First Week

Introducing Critical and Ethical Reasoning

In addition to the readings you received over the summer, I have used the following sources in this presentation:

• “What’s 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 you’d like the complete bibliography for any of these, please see me.

Larger Context

Why are we doing this?

What’s so good about a college education?

The Can Opener Answer

What’s inside the can?

What’s wrong with the Can Opener Answer?

Part I

College equips us to ask questions of value in a rapidly changing technological and media driven world

It equips us to be better citizens

College equips us for our leisure time

College equips us to make decisions about our own lives

A Better Analogy

What’s wrong with the Can Opener Answer?

Part II

Why do employers value college?

Attitudes

Values

Skills

College doesn’t prepare you to do something.

College prepares you to do ANYTHING

What are the attitudes, values and skills you are suppose to be

developing?

ATTITUDES & VALUES

Wonder, Curiosity, Skepticism

ATTITUDES & VALUES

Love of Excellence

ATTITUDES & VALUES

Pure Love of Work

ATTITUDES & VALUES

LEARN TO PAY ATTENTION

ATTITUDES & VALUES

Responsibility

ATTITUDES & VALUES

Intellectual Independence

ATTITUDES & VALUES

FUN!

Skills: Critical Thinking

Skills: Critical Thinking

Why should we think critically?

Your beliefs are more likely to turn out to be true.

You’ll understand your beliefs better

You are likely to be hoodwinked if you don’t know the justification for your beliefs.

What are the consequences of learning to think critically?

Positive Consequences

Negative Consequences

Critical thinking can be overwhelming

Millikin Core Questions

Who am I?

How can I know?

What should I do?

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.

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.

Critical Reasoning

An Basic Introduction

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.

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).

Critical Reasoning and Arguments

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

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?

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.

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…

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 don’t match up well with the Packers. The Packers will dominate the Division again this year.

Argument?

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.).

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?

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.

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.

Common Indicator Words for Conclusions

ThereforeThusIt follows thatConsequentlyHenceWhich means thatSo

Common Indicator Words for Premises (Reasons)

BecauseSinceAsForIn view of the fact thatGiven thatInasmuch as

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.

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.

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…

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.)?

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

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…

Example #1

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

Example #2

Rudy can’t possibly be a levelheaded person under stress because he’s a redhead, and redheads are not levelheaded persons under stress.

Example #3

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

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.

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…

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Examples of Inductive Arguments

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

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.

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.

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.

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 don’t match up well with the Packers. The Packers will dominate the Division again this year.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Transition to Next Session

From Critical to Ethical Reasoning

From Critical to Ethical Reasoning

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