Crirical Reasoning byJerry Cederblom and David Paulsen, (Belmont California, Wadsworth/Thomas learning. 2001). 

 

WannaArgue about something?

 

Go ahead, you pick the subject.  I’ll even let you pick either side of the issue.  I’ll take the other side.  But, should warn you.  I’m loaded for bear.  You will be engaging a lean mean fighting machine in this battle.  I’m mentally riff.  Why, I’d reject your ad hominen attacks, expose your begging the question, tear down your straw men, meet your generalizations head on with counter-instances, make fun of your terminological obfuscations and rebuff all your ipsedixitisms.  In short, argue with me now and I’ll eat you up and spit you out in little pieces.  You are probably wondering how I became such a well-honed arguing machine.  It’s because I finally read a book by Jerry Cederblom and David Paulsen, Critical Reasoning. (Belmont California, Wadsworth/Thomas learning. 2001).  Now I’m equipped to win any side of any argument.  I can even argue with myself now and always win.  I don‘t even need to believe something to win an argument any more, so watch out if you tangle with me!  But just to make this a fair fight I’ll even share my arsenal of definitions I’ve simplified from the book.  So to make this more even, here are my simplified definitions of some terms to prepare you for the first round.  Learn these well if you want to spar with me!  (Of course I’m just kidding here—I don’t want to argue at all, I just read the book in an afternoon and these are my rough notes in case anyone is interested.)

 

 

 

Critical Thinking Terms

 

Fallacy of Absent Control

No control study--- “Every time I wash my car, it rains” Is this a controlled study or an observation that it frequently seems to happen just because it usually happens.?

 

Ad Hominem

Attacking the Person.  Pointing out bad associations, personal characteristics, or motives of the opponents.

The impact: “only bad people disagree with me” is often supplemented with an “all good people agree with me.”

 

Affirming the Antecedent

1)       If A, then B.

2)       A.

Therefore, B.

For example: If we raise tuition then fewer students will be able to come.  We are raising tuition.  Therefore fewer students will come here.

 

Ambiguity

A term has more than one meaning in that context.

 

Crucial ambiguity

An ambiguity is crucial if, depending on how an ambiguous term is interpreted, in the context of a premise statement, the truth-value of the statement changes between True and False.  If we changed this policy we’d get a better student here.

 

Analogical Reasoning

“X is like X’, and X’ has quality Y (or something like it), so X will (probably) have quality Y too. The big question is whether X is so much like X’ that it’s reasonable to expect their other qualities to be similar too.

Example: IWU is like Taylor University.   IWU is has a great spiritual atmosphere.  Taylor will have such an atmosphere too.

 

and / but

Combines a simple statement with a more complex one with the assumption that is the simpler one is true the more complex one will be true too—or false.   Simple statement and complex statement (implying both are true even though only the simple one is obviously true.

 

Antecedent

 “Iffy” part of an “if-then” statement. 

 

Appeal to Diffuse Authority

X is true because John F. Kennedy believed it.  Or X is true because Mother Teresa believed it.  Appeal to famous or non-relevant authority.

 

Appeal to Force

Truth is a respecter of power.  Agree with me or I’ll fire you only makes one believer—the threatened person.  Actually firing the person makes lots of other agree with you.  People tend to accept statements from powerful people.  When someone practices this on you, duck or beat them up.

 

Appeal to ignorance

Strategy of showing that something must be true because you can’t prove it is false.  “There is life on other planets” Can you prove that there isn’t?  (Same for arguments for God).

 

Appeal to Pity

Strategy to get a person to accept a proposition because by not accepting it they would harm or hurt another.  “Come and be saved tonight or your Grandmother will go to bed crying.”  Buy this sweeper form me or my kids will starve.

 

Argument

One or more statements (premise) are given to defend as true another statement (conclusion).

 

Argumentum Ad Homily

Explain something with a popular generalization accepted by all.  Example: we lost the Basketball game because “You can’t win ‘em all.”

 

Begging the Question

When the premise is simply a restatement of the conclusion.  Example: Reducing taxes gives relief to families therefore we should give relief to families by reducing taxes.

 

(Principle of) Burden of proof

“Hey you are the one making the statement here—you have got to prove it, I don’t have to disprove it.

 

Causal Reasoning

Inference that A was the cause for B.  “I ate that Big Mac then I threw up” is an example of causal reasoning, but not good causal reasoning.

 

(Principle of) Charitable Interpretation.

Help the other guys (debaters, salesmen, authors) give you their best shot—reconstruct their arguments in premise-conclusion better even than they have.

 

(Fallacy of) Composition

The (false) notion that what is true of the parts will be true of the whole.  “America’s Olympic basketball team is made up of all-star players, we’ll beat everybody in the world.”  Not necessarily true—they all might be great payers, but together as a team they may stink.  What is true of all of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole composition.

 

(Missing) conclusion

An unstated conclusion which the “peddler: hopes you will infer. 

 

Conditional Statement

An if-then statement.  The if part is the antecedent, the then part the conclusion.

 

Conditioning the marketplace:

All the stuff that softens up the marketplace of ideas to accept the proposition.  Nice music playing, pretty girls in shorts smiling happily, sponsoring help for the hungry concerts… anything that softens up the folk to receive the proposition.

 

Confidence strategy :

Proposing the proposition with such confidence that it seems right to the uninitiated.  Dressing for success, speaking with clarity and humor, acting certain, saying “well, obviously to any thinking person…” or “as anyone can see…”  Making it look true by your bearing and demeanor.

 

Conjunction

One of many “logical operators” that makes more complex statements out of simpler ones—for example, “and”, “or”, “not”, etc. 

 

Consistent

When it is possible for a series of statements to all be true at the same time.

 

Consumers of Propositions

In the business of persuasion it is like economics—there are “peddlers” of propositions and “consumers” of propositions.  The peddlers “sell” their propositions to the “consumers.”  

 

Controlled experiment

A scientific experiment to discover if A factor causes B result where there is a second group where the A factor is not present—example a the control group placebo.

 

Counter-instance

Giving an instance showing that a generalization is not universally true.  “All white people are hard working.  But what about Jake Goofus?”   Citing Jake is a counter-instance.

 

Critical Reasoning

Not merely disagreeing with a proposition, but using a method of understanding and evaluating the proposition.

 

Deductive Argument

i.e. “valid” argument.  An argument stated in a way that if the premise is true the conclusion will also be true.

 

Denying the Antecedent

An argument based on “Jabberwock” thinking: 1) If A then B. 2) Not A. Therefore, Not B.

Example  1) If John Kennedy was executed by the Cubans he’d be dead.  2) Kennedy was not executed by the Cubans.  Therefore John Kennedy is alive.  (note: it is called “Jabberwock” in honor the 19th century mathematician and logician Charles Dodgson--AKA Lewis Carroll--author of Alice in Wonderland, and the poem Jabberwocky.)

 

Denying the Consequent

Defeating an argument by tearing down the consequent argument.  Example: 1) If A, then B. 2) Not B. Therefore, Not A.   Example: 1) If we raise tuition 2)then we will have fewer students next year therefore we shouldn’t raise tuition.  Denying the consequent  is simply disproving fewer students will sign up if tuition is reduces.  I other words not B, therefore the conclusions are invalid.

 

(fallacy of) Division

An argument requiring that what applies to the whole will apply to each (or even most) of the parts.  “The average number of children per family is 2.2.”

 

Domino argument

Long chain of cause-and-effect inference.  If we allow the government to restrict abortion, they will then restrict family planning, and then they will….”

 

Fallacy

A pattern of thinking that seems persuasive but shouldn’t be.  False.

 

False dilemma

Or False Dichotomy.  A statement that may hide a premise that makes it harder for an idea-consumer to see the premise needs further defense.  “Hey that is shrieking, not music” assumes that sounds are either music or not music—which is the hidden premise… but there are other options…maybe it is neither music nor shrieking.

 

Follows

Saying that C conclusion follows from A arguments.  If the argument is valid then C conclusion follows A arguments.  If, on the other hand the argument is not valid, then C conclusion does not follow from A argument… this is called a non sequitur (Latin, “It doesn’t follow.”) 

 

General-to-particular Reasoning

Non-deductive reasoning starting with the general (most) and moving to a particular (this).  Most men like sports; my husband likes sports.

 

Hasty Generalization

Accepting a generalization on a sampling that is too small or was selected in some biased way.

 

Hedgehog strategy

Simply act like the principle of burden of proof is true and thus move squabbles and disputes into more constructive encounters. 

 

Holy cow

A concept regarded automatically as good and thus is immune to criticism.  “Democracy is the best form of government.”  “We need more women in leadership.”  A premise doesn’t need defended if it is proven true, OR if it is accepted as true by all.

 

Inductive Argument

An argument where the premises do not guarantee the conclusion, but predict a high probability on it.

For example: The vast majority  of APS students come from non-Wesleyan homes.  Jason is an APS student, therefore Jason is a non-Wesleyan.  An inductive argument may be often true… even almost-always true.

 

 

Inference indicator

A word or phrase showing the next statement is the inference of an argument: “thus”, “therefore”, “so”, and “consequently.”  (“Since,””After all,” and “In view of the fact that” commonly indicate that an upcoming statement is a premise.) 

 

Ipsedixitism :

A statement asserted but not defended.  Latin “dixit” (he says) and “ipse” (himself).

 

Irrational argument :

An argument with one or more premises that do not make its conclusion any more probable.

 

Logic

The study of the principles of rational inference.  That is, what this is.

 

Negation

Turning a statement into the opposite truth. “The moon is made of Green Cheese.”  Negation inserts a “not” --  The moon is NOT made of Green Cheese.”

 

Particular-to-General Reasoning

Staring with particulars—samples, evidence from a small group, an individual stuff—and moving to conclusions about a larger population. 

 

Peddler of Propositions:

In the marketplace of ideas those who sell their propositions.

 

Positive Correlation

The percentage of A’s that are B’s is higher than the percentage of A’s which are not B’s produces a positive correlation.  The study showed a positive correlation between campus involvement and later leadership in the community.  That is, those with campus involvement who later were involved in the community were more common in the study than those with campus involvement who were not involved in the community.

 

Process of elimination

Also, “disjunctive syllogism”

1)       A or B

not-A

Therefore B.

Either we go to the beach or mountains for vacation.  We can not go to the beach.  Therefore we shall go to the mountains. 

 

Process of specification:

1)       A or B

A

with conclusion not-B.

Either we go to the beach or mountains for vacation.  We will go to the beach.  Therefore we will not go to the mountains.

 

Reconstruction

Putting together a structured argument form a collection of sentences issued by the peddler.  IN other words, constructing a logical argument form another’s statements in order to examine it logically.

 

reductio ad absurdum

“Reduce to the Absurd” Showing that an argument is true by showing that its premises are not logically consistent with a rejection (negation) of its conclusion.  In other words, if one accepts the premises they can’t reject the conclusion.   The way reductio shows this is combining the premises with the negation of the conclusion—presto! You have shown the person that accepts the premise and rejects the conclusion is guilty of  self- contradiction. 

 

Rhetorical question.

Using a question to express a statement.  “Do you want the government controlling what you do in your Uterus?”

 

Rhetorical exclamation

Asking a question back in order to answer a question—leaving to the question-asker to figure out what the answer means.  Sharon: “Would you like a cold Diet-Coke?”  Keith: “Is the Pope Catholic?”

 

Selection of evidence :

An extra-logical device (lying and evasion and also extra-logical) where a peddler offers only the facts that tend to support the proposition.  “Here are 26 reasons why we should move our headquarters from Marion to Indianapolis.”

 

Self-Contradiction

A logical absurdity --a statement that cannot (logically) be true. 

 

Slippery Slope Argument

The domino theory is a cause-and-effect argument. This is similar but slippery slope purports to have a logical connection more than a cause-effect one.  Slippery slope: “I can’t let you turn in that paper late because if I do then every student in the class will then turn in late papers and deadlines will then mean nothing at all.

 

Sound Argument

A valid (deductive) argument with only true premises.  

 

Straw man

Dismissing a proposition by substituting another in its place (the straw man) then tearing down the straw man substitute and pronouncing the original proposition dead.  It is only effective when the straw man looks so much like the original proposition that listeners buy it. 

 

syllogism

An argument composed of three statements in connections.  Example: All X are Y, No X are Y, Some X are Y, or Some X are not Y.  For example consider “A)students” “as B)leaders” and “C)Wesleyans.” Some A are B, No B are C, and Some A are not C, respectively.  “Some students are leaders. No leaders are Wesleyans. Therefore, some students are not Wesleyan.”

 

Tautology :

Any statement whose truth-value is True regardless of the truth-value any other statements—it is true in all possible situations.  For instance, “There are no women presidents of Christian Colleges ,or there is at least one women president of a Christian College. 

 

Terminological obfuscation:

Disguising simple ideas in complicated terminology in order to conceal the true significance (or lack of significance) from the ordinary consumer.  Example: this term itself--- why not say confusing things with complicated words… “Terminological obfuscation,” Jeez!

 

Truth-Value

A statement is either true or false—that is its truth-value.

 

tu quoque

(“You Too”) A kind of ad hominem argument.  Dismissing the proposition because the person doesn’t “live it” themselves.  The truth of a statement is not dependant on the personal life of the person proposing it.  Example: mother warning daughter not to smoke when mother smokes.

 

Validity

An argument is valid (deductive) if and only if there are no possible circumstances under which all the premises would be true, and the conclusion would be false.  That is validity means every time and in all circumstances when A and B are true C also follows

 

 

These are my notes from reading the book Critical Reasoning by Jerry Cederblom and David Paulsen (Belmont California, Wadsworth/Thomas learning. 2001—I was interested while reading the book but I lost interest soon after laying it down—but nevertheless here are my notes)

 

 

Keith Drury September 2001

www.TuesdayColumn.com