Intellectual Humility

I think there’s an important connection between intellectual honesty and humility. A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we've gotten pretty good at this so far. But this doesn’t guarantee that we’ll care about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal. We should care about good evidence. We should care about evidence and arguments because they get us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we are presented with decent evidence for some claim, but still stubbornly disagree with this claim for no strong reason, we are just being irrational. Worse, we’re effectively saying that the truth doesn’t matter to us.

Instead of resisting, we should be open-minded. We should be willing to challenge ourselves--seriously challenge ourselves--and allow new evidence change our current beliefs if it warrants it. We should be open to the possibility that we’ve currently gotten something wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:

Here are the first two paragraphs of an interesting article on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. “Absolutely not,” he said. “No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct.”

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It’s clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man’s mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. Remember, in many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Homework: Rational Life Plan

Your final homework assignment is to create a first draft of a Rational Life Plan. This includes the following items:

• A list of things you value (such as your family, creativity, your grades, health, etc.)...
  ...along with an explanation of why each of these things are important to you.
  
• A hierarchy of goals (from most important to least important) that you'd like to accomplish in the future.
• A set of specific plans on how and when you'd like to accomplish these goals.

A more detailed explanation of rational life plans is available on pages 13-14 of our textbook. The assignment is due at the beginning of class on Monday, December 13th.

Wished Pots Never Boil

Here is a hodgepodge of links on some psychological impediments we're discussing recently:

• If you're a fan of The Secret, you should beware that it's basic message is wishful thinking run amok.
• Teachers have biases, too: we're self-serving and play favorites.
• Why don't we give more aid to those in need? Psychological impediments are at least partly to blame.
• Why do we believe medical myths (like "vitamin C cures the common cold," or "you should drink 8 glasses of water a day")? Psychological impediments, of course!
  

The Importance of Being Stochastic

Statistical reasoning is incredibly important. The vast majority of advancements in human knowledge (all sciences, social sciences, medicine, engineering...) is the result of using some kind of math. If I had to recommend one other course that could improve your ability to learn in general, it'd be Statistics.

Anyway, a few links:

• I brought up this article before, but I'll mention it again: most of us are pretty bad at statistical reasoning.
• That radio show I love recently devoted an entire episode to probability:
  
  
• Here's a review of a decent book (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives) on our tendency to misinterpret randomness as if it's an intentional pattern.
• This ability to see patterns where there are none may explain why so many of us believe in god (see section 5 in particular).
• What was that infinite monkey typewriter thing we were talking about in class?
• What's up with that recent recommendation that routine screenings for breast cancer should wait to your 50s rather than 40s? Math helps explain it.
• Another radio show I love ran a great 2-part series on the screening for diseases called "You Are Pre-Diseased":
  

  Listen to Episode 1

  Listen to Episode 2

• Statistics in sports is all the rage lately. It can justify counterintuitive decisions, like going for it instead of punting on 4th down... though don't expect the fans to buy that fancy math learnin'.
  

All Email Forwards are False?

I got the following email last Spring:

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: Papa Landis
To: Mama Landis; Me; My Twin; My Older Brother; My Older Sister
Subject: Fw: Really Important After Sunday's Vote

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
Forwarded by Colleague
To: Papa Landis [and dozens more]

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: Friend of Colleague
To: [Dozens]

.
.
.

From: Gilbert Turrentine (original source?)
Subject: Really Important After Sunday's Vote

I have passed it onto over 100~~~please pass on to how ever many you can.

Really Important After Sunday's Vote
It may well be time for this approach; it's tough to argue against the principle! This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

An idea whose time has come
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.
...

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

Here was my response:

From: Me
To: Papa Landis
Subject: Re: Really Important After Sunday's Vote

The claims about Congress aren't true:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes

His response to me:

From: Papa Landis
To: Me
Subject: Re: Really Important After Sunday's Vote

OK, thanks for that.

Possible Paper Articles

Here are some links to a variety of articles you could use for your paper on explaining and evaluating an article's argument. I strongly recommend using one of these articles, since many contain bad arguments:

1. Down With Facebook!: it's soooo lame
2. Do Fish Feel Pain?: "it's a tricky issue, so I'll go with my gut"
   
3. In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: are some people just not meant for college?
4. Study Says Social Conservatives Are Dumb: but that doesn't mean they're wrong
5. A New Argument Against Gay Marriage: hetero marriage is unique & indispensable
   
   
6. You Don't Deserve Your Salary: no one does
   
7. The Financial Crisis Killed Libertarianism: if it wasn't dead to begin with
8. How'd Economists Get It So Wrong?: Krugman says the least wrong was Keynes
9. An Open Letter to Krugman: get to know your field
10. Consider the Lobster: David Foster Wallace ponders animal ethics
11. Are Dolphins People?: an ocean full of sea-people
    
12. The Dark Art of Interrogation: Bowden says torture is necessary
13. The Idle Life is Worth Living: in praise of laziness
14. Should I Become a Professional Philosopher?: maybe not
    
15. Blackburn Defends Philosophy: it beats being employed

Let's Be Diplomatic: Straw Person

Here's some stuff on the straw man fallacy:

• Politicians love to distort their opponents' positions. Even Obama does it.
• Politicians aren't alone: we do it, too. Often we distort arguments for claims we disagree with without even realizing it. This is because we have trouble coming up with good reasons supporting a conclusion that we think is false, so we have a tendency to make up bad reasons and attribute them to our opponents.
  
• Hire your own professional straw man!

Also, speaking of red herrings, here's a cute cat picture:

Wait, we weren't just speaking of red her--Oh. I see what you did there.

Clever.

Structure

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises, if they were true, would provide good evidence for us to believe that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, you would be able to figure out from those premises alone that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures guarantee that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Deductive Args (Valid)
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Deductive Args (Invalid)
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://rulogic2010.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; landis@rowan.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Logic & Everyday Reasoning
Rowan University
Philosophy 09110, Section 10
Fall 2010
Mondays and Wednesdays, 1:45 – 3:00 p.m. in Rowan Hall, Room 102

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: landis@rowan.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://rulogic2010.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Text
THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life, by Judith Boss

About the Course
We are presented with arguments for all sorts of conclusions all the time, on topics as serious as abortion or the death penalty and as trivial as who the Phillies best player is or whether Letterman is funnier than Leno. How can we tell good arguments from bad ones?

This course focuses on understanding and evaluating arguments. We’ll first learn how to identify the components and structures of arguments. We’ll then learn how to pick apart the bad reasoning found in some arguments by going over logical fallacies, which are the different ways an argument can go wrong. We’ll also discuss the limitations of our own reasoning abilities and the natural biases that throw us off.

Armed with these evaluative tools, we’ll then explore our arguments for what we believe, and revise or strengthen them based on proper reasoning. The course’s main goal is to develop a respect for arguments and reasoning as an important, if not the most important, tool toward figuring out the truth and gaining a deep understanding of complex issues.

Grades
A = 934-1000 total points
A- = 900-933 total points
B+ = 867-899 total points
B = 834-866 total points
B- = 800-833 total points
C+ = 767-799 total points
C = 734-766 total points
C- = 700-733 total points
D+ = 667-699 total points
D = 634-666 total points
D- = 600-633 total points
F = below 600 total points

Midterm 150 points
Final 250 points
Quizzes (2) 75 points each (150 points total)
Group Presentation 150 points
Homework 120 points total
Short Paper 50 points
Fun Mondays 80 points total
Attendance/Participation 50 points

Exams: The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will also last 50 minutes, and be held on the last day of class.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. Quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 4 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on everything we cover after the midterm. Quizzes will last 20 to 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Short Paper: There will be a short paper (300-600 words) on understanding and evaluating an argument from a newspaper or magazine article.

Group Presentation: This will be a group project presented in front of the class at the end of the semester. Each group of 3-5 students will research a topic and present a 10- to 15-minute oral presentation on it to the rest of the class.

Fun Mondays: There will be 3 in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Mondays during the semester.

Homework: There will be three total homework assignments.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for your attendance grade. In addition, informal group work can impact your grade.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class.

Excused Absences: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences. Excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury (with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Course Schedule

*This schedule is tentative and will probably change a lot*

September 1
Wednesday: Introduction to class | (no reading)

September 6—8
Monday: LABOR DAY (no class)
Wednesday: Critical Thinking & Understanding Arguments|
read pages 166-176

September 13—15
Monday: Understanding & Evaluating Arguments | read pages 177-187
Wednesday: Evaluating Arguments & Constructing Your Own | read pages 188-194

September 20—22
Monday: Deductive Args: Valid & Sound | read pages 238-247; Homework #1 due
Wednesday: Deductive Args: Evaluating Validity | read pages 249-261

September 27—29
Monday: Inductive Arguments | read pages 202-219
Wednesday: QUIZ #1; Inductive Args: Analogies & Cause/Effect | read pages 221-229

October 4—6
Monday: Inductive Args wrap-up | FUN MONDAY #1: Proof
Wednesday: Scientific Reasoning (Abductive Args) | read pages 371-387

October 11—13
Monday: Scientific Arguments: Evaluation (murder mystery) |
read pages 387-399
Wednesday: Fallacies: Equivocation, Amphiboly, Accent,
Division | read pages 133-138

October 18—20
Monday: Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Force, Pity, Popular Appeal | pgs. 139-144;
Presentations #1 & #2
Wednesday: Fallacies: Ignorance, Hasty, Straw Man, Red Herring | pgs. 144-150;
Presentations #3 & #4; Homework #2 due

October 25—27
Monday: Review for Midterm Exam | (no assignment)
Wednesday: MIDTERM

November 1—3
Monday: Fallacies: Circular, Loaded, Authority, Dilemma | pgs. 151-156;
Presentations #5 & #6
Wednesday: Fallacies: Slippery & Naturalistic | pgs. 156-161; Presentation #7

November 8—10
Monday: Cognitive Biases: Our Mental Limits & Perceptual Errors | read pages 97-107
Wednesday: Cognitive Biases: Statistical Reasoning | read pages 109-119

November 15—17
Monday: Cognitive Biases: I’M-SPECIAL-ism |
FUN MONDAY #2: Biases
Wednesday: Cognitive Biases: Social Biases | read pgs. 120-125

November 22—24
Monday: QUIZ #2; Intellectual Honesty intro | read pages 1-12
Wednesday: Intellectual Honesty: Charity | read pages 13-20

November 25—28: THANKSGIVING BREAK! (no class) (woo?)


November 29—December 1
Monday: Intellectual Honesty: Ignorance | pgs. 20-29; FUN MONDAY #3: Life Plan
Wednesday: PAPER due; Advertising | read pages 311-321

December 6—8
Monday: Marketing & Advertising: Evaluation | read pages 321-333
Friday: Mass Media: News, Critical Consumers | read pages 342-350, 359-362; Homework #3 due

December 13
Monday: Mass Media wrap-up; review for Final Exam

Final Exam: Monday, December 20th, 1:30-2:30 p.m.