Week 9 - Post 3: Proof Substitutes & Shifting the Burden

As I was reading through the concealed claims section of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, I realized that proof substitutes and shifting the burden were a bit more confusing to me than I had originally anticipated. A proof substitute is when the person presenting the argument pretends to have proof or statistics on the topic they are presenting, when in fact, they really have no clue themselves. A site I found for Bellevue Community College also states, “If the speaker does not actually cite any study, and does not give any supporting evidence, then they have not offered any evidence for the claim.” Looking into this topic a bit further helped me understand the idea of proof substitutes more.

            Another topic I wanted to research further was shifting the burden. Shifting the burden is when a speaker turns their argument over to the audience in such a way that the audience feels obligated to complete their debate with evidence. The Kennesaw University website states, “If someone claims to know a fact, always look at its source. If the arguer cannot validate or justify his own remarks, then they probably are not valid (and cannot be considered valid anyway until proven otherwise).” Understanding these argument tricks is important when evaluating whether or not someone is making a strong argument in the future.

http://bellevuecollege.edu/lmc/ilac/Curric/kint/phil7.htm

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm

Week 9 - Post 2: Usefulness of First & Second Course Projects

The first course project, “Critical Thinking in News and Politics” was helpful to my studies in many ways. When my group divided up the project sections amongst us, my job was to complete section “D.” This section required me to find a description in the editorial as well as describe the difference between a description and an argument. After completing this section, it was easy to distinguish between general descriptions and actual arguments being made in editorials and other articles. In addition, I was able to practice these concepts for the midterm as well as practice my writing skills when I completed my individual paper.

            The second course project, “Critical Thinking and Social Organizations” is proving to be effective to my learning as well. The organization my group chose to investigate was PETA. By studying this organization, I have learned how group use devices such as concealed claims and appeals to emotion to gain support for their cause. Furthermore, I have learned how to investigate the social issues the group claims to support. These skills will undoubtedly be effective later in my education when I need to research different social groups for other papers or projects.

Week 9 - Post 1: Contradictories & Valid Forms of General Claims

When using general claims in an argument it is very common to see contradictory words such as “all,” “some,” “no,” and “only” in each premise. These words are meant to either generalize or specify within an argument. For example, “All students will get an “A” in their Critical Thinking class,” is a weak argument because it is very likely that at least one person will only get a “B” in the class. To strengthen this argument, a better choice of words would be, “Some students will get an “A” in their Critical Thinking class.” The second argument is much stronger because it is highly likely that at least one person will achieve an “A” in the course.

            Examining valid forms of general arguments is much easier when viewing the argument from a diagram like those used in chapter eight. When creating these diagrams, only subcategories of the larger topic can be placed in smaller circles within the bigger circle. For example, I could make the argument, “Some dogs are trained. Some trained pets live in San Jose. So, some trained dogs live in San Jose.” Of course, this argument would be mapped differently because it does not contain a main category and subcategory. Instead, the “Dogs” circle would overlap the “Trained Pets” circle, which would then overlap the “San Jose” circle. The reason for this is that not all dogs are trained, and not all trained pets live in San Jose.

Week 7 - Post 3: Contrapositives, Necessary & Sufficient Conditions

When Epstein discussed compound claims in chapter six, I found the topic of contrapositives to be interesting. A contrapositive was defined by Epstein as, “The contrapositive of If A, then B is If not B, then not A.” For instance, if the claim in an example was, “The student will do well in her Critical Thinking class because she studies,” then the contrapositive of the claim would be, “The student will not do well in her Critical Thinking class because she does not study.” Because the first part of the original claim was true, the second part of the original claim was true. In other words, the first claim was a sufficient condition because the truth of B was reliant on the truth of A. Furthermore, because the first part of the second claim was false, the second part of the second claim was false as well. Thus, the second claim was a necessary condition because the falsehood of B was reliant on the falsehood of A.

Week 7 - Post 2: Directly & Indirectly Refuting an Argument

When directly refuting an argument, Epstein describes three ways to assist your refutation. These three ways are to, “Show that at least one of the premises is dubious”, “Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong,” and “Show that the conclusion is false.” The example in the book is about killing flies. The person believes that it is useless to kill flies because the faster flies will evade him and survive to reproduce more fast flies. This example could be directly refuted because it can be proven that the argument is not valid or strong. There is a great possibility that extremely fast flies will not be produced after the so-called slow flies are killed. Therefore, the argument is very weak and it is extremely likely that the conclusion is false.

            When indirectly refuting an argument, it is harder to pinpoint why the argument sounds unusual or dubious in one premise, but it is evident that the argument is not valid or strong. Epstein explains that in order to indirectly refute an argument, you need to “reduce the absurd.” He defines this as, “showing that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them.” The example in the book of a woman arguing against the logic of fly-killing is an example of a certain type of reducing the absurd called “refuting by analogy.” Her refutation of the fly argument was successful because she compared it to that of killing germs or chickens. Killing these things would not produce superhuman germs or chickens. Thus, this form of refutation was successful when argued in an indirect manner.

Week 7 - Post 1: The Contradictory of a Claim & False Dilemma

In chapter six of Critical Thinking, Epstein discusses the contradictory of a claim. The contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite value of the truth no matter how it is presented. An example of such a contradictory claim would be, “Nick will walk the dog tomorrow morning,” and, “Nick will not walk the dog tomorrow morning.” No matter which way this statement is presented, the opposite meaning will always present itself when the statement is contradicted.

            Another topic discussed in chapter six was false dilemma. Epstein defines false dilemma as, “a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible.” An example of such a claim would be, “Food costs money and you have no money. You can either stop eating or get a job.” Obviously, you cannot stop eating because your body needs nutrients to survive. Therefore, the only solution presented here would be to get a job to pay for food. In reality, there are other ways of obtaining food for poor or unemployed people. This is why the example I gave was a false dilemma. If the person could really not buy food, they could go to a soup kitchen for meals or even be put on federal assistance such as food stamps.

Week 6 - Post 3: Criteria for Accepting or Rejecting Claims

In chapter five of Critical Thinking, Epstein goes over the criteria for either accepting or rejecting a claim. One of the major criteria for evaluating claims is based on personal experience. If a person knows that a piece of information is true based on their experience, it is perfectly acceptable to find the claim valid. The same can be said about rejecting claims. Epstein’s only exceptions to this rule are if, “We have good reason to doubt our memory or our perception,” or, “The claim contradicts other experiences of ours, and there is a good argument (theory) against the claim.” An example of such an exception could be an elderly person having doubt about information they have witnessed due to declining memory. It is also fine to accept a claim made by an informed source that is not being influenced by money from biased sources. For example, your family doctor will always provide truthful information regarding your health because they care for your well-being. Finally, it is safe to accept claims found from trustworthy sources such as peer-reviewed journals or media sources whose sponsors are not biased on the topic you are researching. By following these guidelines, it is much easier to decide which claims are truthful and which ones should be rejected.