortal Profession. Gilbert Highet
• The Grace of Great Things. Robert Grudin
• Good Teaching. Richard Watson
• Good Enough Never Is. Colman McCarthy
• If youd like the complete bibliography for any
  of these, please see me.

3
Larger Context

• Why are we doing this?

4
Whats so good about a college education?
5
The Can Opener Answer
6
Whats inside the can?

7
Whats wrong with the Can Opener Answer? Part
I
8
College equips us to ask questions of value in a
rapidly changing technological and media driven
world
9
It equips us to be better citizens
10
College equips us for our leisure time
11
College equips us to make decisions about our own
lives
12
A Better Analogy
13
(No Transcript)
14
Whats wrong with the Can Opener Answer?Part II
15
Why do employers value college?

• Attitudes
• Values
• Skills

16
College doesnt prepare you to do something.
College prepares you to do ANYTHING
17
What are the attitudes, values and skills you are
suppose to be developing?
18
ATTITUDES VALUES
Wonder, Curiosity, Skepticism
19
ATTITUDES VALUES
Love of Excellence
20
ATTITUDES VALUES
Pure Love of Work
21
ATTITUDES VALUES
LEARN TO PAY ATTENTION
22
ATTITUDES VALUES
Responsibility
23
ATTITUDES VALUES
Intellectual Independence
24
ATTITUDES VALUES
FUN!
25
Skills Critical Thinking
26
Skills Critical Thinking
27
Why should we think critically?

• Your beliefs are more likely to turn out to be
  true.
• Youll understand your beliefs better
• You are likely to be hoodwinked if you dont know
  the justification for your beliefs.

28
What are the consequences of learning to think
critically?
Positive Consequences
29
Negative Consequences
30
(No Transcript)
31
Critical thinking can be overwhelming
32
(No Transcript)
33
Millikin Core Questions

• Who am I?
• How can I know?
• What should I do?

34
Context University Seminar

• Each of you is taking IN140 (IN183), University
  Seminar.
• One of the learning goals of this course is the
  following
• Students will be able to use ethical reasoning to
  analyze and reflect on issues that impact their
  personal lives as well as their local, national,
  and/or global communities.

35
Ethical Reasoning and Critical Reasoning

• As we hope to make clear over these two days,
  ethical reasoning is a type of critical
  reasoning.
• Thus, we need to begin by looking at some of the
  core elements of critical reasoning.

36
Critical Reasoning

• An Basic Introduction

37
Core Commitment of Critical Reasoning

• A fundamental principle of critical reasoning is
  that we should not accept a statement as true
  without good reason (EMA, p.44).
• The statement in question can be about anything
  science, politics, art, religion, ethics, etc.

38
Critical Reasoning and Arguments

• When at least one statement attempts to provide
  reasons for believing another statement, we have
  an argument (EMA, p.44).
• All arguments share a common pattern at least
  one premise is intended to support a conclusion.
  This pattern is what makes an argument an
  argument (EMA, p.44).

39
Critical Reasoning and Arguments

• Reasoning well about arguments requires that you
  be able to engage in both analysis and evaluation.

40
Critical Reasoning and Arguments Analysis

• Analysis Do we have an argument?
• Does a given set of statements comprise an
  argument?
• If it does, what is its conclusion?

41
Analysis Is this an argument?

• An argument is a group of statements, one of
  which (the conclusion) is supported by the rest
  (the premises or reasons).
• A statement is an assertion that something is or
  is not the case that something is either true or
  false.
• Arguments are directional leading from premises
  (reasons) to conclusion.

42
Analysis Is this an argument?

• Not every collection of statements comprises an
  argument. Therefore, you must analyze a given set
  of statements to see if an argument is being
  made.
• For any collection of statements, ask
• 1) Is this an argument (i.e., is the appropriate
  pattern present one statement supported by
  other statements)?
• 2) If it is, what is its conclusion?
• Consider the following sets of statements

43
Set 1

• The Vikings are riddled with dissension and have
  no team unity. The Bears are at least a year away
  as yet, and the Lions are the only other team in
  the division to pose any threat. But they dont
  match up well with the Packers. The Packers will
  dominate the Division again this year.
• Argument?

44
Yes

• The point of the passage (i.e., the conclusion)
  is that the Packers will dominate the Division
  this year. The other statements in the passage
  support that conclusion by providing reasons for
  thinking the conclusion to be true (reasonable,
  plausible, etc.).

45
Set 2

• The Celtics will take the NBA championship again
  this year. Your cousin Dudley is a big Celtics
  fan, the Timberwolves got a new mascot this
  season who looks like Rin Tin Tin, and the
  Lakers cheerleaders are getting new costumes.
• Argument?

46
No

• The statements are disconnected and there is no
  point, or conclusion, to the passage.
• The statements about Dudley, the mascot, and the
  cheerleaders may, in fact, all be true.
  Nonetheless, they are not reasons for thinking
  that the Celtics will win the NBA championship.

47
Helpful Hint Indicator Words

• When trying to determine if a set of statements
  comprises an argument, see if indicator words are
  present. If indicator words are not present, see
  if the meaning of the passage would change
  considerably if you inserted them.

48
Common Indicator Words for Conclusions

• Therefore
• Thus
• It follows that
• Consequently
• Hence
• Which means that
• So

49
Common Indicator Words for Premises (Reasons)

• Because
• Since
• As
• For
• In view of the fact that
• Given that
• Inasmuch as

50
Another Helpful Hint The Why? Question

• Find what seems to be the conclusion and ask,
  Why?.
• If asking why? directs you back to some of the
  other statements, then you likely have an
  argument. Those other statements are premises
  (reasons) given in support of the conclusion.

51
Beware of explanations

• I threw your tv out of the window because I was
  convinced by Dr. Jacobs that it is evil to waste
  time watching it.
• Argument?
• No.

52
Critical Reasoning and Arguments Evaluation

• Evaluation If analysis tells us that we have an
  argument, we must decide if the argument is a
  good argument. To do this, we need to ask two
  questions

53
Evaluation of Arguments Two Central Questions

• What is the relationship between the supporting
  premises (reasons) and the conclusion?
• Are the supporting premises (reasons) true
  (probable, plausible, reasonable, etc.)?

54
One Sort of Relationship Deductive Validity

• A deductively valid argument gives logically
  conclusive support for its conclusion.
• The test for deductive validity IF the premises
  are true, then the conclusion must be true.
• Entailment
• Strict implication

55
Deductive Validity

• Metaphor In a deductively valid argument, there
  is no gap between the premises (reasons) and
  the conclusion. If the premises are true, they
  guarantee or necessitate the truth of the
  conclusion.
• Consider the following three examples

56
Example 1

• Socrates was a man. All men are mortal.
  Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

57
Example 2

• Rudy cant possibly be a levelheaded person under
  stress because hes a redhead, and redheads are
  not levelheaded persons under stress.

58
Example 3

• All short men are insecure, and since Fred is a
  short man, he must be insecure.

59
Deductive Validity

• Each of the arguments on the prior three slides
  is deductively valid.
• Test If the premises are true, then the
  conclusion must be true.
• To check for deductive validity, you assume the
  premises are true and you check to see if the
  conclusion is necessitated (entailed by, strictly
  implied by) the premises.

60
Validity and Soundness

• In the last two examples, you may have been
  tempted to complain, Hey, it is not true that
  all redheads are not levelheaded under stress or
  Hey, it is not true that all short men are
  insecure.
• This reaction points to an important distinction
  the distinction between validity and soundness

61
Validity and Soundness

• Deductive validity If the premises are true,
  then the conclusion must be true.
• You assume the premises are true and you check to
  see if the conclusion is necessitated (entailed
  by, strictly implied by) the premises.
• Deductive soundness validity all true
  premises.
• The argument must be valid AND you must have
  premises that are, in fact, true.

62
Validity and Soundness

• While each of the three arguments we just
  examined is deductively valid, each is not sound.
• The last two arguments have a premise that is
  not, in fact, true. Hence, those two arguments,
  while valid, are not sound.
• Redheads are not levelheaded persons under
  stress.
• All short men are insecure.

63
The Products of Critical Reasoning Need not Agree
with Common Sense

• Some dittoheads are gun owners. Therefore, some
  gun owners are dittoheads.
• Valid?
• Yes
• Some dittoheads are not gun owners. Therefore,
  some gun owners are not dittoheads.
• Valid?
• No

64
A Second Sort of Relationship Inductive Strength

• Many arguments do not seek to provide logically
  conclusive support for their conclusions.
• The premises do not seek to guarantee the truth
  of the conclusion.
• Instead, the premises aim to make the conclusion
  probable or likely.

65
Inductive Strength

• The test for inductive strength IF the premises
  are true, then the conclusion is probably true.
• Strength is a matter of degree. The greater the
  probability that the conclusion is true given the
  premises, the stronger the argument.

66
The Gap Metaphor

• While inductive arguments differ in their degree
  of strength, there is always a gap between
  premises and conclusion.
• In any inductive argument, even if all the
  premises are true, the conclusion might still be
  false. This is because an inductive argument does
  not seek to guarantee the truth of the
  conclusion, but simply render it probable.

67
Examples of Inductive Arguments

• The following provide some examples of inductive
  arguments with varying degrees of strength

68
Example 1

• Most of the faculty members at Millikin
  University have received terminal degrees in
  their fields. Robert Money is a faculty member at
  Millikin University. Therefore, Dr. Money
  probably has a terminal degree in his field.

69
Example 2

• Harry is hard of hearing, and has poor vision. He
  has had three speeding tickets in the past two
  months, several minor accidents, and one major
  accident in the same time period. I say, then,
  that Harry is a poor driver.

70
Example 3

• Certain chemicals are known to cause cancer in
  laboratory animals, and when this happens there
  is a likelihood that these same chemicals will
  cause cancer in humans. It would seem prudent,
  therefore, to avoid these chemicals whenever
  possible.

71
Example 4 Deja Vu

• The Vikings are riddled with dissension and have
  no team unity. The Bears are at least a year away
  as yet, and the Lions are the only other team in
  the division to pose any threat. But they dont
  match up well with the Packers. The Packers will
  dominate the Division again this year.

72
Example 5

• Harry has poor hearing and weak eyes. Further, he
  has received several speeding tickets in the past
  couple of months, during which time he has also
  had several traffic accidents. Therefore, Harry
  is a rotten husband.

73
Checking Truth of Premises

• Regardless of whether the relationship between
  the conclusion and the premises is deductive or
  inductive, a good argument must have true
  (plausible, reasonable, etc.) premises.
• Premises can be assessed in various ways,
  including appeal to empirical evidence, appeal
  to counterexample, etc.
• In future sessions, we will examine both of these
  ways of assessing premises.

74
Evaluative Terminology Review

• An argument is deductively valid when, if the
  premises are true, then the conclusion must also
  be true (no gap).
• An argument is inductively strong when, if the
  premises are true, the conclusion is probably
  true.

75
Evaluative Terminology

• An argument is deductively sound when it is (a)
  valid and (b) has, in fact, all true premises.
• An argument is inductively cogent when it is (a)
  strong and (b) has, in fact, all true premises.

76
Transition to Next Session

• From Critical to Ethical Reasoning

77
From Critical to Ethical Reasoning

• In the next session, we will examine how these
  core elements of critical reasoning carry over to
  ethical reasoning