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

Therefore

Thus

It follows that

Consequently

Hence

Which means that

So

Common Indicator Words for

Premises (Reasons)

Because

Since

As

For

In view of the fact that

Given that

Inasmuch 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…