Why Walter Should Shave his Head and the Great Shave

Finally, as a last argument in this course, is the one that bothers me most. And it comes from Lauren Brush. I think it must have bothered her too, because It’s not clear that she was ever happy with the formulation and kept changing it. But I’m going to give a very simplified version of it, and see if we can reconstruct it and determine whether it’s really sound. This is what Lauren said in my words, not hers, exactly. Walter wants to up the number of students who get the most out of this class. Now that’s true. I want to increase the number of students who get the most out of this class.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

—————————————————————————–

.·. (2) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students.

That’s the point of teaching. Therefore, Walter should shave his hair on camera and, make the video open to all students. No! My beautiful locks, no! That is what’s upsetting. But luckily, luckily [LAUGH] this argument’s not valid, now way. It’s possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. So, sorry Lauren I’m not convinced. Uh-oh, she can add another premise. She’s probably assuming this.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (3) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students.

More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students. Okay, okay, I guess I gotta admit that too. I think people will get more outta the class if they see that, because part of what you get outta this class is you have some fun. At least I hope you’ve had fun, I have. Okay Lauren. But still, still it’s not valid. It’s not valid, and so I’m not going to shave my head yet, no way, no way. Uh-oh, the main reason it wasn’t valid was that the premises were about what I want, and the conclusion is about what I should do. But wait now maybe it is valid. Sure looks valid if we add one more suppressed premise. Walter should do what will accomplish, what he wants to do.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students.

(3) Walter should do what will accomplish what he wants.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (4) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students.

Oh my gosh, if what I want to accomplish is to get more students to get the most out of the class, if I should do what I want to do, then I should do what’s going to make the most students get the most out of the class. And if shaving my head is doing that, then it sure looks like I should shave my head on camera. And make it open to all the students. I feel like I’m in trouble now. What’s going to happen? Oh, wait! Wait! I got it. Even though it’s valid, premise three’s not true. That I should do what’s going to accomplish what I want? What if I want something like, I want to smoke. Well maybe I shouldn’t go to the store and get a pack of cigarettes, because even though I want to smoke, I still shouldn’t because it’s bad for me, because it’s going to hurt me.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students.

(3) Walter should do what will accomplish what he wants unless doing so has worse effects.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (4) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students.

So, it looks like you have to qualify that premise by saying that I should do, what will accomplish what I want to do, unless doing it has worse effects. Like in smoking when it might give me cancer and hurt me. So whew, now I’m safe. Now I don’t have to shave my head. Whew, that makes me feel better because you can’t get the conclusion that I should do it from those three premises, right? It’s not valid anymore. Uh-oh, uh-oh, all we need’s another premise.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students.

(3) Walter should do what will accomplish what he wants unless doing so has worse effects.

(4) Walter shaving his hair on camera and making the video open to all students will not have worse effects.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (5) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students.

Walter shaving his hair, his head, on camera and making the video open to all students will not have worse effects. Uh-oh! Because, shaving my head is not going to give me cancer, like smoking. Matter of fact, hair will grow back. It’s not. It might be embarrassing for a few days but only a few days. That’s not that bad compared to all those students out there in Courseraland. And, so I guess I have to admit that premise four is true. But wait a minute, if the argument is valid and premise four is true and premise three is true and premise two is true. Premise one is true. Now it’s looking good.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students.

————————————————————————————————

.·. (3) Walter shaving his hair on camera and making the video open to all students will accomplish what Walter wants.

(4) Walter should do what will accomplish what he wants unless doing so has worse effects.

(5) Walter shaving his hair on camera and making the video open to all students will not have worse effects.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (6) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students.

And we can even break it up to make it easier to understand. I want the number of students to increase that get the most out of the course. And more will get most out of the course if I shaved my head on camera and make that video available. So, shaving my hair on camera, making the video available would give me what I want. And I ought to do want I want if it doesn’t cause worse harm. This is not going to cause worse harm, so I ought to do it. Oh, my gosh! Now I’m worried because that means that, the conclusion’s true.

WHY WALTER SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush

(1) Walter wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Walter shaves his hair on camera and makes the video open to all students.

————————————————————————————————

.·. (3) Walter shaving his hair on camera and making the video open to all students will accomplish what Walter wants.

(4) Walter should do what will accomplish what he wants unless doing so has worse effects.

(5) Walter shaving his hair on camera and making the video open to all students will not have worse effects.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (6) Walter should shave his hair on camera and make the video open to all students!

If the argument is sound, it’s valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion’s sound. Or at least if I accept the premises and the conclusion follows validly then I’m committed to that conclusion. I’m committed to the fact that I should shave my hair on camera and distribute the video to all students, so you can all watch it. Lauren has convinced me of that.

WHY RAM SHOULD SHAVE HIS HEAD AND POST THE VIDEO FOR ALL STUDENTS

By Lauren Brush (and Walter!)

(1) Ram wants to up the number of students who “get the most out of this class.”

(2) More students will get the most out of this class if Ram shaves his beard on camera and makes the video open to all students.

————————————————————————————————

.·. (3) Ram shaving his beard on camera and making the video open to all students will accomplish what Walter wants.

(4) Ram should do what will accomplish what he wants unless doing so has worse effects.

(5) Ram shaving his beard on camera and making the video open to all students will not have worse effects.

—————————————————————————–

.·. (6) Ram should shave his beard on camera and make the video open to all students!

But, notice this argument applies to me, it also applies to Ram. So if I’ve gotta shave my head, Ram’s got to shave his beard. So, although I have to shave my head, at least I’m not alone. Guess we gotta both go do it.

I’m committed to the fact that I should shave my hair on camera, and distribute the video to all students so you can all watch it. Lauren has convinced me of that. But, notice this argument applies to me, it also applies to Ram. So if I gotta shave my head, Ram’s got to shave his beard. So, although I have to shave my head, at least I’m not alone. Guess we gotta both go do it. Okay, so I’m convinced that I should shave my head, but I’m just not going to do it, I don’t know if I can live without my beautiful locks. >> Yeah, I, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I mean, I’m equally convinced that I should shave my beard. But, it just doesn’t feel right somehow. >> I know there’s no way they’re going to force us. >> Yeah. >> No. >> I don’t think it’s going to happen. >> No. >> It’s just not going to happen. >> Yo, I’m going to make you do it. Dude, you need to recognize the power of reasoning and argument. >> Oh no, he got me! Thanks to all of our students we hope you learned a lot and had a lot of fun, we sure learned a lot from you. I remember learning about goats from a goat farmer in Afghanistan and, and AIDS from an AIDS activist in Africa and traffic flow from an Australian engineer, and wild dogs from a, a student from Eastern Europe.

We’ve also been inspired by a lotta students. One student had her house destroyed by a cyclone, and apologized for missing a deadline. An Iranian group of linguistics students, met together every weekend. So did a group in a cafe in San Francisco. We had visually challenged students from Eastern Europe. And one student with a chronic disease that had never been able to take a college course before. So, now sadly we have to say goodbye, but we hope that the lessons will stay with you. Our goal has been to teach you to first of all, ask whether you have good enough reasons for the positions that you hold and then to enable you to formulate those reasons better when you do have good reasons for your own beliefs. But also to pay attention to other people and appreciate and be fair to opponents who hold different positions. So please use these skills throughout the rest of your life. They will help you cooperate with other people and succeed in your own goals, whatever you want to accomplish. So now, there are only two things left to do. One is send all that hair to Locks of Love. And two, [LAUGH] now that it’s all gone, I might as well paint my entire head Duke Blue. [MUSIC] Oh, I don’t know, I’ve got my doubts now, but it did seem like a good idea at the time. Luckily I’m not going to be alone. Rob your turn. >> So, listen, um,you gotta make sure nobody, nobody knows about this. Okay. I do not want to be associated with that big Duke blue clown. Okay. So, nobody can know about this. >> Alright. >> Alright. You don’t tell anybody. [SOUND] >> Alright, alright, good man, good man. >> Okay. >> [SOUND] We are so grateful to all of you for taking the time out of your busy lives to take our course and help us make it even better for future generations of students. Thank you to the graphic designer from Mexico who secretly wants to go study philosophy. Thank you to the retired social worker from Darwin, Australia who is studying to become a workplace meditation consultant. Thank you to the recent college graduate from the Philippines who stuck with our course even when the massive typhoon tragically devastated her country. Thank you to the polite gentleman from Huntsville, Alabama who had to stand up to the criticism of his peers in order to take our course. Thank you to the young man from Rio de Janeiro who did the problem sets in the middle of Carnival. Thank you to the barber from Cairo who would complete the quizzes whenever he had a break between clients. Thank you to the taxi driver from Bangalore who would contribute to the discussion forums using voice recognition software while driving. Thank you to the hypnotist who found time to complete our course while also getting all of his clients to do so, as well. And thank you to the anaesthesiologist who would read our lecture transcripts out loud while at work It is because of all of you that our work was worthwhile. >> Bye >> Bye guys. Thanks for doing such a great job. Bye.

Attacking a Straw Man

One problem that can arise when you try to refute an argument is that you end up attacking a straw man. Now, what does that mean? What is attacking a straw man? Let me start off by giving a definition and then giving some examples.

What is it to attack a straw man?

You attack a straw man when you misunderstood the argument or hypothesis that you are attempting to refute.

So, to attack a straw man, is to misunderstand the argument or the hypothesis that you’re attempting to refute. Right, you might try to refute an argument or show that a particular hypothesis is false. But if in the course of doing that you end up misunderstanding the argument of the hypothesis, then we say you’re attacking a straw man. Here are some examples of that phenomenon.

Example 1

Walter: The United States should not have sent in troops to depose the government of Saddam Hussein.

Ram: Oh, so you must think that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his citizens does not matter?!

So imagine Walter and I are having a conversation and Walter claims the United States should not have sent in troops back in 2003 to depose the government of Saddam Hussein and Iraq I hear Walter say this and I respond by saying, oh, so Walter you must think that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his citizens just doesn’t count for anything. Okay, now clearly, I’m trying to criticize what Walter’s saying but my criticism misunderstands what he’s saying. Walter didn’t say that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his citizens doesn’t count for anything. Walter just said, the United States should not have sent in ground troops in 2003 to depose the government of Saddam Hussein. Now, why does Walter think that? There could be a number of reasons why Walter thinks that. But his having reasons for thinking that is consistent with Walter’s also thinking that the suffering that Saddam Hussein imposed upon his own citizens matters a lot. But maybe there would have been more effective ways to address that suffering without sending in ground troops to depose his government. So, until I understand better how Walter is defending his view that the United States should not have sent in troops to depose the government of Saddam Hussein, I’m attacking a straw man when I say oh so you must think that the suffering that he imposed upon the citizens doesn’t count for anything. So there’s one example of attacking a straw man. Here’s another example.

Example 2

Ram: We should distribute condoms to teenagers around the world, in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and all the tragic costs that result from them.

Walter: Oh, so you must want to encourage teenagers to have as much sex as possible?!

Suppose once again Walter and I are having a conversation and I say we should distribute condoms to teenagers around the world in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and all the tragic costs that result from unwanted pregnancies. And Walter says oh so you must want to encourage teenagers over the world to have as much sex as possible. Now there Walter’s attacking the straw man. Until he understands what my reasons are for thinking that we should distribute condoms to teenagers around the world, and until he can evaluate the benefits that I see to that policy against the possible costs of possibly making it easier for some teenagers to have sex, he can’t simply assume that I want to encourage teenagers to have as much sex as possible. Maybe I don’t want that. Maybe I don’t want to encourage teenagers to have as much sex as possible, but I still think that it’s a good idea to distribute condoms to teenagers around the world in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. So, here’s an example where Walter is attacking the straw man. Okay, now, in the video clip that follows, you’re going to see David Mitchell, who’s a British comedian, attacking another straw man. Let’s take a listen >> Have you noticed its no longer good enough to try and live in such a way that pleases you and doesn’t outrage others. No, as if this was too easy a goal and we needed a refinement on the human condition to make a sufficient challenge of it, we’re now suppose to live in the moment. It’s not enough to work towards being happy later. You have to be happy now. Right now. No, now. Not then, not soon, now. Well that’s unfair of me. I realize most of the living in the moment-eers are not saying that’s the only way of being happy that counts. Although, asterisk, some of them definitely are saying exactly that. They’re recommending this as a way to become happy. Are they mad? Apart from the obvious paradox that anytime I’m checking to see if I’m living in the moment or not, I cease to live in the moment, or rather the moment I’m living in becomes the moment of checking, the range of pleasures available to people living in the moment is both small and well, best deal. Unless you’re in the middle of something delicious, intoxicating, caramel or whatever the posh word for sneezing is, you’re stuck. And out of those, the only one that requires no on in the moment planning or forethought whatsoever is sneezing. A nice though a good sneeze is after three they get annoying. And what’s more, I don’t think its as easy as all that to tell whether or not your enjoying a moment in that moment. I remember watching the film Mulholland Drive and believing that I was enjoying myself as I anticipated the dramatic ending that would cleverly resolve and make sense of this intriguing mystery. But there wasn’t one, it just sort of stopped. And once I realized that I had no choice but to retrospectively downgrade what I had thought had been my enjoyment in the moment. My enjoyment was predicated on a demanding to something it was an IOU to be redeemed at the point of pleasurable revelation by which I don’t mean the lesbian sex scene and as there was none, the IOU was never redeemed. Therefore, I haven’t enjoyed myself where this is really starkly obvious of course is sport. Of the three big matches Andy Murray played this year, the one I enjoyed most at the time, by country mile, was his last Olympic game where he went into the lead early and stayed there until he won. The one I think I enjoyed most now is the US open. Where it was touch and go for hours, and then he won. Much more exciting, which is why I value it now, and hated it at the time. Because at the time, I had no way of knowing that the moment I was reluctantly suffering through wasn’t a moment on a long and exhausting journey towards defeat. Like the Wimbledon final, which neither in the moment me nor looking back me enjoyed at all. At the time, when watching any sporting contest in which I’m partisan, I don’t have the faintest idea if I’m enjoying myself. My dominant emotion is I really hope my team wins, so it will turn out later I’m enjoying myself now. That’s the problem with living in the moment. We’re too intelligent a species to be able to avoid living in some sort of narrative, and that involves not knowing how we feel in the moment until we have context for it. Too short-term a focus, and we’ve nothing to enjoy but sneezing. Too long term a context, and it’s all a plan to enjoy something we never get to. And anyway, we’ll all be dead within 100 years. We have no choice but to find some sort of medium term over which to give a shit, or nothing is anything. And once you’ve granted that, then all the delayed gratifications are variations on a theme. And the theme is, chores now for jam tomorrow. Whether it’s, I want to build a cathedral, or I fancy a sandwich. You’re stuck in the middle with me. >>

Now in the clip we just saw, David Mitchell gives two arguments against the advice to live in the moment. Now what are those two arguments? Well, here’s one of them. It goes like this.

First Argument (Straw Man)

(1) Living in the Moment involves a very restricted set of pleasures.

(2) A good life involves many pleasures outside that restricted range.

————————————————————————–

(3) Therefore, a good life does not involve living in the moment.

Premise one: living in the moment involves a very restricted set of pleasures. Mitchell describes them as vesture. Premise two, a good life involves many pleasures outside that restricted range. And so conclusion a good life does not involve living in the moment. Okay. Now I hope it’ll be clear once we set the argument out like that that this argument is not valid, this argument is not compelling at all Just because living in the moment involves a very restricted set of pleasures, and let’s suppose for the moment that it does, and the good life involves many pleasures outside that restricted range, and let’s grant that it does, it doesn’t follow that a good life does not involve living in the moment. For all that we get from premise one and two. For all that those two premises tell us it could be that good life involves living in the moment and a whole lot of other things as well, and a whole lot of other pleasures as well besides, living in the moment. So, this is an example of an argument that is not valid. But given how obvious the invalidity is, why does Mitchell think that this argument is worthwhile levelling against the proponent of living in the moment? He thinks it is worthwhile levelling against that proponent. Because he thinks that proponent is someone who says that a good life just involves the pleasures of living in the moment. But, that’s a misunderstanding of what the proponent of living in the moment is saying. The proponent of living in the moment isn’t saying that life doesn’t involve any pleasures whatsoever over and above living in the moment. The proponent of living in the moment is simply saying that in addition to whatever other pleasures life involves, we need to remember the pleasures of living in the moment. Okay, that’s one argument that Mitchell uses against the proponent of living in the moment, and that argument is guilty of attacking a straw man. Here’s the other argument Mitchell uses against the proponent of living in the moment. It goes like this.

Second Argument (straw man)

(1) Living in the moment is ascertainable only after that moment.

—————————————————————–

(2) Therefore, living in the moment is impossible.

Premise, living in the moment is ascertainable only after that moment as Mitchell says: you can only check whether you are living in the moment if that moment that you’re living in becomes one of checking. Conclusion, therefore living in the moment is impossible. This is the paradox that Mitchell describes early in the clip. Now, how does it follow from the premise, living in the moment is ascertainable only after that moment? That living in the moment is impossible? How is this argument supposed to be a good one? Well, Mitchell’s idea is if you’re ascertaining whether you’re living in the moment then the moment that you’re living in becomes one of checking. And since checking isn’t itself self pleasurable, you can’t live in the moment. But, that doesn’t follow because it leaves it open into the proponent of living in the moment to say that you can only live in the moment when you’re not checking whether or not you’re living in the moment. The happiness that you can enjoy when you’re living in the moment is not a happiness that you can enjoy while you’re checking to see that you’re having that happiness. It’s a happiness that you can enjoy only when you’re not preoccupied with checking to see that you have it. So, once again we have an invalid argument, and the invalid argument is badly directed against the proponent of living in the moment. Mitchell assumes that the proponent of living in the moment is affected by this argument because the proponent of living in the moment must think that living in the moment somehow requires knowing that you’re living in that moment. And knowing that you’re living in that moment somehow requires checking that you’re living in that moment. But the proponent of living in the moment need require no such thing. The proponent of living in the moment might advise us to live in the moment without advising us to check whether we’re living in that moment. Without advising us to think about whether we’re living in that moment, but simply to live in that moment. And Mitchell’s argument doesn’t affect the view that we should live in the moment so long as that view isn’t understood to be the view that we should check to see whether we’re living in the moment. Okay. So, those are two examples of straw man arguments that occur in the clip that we just saw. Both of them arguments directed against the proponent of living in the moment, but both of them attack a straw man. In the exercises that follow we’ll see some more examples of arguments that may or may not be attacking the straw man.

False Dichotomy

Today we’re going to talk about false dichotomies.

What is a false dichotomy?

An argument relies upon a false dichotomy when it falsely assumes that there are only two possible situations.

A false dichotomy is something that can go wrong with an argument, but it can go wrong either with an argument that we’re trying to refute, and so we can refute that argument by showing that it depends on a false dichotomy, but it can also go wrong with the argument that we’re giving by way of refutation, in other words, our attempted refutation of an argument can go wrong because it relies on a false dichotomy. So, what’s a false dichotomy and why is it a bad thing? Let’s talk about that now. A false dichotomy is when, an argument relies upon a false dichotomy when that argument falsely assumes that there are only two possibilities, when in fact, there are more than two possibilities. ‘Kay? This is a common problem with arguments. It’s a common problem with arguments that we try to refute and it’s also a common problem with arguments that try to refute them. Let’s look at some examples.

Example 1

Either other nations are with us, or they are against us, in our war against terrorism.

Switzerland is not with us.

——————————————————————

Switzerland is against us.

So consider the following argument. You can imagine someone from, let’s say, a powerful western nation giving the following argument in the course of determining which alliances to foster and which international relations to cut-off. Either other nations are with us or they’re against us in our war against terrorism. That’s premise one. Premise two, Switzerland is not with us. In conclusion, Switzerland is against us. And then, from this conclusion, you can imagine that the proponent of this argument would draw various further conclusions like the diplomatic relations with Switzerland should be cut off, the trade relations with Switzerland should be cut off and so forth. Maybe we should have an embargo on Swiss goods. So, the problem with this argument is that: even if premise two of the argument is true and, actually, even if premise three of the argument is true, premise one of the arguments is a false dichotomy, or at least may very well may be a false dichotomy. Isn’t it possible that a nation might simply be neutral, with respect to a particular conflict that our nation has with some other force, right? Couldn’t a nation simply be neutral with respect to that conflict? Why must they choose between being with us and being against us? Why couldn’t they just remain neutral? So this argument relies on a false dichotomy and we can refute the argument by showing that it relies on a false dichotomy. Here’s another example of an argument that relies on a false dichotomy. So imagine someone argues as follows.

Example 2

Either the government must listen in to our phone calls, or else they will be collecting our body parts after another terrorist attack.

Better to listen in our phone calls than to collect our body parts.

——————————————————————————–

The government must listen in to our phone calls.

Premise one, either the government must listen in to our phone calls or else, they will be collecting our body parts after another terrorist attack. Premise two, better to listen in to our phone calls than to collect our body parts, right, rather lose our privacy than lose our lives. Conclusion, the government must listen in to our phone calls. Now again, let’s suppose that premise two is true. In fact, we can even suppose that the conclusion is true. But even if the conclusion is true, this argument does not successfully show that the conclusion is true. And the reason it doesn’t successfully show that the conclusion is true is that premise one, again, is a false dichotomy. Premise one assumes that there are only two possible situations, either the government is listening in to our phone calls or there’s going to be another terrorist attack and the government will have to collect our body parts. But why are those two the only possible situations? Is there absolutely no other way of preventing another terrorist attack or, in any case, reducing the likelihood of another terrorist attack without listening in to our phone calls? Until someone can establish that there is no other possible way of doing that, we can suspect that premise one of this argument is a false dichotomy, and so the argument is unsuccessful. The argument doesn’t show that its conclusion is true even if its conclusion is true. So those are two examples of arguments that rely on a false dichotomy. Now, I’d like you to look at the following video clip, in which you’ll hear three arguments given.

First Argument (Appeal to Popular Opinion)

The whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a show and a shoe.

——————————————————————-

You ought to put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe.

(Rebuttal: this argument is a fallacy)

Now, the first of the three arguments is an appeal to popular opinion, but then, I think you’ll see some examples of false dichotomy. Okay, we’ll talk about it right after the video clip is over. >> You know that we don’t catch that fishing boat, there ain’t going to be no deep sea fishing. We’ll have to stay in a dock that the old people are. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. What are you doing here? >> What? >> What about the other foot? >> [LAUGH] >> There ain’t no sock on it. >> I’ll get to it. >> [LAUGH] >> Don’t you know that the whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe? >> [LAUGH] >> I like to take care of one foot at a time. >> [LAUGH] >> That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. >> [LAUGH] >> It’s just as quick my way. >> Wait a minute. That ain’t the point. You see what I’m doing. Don’t keep doing it. Listen to me. >> [LAUGH] >> Suppose there’s a fire in the house and you gotta run for your life. Your way, all you got on is one shoe and a sock. My way, you got on a sock and a sock. You see, you’re even. >> [LAUGH] >> Suppose it’s raining or snowing outside. >> [COUGH] >> Your way, with a sock on each foot, my feet would get wet. My way, with a sock and a shoe on one foot, I can hop around and stay dry. >> [SOUND] >> I think you’ve been hopping around on your head. >> [LAUGH] >> Wait a, wait a, listen to me. >> [LAUGH] >> Supposing the other sock’s got a hole in it. >> It doesn’t have a hole in it. >> I said supposing it’s got a hole in it. >> Alright. Suppose it has a hole. >> Alright. It’s got a hole in it. So you ain’t got another matching pair. So, what are you going to do? Your way, you’re going to take off a whole shoe and a sock. My way, all you gotta do is take off one sock. >> [LAUGH] >> All right, if it’ll make you happy, I’ll start all over again. >> No, no, no. >> [LAUGH] >> You’re half way through. Now, jeez, get on with it. We’re in a hurry. >> [LAUGH] >> You can start doing it the right way tomorrow morning. And do it that way for the rest of your life. >> [SOUND] >> All the Americans are going to recognize that video clip as from a TV show called All in the Family which aired in the 1970s in the United States. The older character with white hair is named Archie and the younger character with brown hair and a moustache is named Michael. Now in that clip, Archie gives Michael three arguments for the conclusion that Michael ought to put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe, in contrast to the way Michael’s actually doing it, which is to put on a sock and a shoe and a sock and shoe. Now the first of those three arguments is just an appeal to popular opinion and goes like this. Premise, the whole world puts on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. Conclusion, Archie doesn’t spell out this conclusion, but clearly, it’s the conclusion that he wants Michael to draw, you, Michael ought to put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and shoe. Since, after all, that’s how the whole world does it. Now, that’s an appeal to popular opinion and, clearly, it’s fallacious. Just because the whole world does it, doesn’t provide a reason for you to do it. Of course, if there’s a good reason to why the whole world does it that way, then whatever that good reason is, that might also be a good reason for you to do it that way. But, the fact that the whole world does it that way, by itself, that’s not a good reason for you to do it that way. There might be evidence that there is a good reason, but, by itself, it’s not a good reason. And so Michael says, I like to take care of one foot at a time, perfectly good rebuttal to that argument.  Now that’s an appeal to popular opinion and it’s a fallacy of relevance and those we discussed last week. But the next two arguments are interesting examples of false dichotomy arguments. Let’s consider each one of them. So, in the next argument, Archie says the following.

Second Argument (false dichotomy)

(1) If you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, either your feet will each have a sock, or one foot will have a sock and a shoe.

(2) Better for your feet to be even than not to be even.

————————————————————

(3) Better to put on both your socks first.

Premise one, if you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, well, either your feet will each have a sock on them or one foot will have a sock and shoe on it and the other foot will have nothing on it. ‘Kay? Premise two, better for your feet to be even than to not be even. Let’s suppose that’s true and so, conclusion, better to put on both your socks first. This argument is a fallacy. And it’s a fallacy even if premise two is true I don’t know if premise two is true, but even if premise two is true and even if the conclusion is true, the argument is still a fallacy. And it’s a fallacy because premise one and premise two, together, don’t support the conclusion. See, premise one says, if you’re under certain circumstances, namely, you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, then, either your feet will each have sock or one foot will have a sock and a shoe and the other will have nothing. Okay, that’s right, and maybe it is true that it’s better for your feet to be even than not. That doesn’t mean that it’s better, all things considered, to put on both your socks first, because, what if you don’t have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear? I mean, Archie considers the case in which you do have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, but first of all, that situation is one that’s extremely unlikely to be the case. And secondly, he pays no attention to what would happen, what the consequences would be, of the different courses of action when that situation isn’t the case, in other words, when you don’t have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear. So, this is a false dichotomy, not because premise one is false, but because, in the transition from the two premises to the conclusion, what Archie loses track of is that premise one is true only given the condition that you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, right? So, if you’re in that situation, if you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, then, the following two are the only possibilities, you have a sock and a sock or you just have a sock and a shoe. Those are the only two possibilities if you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear. But, if we don’t restrict ourselves to considering, the situation which you have, what, we have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear, and then we see that there are lots more possibilities. You could have to rush out of the house a quarter of the way through putting on your footwear or three quarters of the way through putting on your footwear or immediately after putting on your footwear or maybe you don’t have to rush out of the house at all. So there are all sorts of other possibilities, in which the dichotomy that Archie lists in premise one, the dichotomy either you have a sock and a sock or you have a sock and a shoe, in which that dichotomy just doesn’t hold, in which there’s a third possibility on top of the two possibilities that Archie mentions. And Michael, interestingly, tries to show that Archie’s argument is no good by giving his own argument of exactly the same form with an incompatible conclusion that it’s better to put on a sock and a shoe first. Remember, on Michael’s alternative argument, he says, well, suppose you have to rush out of the house halfway through putting on your footwear but it’s raining outside, right? If you have a sock and a sock, then both your feet will get wet whereas, if you have a sock and a shoe, then you can hop around on one foot and stay dry. So, that’s an argument of the same form as Archie’s argument, but it reaches an incompatible conclusion, the conclusion, namely, that it’s better to put on a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe rather than a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe. And that just shows that Archie’s argument wasn’t itself very compelling. Okay. So, that’s Archie’s second argument and that’s guilty of a false dichotomy. Now, let’s consider Archie’s third argument, which goes like this.

Third Argument (false dichotomy)

(1) If you find a hole in your second sock after putting on two socks, then you need only change your socks.

(2) If you find a hole in your second sock after putting on a sock and a show, then you need to take off your shoe.

(3) Easier to take off two socks than a sock and a shoe.

————————————————————————–

(4) Better to put on your socks first.

Premise one: if you find a hole in your second sock after putting on two socks, then you need only change your socks. Premise two: if you find a hole in your second sock after putting on a sock and a shoe, then you need to take off your shoe. Premise three: it’s easier to take off two socks than a sock and a shoe so, conclusion, better to put on your socks first. Okay now, Michael doesn’t actually try to rebut this argument, but it’s worth our while considering how compelling this argument is. See, this argument, like the one before it, also seems to rely on a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy is this. Under a certain circumstance, namely, when you find a hole in your second sock, one of two possible situations obtains, either, you only need to change your socks or, you need to take off your shoe in addition to changing your socks. So, under that scenario, when you find a hole in your second sock, then there are only two possible outcomes, you have to change your socks or you have to take off your shoe in addition to changing your socks. Okay, now, that might be right. Well, actually, it’s not right because you do have the alternative of simply walking around with your hole, with a hole in your second sock or of just having unmatched socks. But let’s suppose we rule that out somehow, we rule out the acceptability of walking around with unmatched socks or with a hole in your second sock. So we allow that, under the circumstances that Archie envisages, mainly, where you find a hole in your second sock, only one of two possible scenarios can obtain, either you have to change your two socks or you have to take off your shoe in addition to changing your socks.. So, there’s a dichotomy. But, it’s a dichotomy, that obtains only when we’re in the situation that Archie specified, namely, where we find a hole in our second sock. But what if we don’t find a hole in our second sock? Then there are any number of situations that could obtain, like we could end up putting on our socks and shoes and not having to change anything, or we could end up changing one sock after finding a hole in our first sock. We could end up having to take off our shoe after we find, not that there’s a hole in our second sock, but that the first shoe doesn’t feel comfortable with the first sock. There are any number of scenarios that could obtain, but Archie restricts himself to considering just two possible scenarios, the one where you have to change your two socks versus the one where you have to change your two socks and take off your shoe and he restricts himself to considering just those two possible scenarios because he’s only thinking about a situation In which, what prompts you to change your footwear is finding a hole in your second sock. He’s not considering any other possible situation. And so, once again, in this instance, he’s guilty of a false dichotomy. He’s arguing that it’s better to put on your socks first, but he’s arguing that by showing that, given a certain pair of options, that’s the pair of options that you’re facing when you find a hole in your second sock, given just that pair of options, it’s better to put on your socks first. But why are those two the only possible options? Archie doesn’t tell us that. That’s what makes his argument a bad argument. Okay. So I hope I’ve given some real life examples here of false dichotomies that can occur in arguments and that can vitiate those arguments that can make them bad arguments.

Reductio ad Absurdum

Today we’re going to talk about a kind of refutation that we call a reductio ad absurdum. Now what’s a reductio ad absurdum, and why does it have such a mysterious name? Let’s begin with the definition. So, reductio ad absurdum is a Latin phrase that means reduce to absurdity. And that’s what a reductio ad absurdum is.

What is reductio ad absurdum?

A reductio ad absurdum is an argument that proves that a particular hypothesis is false, because it implies an absurdity.

It’s a refutation of an argument that focuses on a particular claim in that argument, either one of the premises or the conclusion, and it shows that that claim, that proposition implies some absurdity. And since it implies some absurdity, the claim itself has to be false. Because nothing that’s true can imply something that’s obviously false. Only something that’s false can imply something that is obviously false. And so, if you do a reductio ad absurdum on a proposition, you show that the proposition is false. And if that proposition is one of the premises, or the conclusion of an argument, then you’ve refuted that argument. You’ve shown that that argument is unsuccessful. Okay, so that’s a reductio ad absurdum. Let’s look as some examples.

Example 1

The best way to fight theft is to eliminate the conditions that make it possible.

The use of tangible medium of exchange (e.g., cash) is a condition that makes theft possible.

—————————————————————————–

Therefore, the best way to fight theft is to eliminate tangible media of exchange.

So consider this argument. Premise one, the best way to fight theft is to eliminate the conditions that make it possible. Premise Two, the use of a tangible media of exchange like cash, let’s say, or gold, is a condition that makes theft possible. Right, with-, without a tangible media of change, there can’t be any theft. Conclusion, therefore, the best way to fight theft is to eliminate tangible media of exchange. Now, I’ve actually heard this argument before. The argument is that if all exchanges, all transactions take place electronically. Let’s say in a way that’s traceable by your fingerprint or by your retinal scan or something like that. If there’s no cash, if there’s no tangible medium of exchange, then we eliminate the black market and all kinds of goods and services. And, we also eliminate the violent crime that’s associated with stealing cash. Okay. So, the conclusion of this argument might be true. In any case, it might true for all I’m going to say here. But what I want to point out right now is that we can use reductio ad absurdum to show that premise one of this argument is false. So, whatever else is true about the conclusion of the argument, premise one of the argument is false. And so the argument itself does not succeed in proving its conclusion. So, why do I say premise one of the argument is false? That the best way to fight theft is to eliminate the conditions that make it possible? Well, if that were true, then think about the various conditions that make theft possible. One of the conditions that make theft possible is oxygen. Or water. Or any of the conditions that make human life on the earth possible. Without those conditions, of course, theft wouldn’t be possible. So, that would imply, premise one would imply that the best way to fight theft is to eliminate the conditions like oxygen, like water, that make theft possible. That’s clearly not the best way to fight theft. It of course would be a way to fight theft. But, it’s not the best way. So, premise one implies something that’s obviously false. Namely that the best way to fight theft would be to eliminate oxygen and to eliminate water, that’s obviously false. And, so premise one itself must be false because nothing that’s true could imply something that’s obviously false. Okay, so that’s an example of how we can refute this argument using reductio ad absurdum to show the premise one of the argument is false. Here’s another example.

Example 2

If you count long enough you will eventually run out of numbers to count.

———————————————————

Therefore, counting is an activity that cannot go on forever.

So consider this argument premise, if you count long enough you will eventually run out of numbers to count. In conclusion, therefore counting is an activity that cannot go on forever. Now this argument is valid, but the premise of the argument isn’t true and so the argument isn’t sound. Why is the premise of the argument not true? Why is it not true that if you count long enough you’ll eventually run out of numbers to count? Well, here’s a way to see that its not true. Suppose, for a moment that it were true, that if you count long enough, you’ll, you’ll eventually run out of numbers to count. Suppose that were true, well then there would be some last number, some greatest number. Now, whatever that number is, call it n. But now whatever that number is, we can just add one to it. Addition is going to be defined over that number, that number n, whatever n is, and one. So we can add one to n, and now we come up with a greater number. So if this premise were true, then it would imply something that’s inconsistent with the premise, namely that there’s a larger number than n. So, the premise can’t be true, because it implies something that’s inconsistent with the premise itself. So, the premise is false and that shows that the argument is unsuccessful. So, we just did a reductio ad absurdum of the premise of our argument. Now I just gave a couple of examples of reductio ad absurdum that work. But not every attempt at reductio ad absurdum works. Consider this one.

Example 3

Some things exist even though no one is thinking of them.

——————————————————————–

Therefore, reality exceeds the reach of the mind.

Premise, some things exist even though no one is thinking of them. Conclusion, therefore, reality exceeds the reach of the mind. There’s more to reality than there is in the mind. Now suppose someone challenges the premise of this argument as follows. They say, look, you’re saying that some things exist even though no one is thinking of them, but as you’re saying that, presumably you’re not just mouthing the words. You’re really thinking it. You’re thinking that some things exist even though no one is thinking of them. But if you’re thinking that proposition, then you are thinking of those things. So whatever those things are that illegibly exist, even when no one is thinking of them, well you’re thinking of them right now. And so the proposition that you’re thinking, namely that some things exist, even when no one is thinking of them that proposition is not true, because you’re thinking of those very things right now; those very things that exist even though allegedly no one is thinking of them. I leave it as an exercise for you to work out and for you all to discuss with each other in the forums. What’s wrong with this attempt at a reductio ad absurdum of the premise of this argument? I’ll let you think about that.

Refutation by Parallel Reasoning – Counterexamples

Refutation by parallel reasoning

Today we’re going to talk about refutation by parallel reasoning. What is refutation by parallel reasoning? Let me start by giving a definition and then I’ll give some examples.

What is Refutation by Parallel Reasoning?

To refute an argument by parallel reasoning is to show that the argument’s form is not valid or strong.

So first, to refute an argument by parallel reasoning is to show that an argument’s form is not valid or strong; the form of the argument is bad. Now, one way to show that, a way that we’ve described over past couple of weeks is to show that the argument commits one of the fallacies that we have described. For an instance that it commits some kind of slippery soap fallacy or it’s a fallacious dismisser or, a fallacious amplifier or commits a fallacy of …That’s one way to show that an argument is a fallacy that its form is not valid or strong. That it’s premises whether true or not don’t support its conclusion. But sometimes an argument is a fallacy even though it doesn’t fit into any of the categories of fallacy that we have described up until now. But you can still show it’s a fallacy. And the way you show it’s a fallacy then is to refute it by parallel reasoning. And the way you do that is by finding another argument that has exactly the same form as the first argument. Exactly the same form, but the other argument is clearly a fallacy. So if the second argument is clearly a fallacy and it has the same form as the first argument, then the first argument must also be clearly a fallacy. Since whether an argument is a fallacy or not doesn’t depend on the truth of its premises or the truth of its conclusion. Whether an argument is a fallacy or not just depends on its form, on the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. So if you can find an argument with exactly the same form that’s clearly a fallacy that shows that the first argument is a fallacy that’s refutation by parallel reasoning. Now let me give you some examples. So consider this argument premise.

A good example

If I had a higher salary, I could buy a bigger house.

——————————————————————–

Therefore, if everyone had a higher salary, everyone could buy a bigger house.

If I had a bigger salary, I could buy a bigger house. Conclusion therefore if everyone had a higher salary, everyone could buy a bigger house. Okay, now I’ve heard reasoning that resembles this kind of reasoning in the past. People think, well, if we can raise one person’s wages and make them material, materially better off, then if we could raise everyone’s wages, we could make everyone materially better off. Okay, but tempting as this kind of reasoning may be, it’s fallacious. And in order to show that it’s fallacious, let me refute it by parallel reasoning. Let me find another argument that has exactly the same form but that’s obviously fallacy. So, consider this example. This is a parallel argument.

A Parallel Argument

If one person stands up at a ball game, then she will get a better view.

————————————————————————

Therefore, if everyone stands up at a ball game, then everyone will get a better view.

If one person stands up at a ball game then she’ll get a better view. I’d imagine that she’s sitting in an audience of people. All of whom are seated. And so there are all these people seated and watching the ball game and maybe the people sitting in front of her are blocking her view of the events in the stadium. So she decides to stand up so she can see over the heads of the people seated in front of her. So if she stands up she’ll get a better view. Conclusion, if everyone stands up at a ball game then everyone will get a better view. Okay, well, that conclusion is not just obviously false but it’s clearly not supported by the true premise. In fact, this argument is a very clear example of an invalid argument, because the premise is very plausibly true. At just about any ball game, when you have one person sitting down, if they stand up, they’re, they individually are going to get a better view, but the conclusion is certainly false. If everyone stands up, then that does not mean that everyone will get a better view. In fact, if everyone stands up then there going to be some people who end up getting a worse view. So, this is clearly an invalid argument but if this argument is invalid then this argument must also be invalid because they have the same form. And that shows that this first argument about salaries has got to be invalid. It’s got to be invalid because it has exactly the same form as the second argument about standing up at a ball game. It has exactly the same form and the second argument is obviously a fallacy because in most scenarios, the premise would be true when the conclusion would be false. So, if the second argument is invalid, the first argument must be as well. Okay, that’s an example of refutation by parallel reasoning. Now, let’s consider another example. So, we get the idea. So, consider this argument.

Another good example

Most people who start business ignore statistics of failure.

Most people who ignore statistics of failure are stupid.

————————————————————————

Therefore, most people who start business are stupid.

Premise one. Most people, who start businesses, start their own businesses; ignore statistics of failure because the statistics of failure for start-up businesses are pretty bleak. Vast majority of start-up businesses fail. They lose money, they go out of business they go into bankruptcy. So, most people who start businesses have to ignore all that, have to believe somehow, despite all this statistics of failure that they are going to succeed. Premise two: most people who ignore statistics of failure are stupid. Conclusion, therefore, most people who start businesses are stupid. Okay now let me say immediately that I think this argument is a fallacy and further more that its conclusion is false. But, how can we see that this argument is a fallacy. For most people who start businesses ignore statistics of failure, and most people who ignore statistics of failure are stupid. How can we see that it’s fallacious to infer most people who start businesses are stupid? Well to see how this argument is a fallacy compared to this other argument that has exactly the same form of reasoning.

A parallel argument

Most of my friends are organisms.

Most organisms are microscopic.

—————————————

Therefore, most of my friends are microscopic.

So, here’s a parallel argument, most of my friends are organisms. Alright, I mean it’s possible that a few of my friends are robots but I think that’s unlikely. I think, at the very least most of my friends are organisms. If one or two of them are automata who are cleverly disguised to look and act like human beings, so be it. Still, most of my friends I’m confident are organisms. Now most organisms are microscopic Of course we don’t always keep that in mind because most of the organisms that we interact with on a day to day basis are not microscopic. Human beings, dogs, cats, and trees right these organisms are not microscopic but in fact most of the organisms that exist are microscopic. So someone might infer well if most of my friends are organisms and most organisms are microscopic then doesn’t it follow that most of my friends are microscopic, well no obviously not. In fact none of my friends are microscopic all of my friends are creatures that I can see without the use of a microscope. So this argument right here is obviously a fallacy. I mean both of the premises are true and the conclusion is certainly false. So, this argument is obviously a fallacy. It’s an invalid argument but since this argument is invalid and it has exactly the same form as this earlier argument about ignoring statistics of failure, it follows that the earlier argument must be invalid. Right, these earlier arguments from the premises, most people who start businesses ignore statistics of failure and most people who ignore statistics of failure are stupid. It does not follow that most people who start businesses are stupid. That doesn’t follow at all. This is a fallacy. It’s an invalid argument. It just showed that by means of parallel reasoning by finding a parallel argument that has exactly the same form but is clearly a fallacy. So since this parallel argument is clearly a fallacy, this earlier argument about ignoring statistics of failure must also be a fallacy. Okay, now refutation by parallel reasoning doesn’t always work. Sometimes, we get results that are unclear or don’t show what we were trying to show. For instance, let me give you an example of that. So consider the following argument.

A not-so-good example

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

It would be bad if only outlaws had guns.

———————————————-

Therefore, guns should not be outlawed.

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That’s premise one. Premise two: it would be bad if only outlaws had guns. Conclusion, therefore guns should not be outlawed. Okay so that’s an argument that’ll be familiar to some Americans. That’s an argument. Is it a fallacy or not? Well suppose we try to refute it by parallel reasoning as follows.

A Parallel Argument?

If gum is outlawed, only outlaws will have gum.

It would be bad if only outlaws had gum.

——————————————————

Therefore, gum should not be outlawed.

If gum is outlawed, only outlaws will have gum. It would be bad if only outlaws had gum, therefore, gum should not be outlawed. Now notice, this parallel argument has exactly the same form as this earlier argument about guns. The two arguments have the same form. So if one of them is a fallacy then the other one is a fallacy. But is this argument a fallacy. That’s not clear. Its not at all clear that its a fallacy. This attempt to refute our earlier argument by parallel reasoning doesn’t succeed. It doesn’t succeed because the parallel argument is not clearly a fallacy. So we can’t tell by looking at the parallel argument whether the earlier argument about guns was a fallacy. So this is a case of refutation by parallel reasoning that doesn’t succeed. So what’s crucial in refutation by parallel reasoning is this. First of all, you have to make sure that the parallel argument that you’re using to refute the original argument, that the parallel argument has exactly the same form as the original argument. And in all three of our examples that we’ve looked at that is true, the parallel argument does have the same form as the original argument. But the second thing you need to make sure of is that the parallel argument is clearly a fallacy. Right, if you’re trying to show that the original argument is a fallacy, and you’re trying to show it by means of parallel reasoning, then the parallel argument that you pick has to clearly be a fallacy. because otherwise, you haven’t shown that the original argument is a fallacy. Okay, and this third example doesn’t meet that second criterion. The parallel argument is not clearly a fallacy. So, that’s refutation by parallel reasoning. Next time, we’ll consider another way of refuting an argument.

Counterexamples

So, what’s a counterexample and how does it help to refute an argument? A counterexample is an example that runs counter. To some generalization, and thereby shows that the generalization is false.

What is a counterexample?

A counterexample is an example that runs counter to a generalization: it thereby shows that the generalization is false.

Counterexamples can be used to refute arguments that contain generalizations in either their premises or their conclusions.

Now, counterexamples can be used to refute an argument that contains a generalization either as one of its premises or its conclusion. So, if the argument contains a generalization as its conclusion, and the counterexample shows that the generalization is false. Then, in effect, what the counterexample does is show that the argument reaches a false conclusion. If the argument contains a generalization as one of its premises, then the counterexample shows that that premise of the argument is false. But, either way, the counterexample shows that the argument is unsuccessful, either because the argument has a false premise or because its conclusion is false. Okay, so, what are some examples of counterexamples?

Example 1

You should always treat others the same way that you would like to be treated.

I would not like anyone to change my diapers.

—————————————————-

I should not change the baby’s diapers.

Well, let’s start by considering this argument. Premise one. You should always treat others the same way that you would like to be treated yourself. Premise two. I would not like anyone to change my diapers. So, in conclusion, I should not change the baby’s diapers. Now, this argument appears to be valid. Furthermore, I can assure you, premise two is true. So, if premise one is also true, then it looks like I have a good argument for why I shouldn’t change the baby’s diapers. I should get someone else to do it. But is premise one true? Well, premise one sounds familiar enough. You should always treat others the same way that you would like to be treated yourself. That’s something we frequently hear people say. But that can’t be precisely true. After all, I would like to be treated as an adult, but that doesn’t mean that I should treat my children as adults, right? So, if the generalization is that you should always treat other the same way that you would like to be treated yourself, that generalization is false. It’s false, because even though I would like to be treated as an adult, it doesn’t mean that I should treat my children as adults. I shouldn’t treat my children as adults, because they’re not adults. But I am. Now, that doesn’t mean that I should baby my children. But I shouldn’t treat them the same way that I would like to be treated myself. I shouldn’t treat them as if they’re adults. Okay, so, that’s a counterexample to premise one. And that counterexample shows that premise one stated in the way that it’s stated here. You should always treat others the same way that you would like to treated yourself. Premise one stated in that way, is false and so this argument does not work. This argument does not succeed in showing that I should not change the baby’s diapers. The reason it doesn’t succeed is because one of its premises is false. Now, premise one might seem to be true but if it seems to be true that’s only because something very similar to premise one is true. What’s similar to premise one that is true is the claim that you should usually. Typically, often, treat others the same way that you would like to be treated yourself. Now, those claims are true. You should usually treat others the same way that you’d like to be treated yourself. But that doesn’t mean you should always treat others the way that you’d like to be treated yourself. That general claim about how you should always behave, that claim is false, and our counterexample shows it. So, there’s a, an example of the use of counterexample to refute an argument. Let’s consider another example.

Example 2

If it is wrong for all of us to perform a particular action, then it is wrong for any of us to perform that action.

It is wrong for all of us to try to take the last piece of bread on the table.

———————————————————————

It is wrong for any of us to try to take the last piece of bread on the table.

So, consider this argument. Premise one, if it’s wrong for all of us to perform a particular action then, it’s wrong for any of us to perform that action. Premise two: it’s wrong for all of us to try to take the last piece of bread on the table. So, conclusion, it’s wrong for any of us to try to take the last piece of bread on the table. You could imagine this situation. Let’s say a bunch of us are sitting around the dinner table eating dinner. And there’s a basket of bread in the middle of the table and we’ve been, bit by bit, reaching in to take out pieces of bread and eat them. And now there’s only one piece of bread left in the basket and there are a bunch of us sitting around the table. Well it would be wrong for all of us to jump up and grab that piece of bread and start fighting over it. That would be wrong. That would be completely unacceptable. But just because that would be unacceptable, does that mean that none of us is allowed to go and eat that last piece of bread? Well, no. That seems like a preposterous conclusion. I mean, if all of us have to sit there just staring at that last piece of bread, and none of us is allowed to eat it, well, then that’s wasting food. That’s not an acceptable conclusion. So, it’s gotta be okay, for one of us to take that last piece of bread, even though it’s not okay for all of us to try to take that last piece of bread. So, here’s an example where it’s okay for one person to do something even though it’s not okay for everyone simultaneously to do that thing. It is okay for one, it’s not okay for everyone. So, that’s a counterexample to the generalization that occurs in premise one of our argument. So, this argument is not a successful argument. This argument does not prove. That its wrong for anyone of us to try to the last piece of bread on the table, and the reason it does not prove is not because the argument is fallacy. The reason it does not prove that is because premise one of the argument is false. Premise one of the argument states that general client and that general client that it states is not true. Well, it might be true that it’s usually wrong for anyone to perform an action that it’s wrong for everyone to perform. It’s not true that it’s always wrong for anyone to perform an action that it’s wrong for everyone to perform. And in fact I just gave a counterexample to that generalization. It’s not wrong for one person to take a piece of bread. The last piece of bread on the table, even though it would be wrong for everyone to try to take that piece of bread simultaneously. Okay, so, there is another example of an argument that we can refute by means of counterexample. We can use a counterexample to show that premise one of that argument is false and so, the argument is unsuccessful. Finally, let’s consider this third case.

Example 3

Breaking the law is almost always wrong.

Double parking is breaking the law.

————————————————–

Therefore, double parking is almost always wrong.

Premise one. Breaking the law is almost always wrong. Premise two; double parking is breaking the law. So, conclusion, double parking is almost always wrong. Can we refute this argument by means of counterexample? Well, there’s no counterexample to premise two. Premise two is simply true, double parking is breaking the law. That’s part of what’s involved in double parking, when you double park you are breaking the law. But what about premise one, breaking the law is almost always wrong. Is there a counterexample to that? No. There is no counterexample to premise one as stated. If premise one was to say breaking the law is always wrong. Then, we could produce a counterexample to premise one. Sometimes it’s an emergency, you have no choice but to double park. You have to do something very quickly. It’s not wrong to double park in that situation especially not if you’re doing it for just a few seconds. It’s not wrong to double park and yet you’re breaking the law because there’s a law against double parking. So, if premise one we’re to say, breaking the law is always wrong, then there would be a counterexample to premise one. But premise one doesn’t say that, premise one says, breaking the law is almost always wrong. Now, how do you produce a counterexample to a claim of the form almost always. Well, the answer is you don’t. Because even if you produce an example of a case where breaking the law is not wrong, that still doesn’t show that it’s false, that breaking the law is almost always wrong. Maybe breaking the law is almost always wrong. But just not in the case that you produced. So, you can produce a counterexample to generalization of the form breaking the law is almost always wrong. That generalization might be false, but you can show that it’s false by showing a counterexample. Okay. So, we cannot refute this argument by means of counterexample. That’s not to say that this is a good argument. In fact, this third argument is not a good argument, but we can’t show that it’s not a good argument by using a counterexample. So, sometimes counterexample can succeed in refuting an argument and sometimes it can’t. It depends on whether the argument contains a generalization to the effect that something always happens or something is true in all cases if the argument contains a generalization like that an unexceptional generalization a generalization. Without any room for exceptions, then a counterexample can be used to refute that generalization. But if a generalization is phrased in such a way that it admits of exceptions, like if a generalization talks about what almost always happens. Or about what usually happens, about what typically happens, then we can’t refute that generalization by means of counterexamples.

Fallacies of Vacuity: Circularity, Begging the Question, Self-sealers.

Fallacies of Vacuity

We’ve devoted this week so far to talking about fallacies or relevance but today we’re going to talk about fallacies of vacuity. Let me begin by defining what a fallacy of vacuity is.

What is a fallacy of vacuity?

A fallacy of vacuity is a fallacy that results when an argument starts by assuming what it’s supposed to establish.

A fallacy of vacuity is a fallacy that results. When, roughly speaking, an argument starts by assuming what it’s supposed to establish. You could think of it this way. A fallacy of vacuity is an argument that doesn’t go anywhere its starting points presuppose what it is that the argument is supposed to prove. Okay, so there are different kinds of fallacies of vacuity.

Kinds of fallacies of vacuity

Circularity: when the conclusion of an argument is among the premises.

Begging the question: when you have no reason to believe all the premises of an argument that is independent of the reason that you have to believe its conclusion.

Self-sealing: when a proposition or an argument is irrefutable by any possible consideration, and so does not rule out anything.

And in this lecture and the next we are going to be talking about three different kinds of fallacies of vacuity. The first is something called circularity a circular argument. A fallacy of circularity occurs when an argument’s conclusion is contained among its premises. You write out the premises of the argument and one of the premises just is the conclusion, that’s a circular argument. And that fallacy is called circularity another broader kind of fallacy of vacuity, when I say broader kind of fallacy of vacuity. I mean this kind of fallacy of vacuity includes circularity as a sub species is what’s called begging the question. Begging the question is when an argument has the following feature. In order to be reasonable in believing the premises of that argument, you already have to have a good reason for believing the conclusion. So, unless you already have a good reason for believing the conclusion independently of the premises the argument can’t go anywhere because you won’t have a good reason for believing the premises. And so, if you don’t have a good reason for believing the premises, then the argument can’t give you a good reason for believing the conclusion. So roughly, an argument begs the question when you need to have a good reason for believing the conclusion already in order for you to have a reason to believe the premises of the argument. That’s begging the question. That includes circularity. Because notice, in a circular argument, you have to have a good reason for believing the conclusion in order to have a good reason for believing the premises because the conclusion is one of the premises. But begging the question can happen even without circularity, and we’ll talk about examples of that next time. The last kind of fallacy of vacuity that I wanted to describe is something called self-sealing. Now a self-sealer can be either a proposition or an argument. But roughly, a self-sealer is when a proposition or an argument is irrefutable by any possible consideration, no matter what. And so it doesn’t rule out anything. So, if I make some claim to the effect that at a certain point in time, you will then be doing exactly what you will be doing. You might think, well yeah, so what does that tell me? What possible situations are ruled out by that statement? The answer is none. And so that statement is empty, it’s “vacuous”. It’s a self-sealer in the sense that there’s no possible situation that it rules out. And so there’s no possible consideration or evidence that could be brought forth against it. A self-sealing argument is one that commits a fallacy of acuity. Because it does assume what it’s intended to establish unfortunately, in a self-sealing argument. What it’s intended to establish is nothing of any significance. It’s nothing that rules out any possibility. And so, it does tend to assume what it’s supposed to establish. So, those are three kinds of vacuity that I wanted to distinguish. In the next lecture, we’ll talk a bit more about circularity and begging the question. And in the lecture after that, we’ll talk a bit more about self sealing.

Circularity and Begging the Question

Now that we’ve introduced the topic of fallacies of acuity, today we’re going to talk about circularity and begging the question. So, what are these things? What is circularity and what is begging the question?

What is circularity?

A fallacy of circularity is a fallacy that results when an argument’s premises contain its conclusion.

Circularity is a fallacy that results when an argument’s premises contain its conclusion when the conclusion is right there among the premises. Now this is a really egregious fallacy. Not one that people are likely to make very often because it’s so easy to notice but let me give you an example, just so you can see what I’m talking about.

Example

This argument has a premise.

This argument has a conclusion.

——————————————-

Therefore, this argument has a conclusion

So consider this simple example of circularity. Premise one, this argument, this very argument, has a premise. Premise two, this very argument has a conclusion. Therefore, conclusion, this argument has a conclusion. Now, notice, the conclusion of that argument is the same proposition as premise two of that argument. In other words, the conclusion is right in the premises. That’s a circular argument. That’s an example of a fallacy of circularity. That’s pretty hard to miss. And that’s not the kind of fallacy that most people often make. But circularity is one very egregious example of a more general kind of fallacy that lots of people make. And that’s called begging the question.

What is begging the question?

A fallacy of begging the question is a fallacy that results when you cannot have a reason to believe an argument’s premises unless you have an independent reason to believe its conclusion.

 So what’s begging the question? Well, begging the question is a kind of fallacy that results when you can’t have any reason for accepting the premises of the argument, unless you already have some independent reason for believing the conclusion. So, in a certain sense, the argument assumes what it sets out to prove because unless you already have a good reason for believing the conclusion to be true, you can’t have a good reason for believing the premises to be true. And without having a good reason for believing the premises to be true, the argument can’t give you any insight. It can’t teach you anything. No argument can teach you something unless you have a good reason for believing the premises of that argument to be true. So, that’s the fallacy of begging the question. Now, what’s an example of that? Well, these examples can be a little more subtle. Right, because not all forms of begging the question are circularity. Let me give an example of begging the question that doesn’t involve circularity.

Example

The Pope says that he is infallible.

Whatever the Pope says is always right.

————————————–

Therefore, the Pope is infallible.

So consider this argument, again it’s a simple argument. The Pope says that he is infallible. Premise two; whatever the Pope says is always right. Therefore, conclusion, the Pope is infallible. Now notice, that argument is obviously valid. Right, if the Pope says that he’s infallible, and whatever he says is right, then he must be right to say that he’s infallible. In fact, that’s how the doctrine of papal infallibility was first established, was by papal decree. I’ll let you look that up. Anyhow, if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion has to be true. So the argument is valid. But even though the argument is valid, in fact even if the argument is sound, the argument is still a fallacy. And the reason it’s a fallacy, is that we can’t have any good reason for believing premise two of the argument. Unless we already have some reason independently of the argument, for believing the conclusion, right? Unless we already know that the Pope is infallible, why should we believe that whatever the Pope says is always right? Well, maybe there is some other reason, but unless that additional reason is supplied in the argument, this argument begs the question. It begs the question, because it relies on premises that we have no reason to believe unless we already have a good reason to believe the conclusion independently of the argument itself. So this argument is an example of begging the question. But notice it’s not an example of circularity. The conclusion of the argument that the Pope is infallible, that conclusion is not in the premises. It’s not one of the premises. Right, there two premises in the argument and neither of those premises says precisely that the Pope is infallible. So this argument is an example of begging the question, but it’s an example of begging the question that doesn’t involve circularity. And that sort of fallacy is much harder to notice, much easier to make and much more common in everyday life. You can see some examples right now.

Self-Sealers

Today, we’re going to conclude our discussion of fallacies of acuity by talking about self-sealers. So what’s a self-sealer? Let me start by giving a definition and then giving some examples. So first, a self-sealer is a proposition or an argument that’s irrefutable.

What are self-sealers?

A self-sealer is a proposition or argument that is irrefutable because it does not claim anything, it does not rule out any conceivable situation.

It can’t be refuted. Because, it doesn’t claim anything, it doesn’t rule out any conceivable situation. So, in that sense it doesn’t place any constraint on how the world has to be, any possible way that the world is would conform to the proposition. So, what are some examples of that?

Example of a self-sealing proposition

“All human action is selfish”

Apparent counterexample: self-sacrificing heroism

Rebuttal: heroism is motivated by desire to be a hero

Well, suppose someone says, and you might have heard philosophers who say this, suppose someone says, all human action is selfish. Now, at first, this seems like a bold conjecture a very substantial thesis that could be right or it could be wrong. There’s an obvious objection to this thesis you say well look what about self sacrificing heroism. Occasionally people will lay down their lives, in the service of a cause that’s larger than they are. Suppose you present this counter example to the proponent of this generalization, and they say, well, look even self-sacrificing heroism is itself, motivated by the desire to be a hero, so the person who is performing the self-sacrificing heroism is still really acting selfishly, because they’re just trying to satisfy their own personal desire to be a hero. Some people want chocolate, and so they go out to get chocolate. Some people want to be a hero, so they go out looking to be a hero. Okay well, suppose we decide to investigate this further. We find people who are who tend to engage in self-sacrificing, heroic behavior. Maybe people who are lucky enough to have engaged in such behavior in the past and they’re still alive, and so, we find such people, and we test them in various ways. We do brain scans of them. We give them various surveys. We do behavioral tests on them, trying to test whether or not they have the desire to be a hero. And all our tests come up empty-handed. We just don’t find any evidence, no matter how many tests we perform. We don’t find any evidence that this person, or these people, really do have the desire to be a hero. They just aren’t thinking about being a hero. They just want to save the world, or save their fellow people, or save the environment, or whatever. So, it’s because of the larger cause that they’re thinking about, that they engage in self-sacrificing, heroic behavior, and we have no evidence that they want to be a hero. Now suppose that we present all of this evidence to the proponent of the generalization in question. We say Look. We’ve tested these people. We’ve given them brain scans, we’ve done surveys with them, we’ve done all sorts of behavioral tests with them, and we can’t find any evidence that they have some desire to be a hero, a desire that motivates their self-sacrificing heroic behavior. And suppose that we put this to the proponent of the generalization, they reply by saying, oh, look, even if their desire to be a hero isn’t rendered apparent by the tests that you’ve performed, it must still be there. After all, how else could we explain their self-sacrificing heroic behavior? Okay, but now it’s clear that the person is offering us a self-sealer. It’s a position which they can defend, no matter what evidence they’re presented with. So no matter what evidence comes up, no matter what consideration come up they can stick to their guns. They can continue to propound their view that all human action is selfish. But now it’s pretty clear that the view they’re propounding the proposition they’re putting forth Doesn’t claim anything. It doesn’t rule out any possible way that the world could be. Because as we come upon various ways that the world is that seem to tell against their generalization, what they do is they make their generalization less and less specific, so that even if the selfishness of which they speak isn’t made manifest in any way at all. It’s going to be made manifest in the human action itself, right? So as long as there is human action there’s going to be selfishness they say because what other way could you explain the human action. Okay, that’s a self sealer. It’s a self sealer because they’re simply insisting on the position in the face of any evidence that comes up. Now, that’s a self-sealing proposition.

Example of a self-sealing argument

Most self-sealing arguments are simply arguments that contain sele=sealing propositions. But here’s an exception:

Premise: Not every argument has a conclusion.

See?

What’s a self-sealing argument? Well, typically, self-sealing arguments are arguments that contain among their premises self-sealing propositions; they’re arguments that depend on self-sealing propositions. But there might be an example of a self-sealing argument that isn’t like that. I say might, I don’t say there is an example, and I say there might be an example. Let me offer it to you now and see what you all think. Here’s the example. Premise one. Not every argument has a conclusion. See. Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, wait a second, didn’t we define argument way back in one of those early weeks with a different teacher, didn’t we define argument as something that had one or more premises and a conclusion? Wasn’t that just built in to the very definition of argument? Well, look. Sometimes things can be built in to the very definition of something. But still, you can come upon considerations or evidence that lead you to revise that definition. All right, there’re all sorts of institutions in human life that are defined in various ways and then as the world changes, we decide we want to revise that definition and there could be good reasons for doing so. So, originally we defined an argument as some premises and conclusion but, maybe we should revise that definition. Why does an argument need to have a conclusion? Couldn’t an argument just have a premise and that’s it? Well, I’ll let you debate that in the forums. But I just wanted to point out that if this really is an argument, if this premise really does constitute an argument, then the premise is true that not every argument has a conclusion. But unless you can think of some way of refuting, the proposition that not every argument has a conclusion, then this particular argument, consisting of the premise that not ever argument has a conclusion, this particular argument is a self-sealer, because there’s no evidence that you could present, to show that the argument itself is unsound or unsuccessful. So, that’s an example of an argument that’s a self-sealer, which, if it’s an argument that’s a self-sealer, is not the same as any particular proposition that’s a self sealer, because the premise, not every argument has a conclusion. That premise is a proposition. And that proposition is not a self-sealer. But if that premise is an argument, the argument may be a self-sealer.. So that concludes our week on fallacies of relevance and vacuity. I’ll see you next week, when we’ll talk about refutation.

Appeals to Popular Opinion

Over the last few lectures, we’ve been talking about fallacies of relevance, including ad hominem arguments, and appeals to authority. Today, I want to talk about a kind of argument that’s similar to an appeal to authority, but not exactly the same, it’s an appeal to popular opinion. Okay, so what’s an appeal to popular opinion? Here, let me give a definition and then some examples.

What is an Appeal to Popular Opinion?

An Appeal to Popular Opinion is an argument that begins with premises about the popularity of a particular claim, and ends with a conclusion endorsing that claim.

An appeal to popular opinion is an argument that begins with premises about the popularity of a particular claim, and ends with a conclusion endorsing that claim. Roughly, an appeal to popular opinion is an argument of the form; well everyone believes it so it must be true. Now, some arguments of that form are actually good arguments. Let me give you some examples.

Example

(1) Many people think that the verb “to emulate” is a synonym of “to imitate”.

—————————————————–

(2) Therefore, at least one of the meanings of the verb “to emulate” is the same as “to imitate”.

So, here’s an argument, premise, many people think, at least in my experience as a teacher, I found many people think that the verb, to emulate, is a synonym of the verb, to imitate. Therefore, conclusion, at least one of the meanings of the verb, to emulate, is the same as the meaning of the verb, to imitate. Now that’s an appeal to popular opinion, it starts out saying what it is that a lot of people think and then it draws a conclusion that what a lot of people think is true. But here, I think this is actually a pretty good argument and the reason it’s a good argument is because what the verb to emulate means depends, at least in part, on what the users of that verb take it to mean. What they use it to mean. And if people are using the verb to emulate, to mean imitate, then at least one of the meanings of the verb to emulate becomes, imitate. So, popular opinion is, in this example, popular opinion makes it true that the verb to emulate has at least one of the meanings that it has. Okay, here’s another example in a different domain. But a similar sort of phenomenon, where you have a good argument, that’s an appeal to popular opinion.

Another example

(1) More and more merchants regard the local currency as losing value.

————————————————————–

(2) Local currency is losing value.

So, premise, more and more merchants regard the local currency as losing value. Therefore, conclusion, the local currency is losing value. Once again this is a pretty good argument, and its a good argument because if more and more merchants regard the local currency as losing value, then there not going to be as willing to trade their goods and services for the local currency. They will demand more of the local currency in exchange for their goods and services, or maybe they simply won’t be willing to accept the local currency at all in exchange for their goods and services. And if that’s true, then the local currency will lose value because each unit of the local currency will have less purchasing power. And so the local currency will use, will lose value. Once again, here’s a case where popular opinion makes true what it is that the people believe. Alright, so this is a good argument that’s an example of an appeal to popular opinion. Not all opinions to popular appeal are good arguments, some of them are bad arguments, and some of them are fallacies. And let’s take a look at some of those right now.

Amplifiers – Supporters – Affirmers

Amplifiers:

In the last class we distinguished three kinds of appeals to authority and today I want to talk about the first of those three kinds, a kind of argument that we’ll call amplifiers. What’s an amplifier? We’ll define it, and then we’ll consider a couple of examples. First we’ll consider examples of amplifiers that are actually good arguments, and then we’ll look at some amplifiers that are bad arguments. Okay, so first, here’s the definition. What’s an amplifier?

What is an Amplifier?

Amplifiers: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion that we should place great weight on the person’s point.

An amplifier is an argument that begins with premises about a particular person who’s making a point, and it ends with a conclusion to the effect that we should place great weight or lend great credence to the person’s point right? Whatever the person is saying, they have a special entitlement. They’re especially authoritative to say it. Okay, so that’s an amplifier. Now, I said sometimes amplifier are good arguments to see an example of a couple of amplifiers, both of which are good arguments, I’d like you to look at the following clip. >> And the funny part of it is, Marshall McLuhan, you don’t know anything about Marshall McLuhan’s work. >> Oh really? Really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called TV, Media, and Culture. I think that my insights into Mr. McCluen, well, have a great deal of validity. >> Oh do you? >>

Example

(1) The speaker teaches a class on media and popular culture at Columbia University.

——————————————————-

(2) Therefore, we should lend great credence to the speaker’s view on the issues of which he speaks.

Now, in that clip, we saw a person who a Columbia University professor was arguing as follows, implicitly arguing as follows. I teach a class on media and popular culture at Columbia University. Therefore, you should lend great credence to my views on the issues of which I speak. That seemed to be the argument that the person was making. That’s why he brought up the fact that he teaches a class on media and popular culture at Columbia University, in order to lend credence to his views on the topic. Okay. Now, it’s true that if someone is a Columbia University professor who teaches a particular topic, that does tend to establish some credibility that they might have on that topic. But while that might be a good amplifier argument, it doesn’t prove that its conclusion is true, and to see that it doesn’t prove, not conclusively anyway, that its conclusion is true, we need to look at the rest of that clip and consider another amplifier argument that occurs in the rest of that clip. Right here. >> Because I happen to have Mr. McCluen right here. So, so, here, just let me, let me, come over here a second. Tell him. >> I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing. >> Boy, if life were only like this. >>

Another example

(1) Marshall McLuhan is the world’s most noted living expect on popular media and culture.

————————————————–

(2) Therefore, we should lend great credence to whatever Marshall McLuhan says.

So what’s happening there? What’s happening there is that Marshall McLuhan himself appears. Now, Woody Allen, like the rest of us, can reason as follows. Marshall McLuhan himself is the world’s most noted living expert on popular media and culture. Or at least he was at the time that that movie was made. Therefore, we should lend great credence to whatever it is that Marshall McLuhan says on that topic. Unfortunately, since what Marshall McLuhan says on that topic is directly opposed to what the Columbia University professor says on that topic, the conclusion of our first amplifier argument is a conclusion that gets overridden by the second amplifier argument. Okay? So you have two amplifier arguments that occur in that clip that I just showed. Both amplifier arguments are good arguments. They’re not sound arguments. They’re not deductively sound. But they’re inductively strong. But as we saw in unit three of the course, an inductively strong argument can still have a false conclusion. This is a case where we have two inductively strong arguments. They can’t both have a true conclusion. One of them must have a false conclusion. And it appears that our second amplifier argument overrides our first. So here’s a case where we have two good amplifier arguments. But good amplifier arguments are pretty few and far between. More often in daily life, we find bad amplifier arguments.

Supporters:

Today we’re going to talk about another kind of appeal to authority, that we call a supporter. We’re going to define what supporters are. Give a couple of examples of good supporter arguments, and then talk about some bad supporter arguments. Some supporter fallacies: So first, what are supporters?

What is a Supporter?

Supporters: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion to the effect that the person’s reasons are especially compelling.

Well supporters are arguments that begin with premise about a particular person who’s making a point. And they end with the conclusion to the effect that the person’s reasons for their point are especially compelling especially good reasons. Might be the reasons are likely to be true or maybe their especially likely to support the conclusion but for, in whatever way they, they’re especially good reasons. Okay now sometimes supporter arguments are good arguments let me give a couple of examples.

Example

(1) Warren Buffett has argued that confidence in the dollar will rise, and therefore the price of gold will soon fall.

(2) When Warren Buffett speaks, investors listen and believe.

———————————————————–

(2) Therefore, confidence in the dollar will probably rise.

So suppose I argue as follows. Premise one. Warren Buffett has argued that confidence in the dollar will rise, and therefore the price of gold will soon fall. Premise two. When Warren Buffett speaks, investors listen and believe. Therefore conclusion, confidence in the dollar will probably rise. So the reason Warren Buffett gave in support of his conclusion that the price of gold will fall, namely that confidence in the dollar will rise, that reason is especially likely to be true. Why is it especially likely to be true? Well, I’m saying it’s especially likely to be true because Warren Buffett said it was especially likely to be true. And when Warren Buffet says it that makes it true because investors listen to what he says and they believe in him. And if investors all believe that other people are going to be confident in the dollar, then investors will all be confident in the dollar. Okay, so there’s an example of a supporter argument. I start off with premises particular person in this case, Warren Buffet. I start off with the premise to the effect that he’s listened to by investors. Investors believe what he says. And I end up with a conclusion that the reason Warren Buffet gives in support of his conclusion, that the price of gold will fall, that that reason is an especially good reason. In this case it’s especially likely to be true. That confidence in the dollar will rise. So there’s an example of a supporter argument.

Another example

(1) Isaac Mizrahi says that, given how constricted pants have become in recent fashion, many people will now want to bring back bell-bottom pants.

(2) Isaac Mizrahi is one of the trend setters in the fashion industry.

————————————–

(3) It is true that many people will experience today’s pants as constricting, and come to see bell=bottom pants as trendy.

That’s a good argument. Here’s another example. Premise one. Isaac Mizrahi says that, given how constricted pants have become in recent fashion, many people will now want to bring back bell-bottom pants. Premise two. Isaac Mizrahi is one of the trend setters in the fashion industry. That’s what I gather from Googling things on the internet. But maybe one of you knows better conclusion, it’s true that many people will experience today’s pants as constricting, and come to see bell-bottom pants as trendy. Okay. Now that’s a supporter argument it starts off by stating a premise about Issac Mizrahi and the central place that he occupies in today’s fashion street. And it ends up with a conclusion to the effect that. The reason Isaac Mizrahi gives for his conclusion that bell bottom pants are soon coming back, the reason that he gives is a reason that’s especially likely to be true. Why is it especially likely to be true that people are going to experience today’s pants as constricting? Well, it’s especially likely to be true because Isaac Mizrahi said it was true. And if Isaac Mizrahi says that people are going to experience pants as constricting, then that’s going to make it more likely to be true. Because, people who follow fashion feel about clothes roughly the way Isaac Mizrahi says they should feel about clothes. And so, if Isaac Mizrahi says that they’re going to experience today’s pants as constricting, then very likely, they will experience today’s pants as constricting. And so they will demand a return of bell-bottom pants. Okay, so there’s another supporter argument. And once again, I think this supporter argument is a good argument. It’s not a deductively sound argument, but it’s a good argument. Okay. So there are some examples of good supporter arguments. It’s a lot easier to find examples of bad supporter arguments, of supporter fallacies. And we can see some of those right now.

Affirmers:

In the last couple of lectures, we’ve talked about a couple different kinds of appeals to authority argument, affirmers and supporters. Today, we’re going to wrap up our discussion of appeals to authority by talking about the third kind of appeal to authority argument, affirmers. So what’s an affirmer? Once again, let me give a definition, give some examples of affirmers that are at least arguably good arguments, and finally we’ll look at some examples of affirmers that are not good arguments, that are fallacies. Okay, so first, what’s an affirmer?

What is an Affirmer?

Affirmers: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion affirming that person’s point.

An affirmer is an argument that begins with a premise about a particular person who’s making a point. So something about that person and the argument ends with the conclusion that affirms that person’s point that endorses the conclusion that the person is drawing. So an affirmer doesn’t say anything about the person’s entitlement or authority on the issue. The affirmer doesn’t say anything about the strength or quality of the person’s reasons in support of their point. The affirmer just says well, they said it roughly so whatever conclusion they drew is true. That’s the basic form of an affirmer. Okay, let’s start with a couple of examples of affirmers that are, as I said at least arguably good arguments.

Example

(1) Warren Buffett has argued that confidence in the dollar will rise, and therefore the price of gold will soon fall.

(2) When Warren Buffett speaks, investors listen and believe.

—————————————————-

(2) Therefore, the price of gold will soon fall.

Okay, the first example is very similar to an example that we saw last time, with supporters. There is a difference though. So, here’s an affirmer version of the argument about Warren Buffett that we considered in the last class. Premise one. Warren Buffett has argued that confidence in the dollar will rise, and that therefore, the price of gold will soon fall. Premise two, when Warren Buffett speaks, investors listen and believe. Okay, now, those two premises are the same as the two premises of the supporter argument about Warren Buffett that we considered last time. But here the conclusion is different. Here the conclusion is, therefore the price of gold will soon fall. So here the conclusion is not that Warren Buffett’s reasons for his claim are good. It’s not that in fact confidence in the dollar will rise or that the rise in the confidence of the dollar is supportive of drop in the price of gold. The conclusion is simply that Warren Buffett’s conclusion that the price of gold will soon fall. That conclusion is true. Okay. So the difference between this, affirmer argument, and that supporter argument might not seem very significant. This is an example of an argument that could be spun both as an affirmer and as a supporter. But sometimes, the difference between an affirmer and a supporter does matter, as in this next example. Suppose you argue as follows.

Another example

(1) The Pope argues that masturbation is carnal misuse of one’s body, and that therefore it is a sin.

———————————————-

(2) Therefore, masturbation is a sin.

(This argument will be deemed sound by those who accept Papal infallibility.)

The pope argues that masturbation is cardinal misuse of one’s body, and that therefore, it’s a sin. Conclusion, therefore masturbation is a sin. Now, there are some people, I think over a billion of them, who believe in the infallibility of the Pope. And if you’re one of those people, then you will think that this is a good argument. I am not taking a view on whether or not its a good argument at least not for the purposes of this class but my point is that if you accept papal infallibility then your going to think that this is a good argument. But notice your going to think that this is a good argument even if you have no understanding what so ever of what the Pope means when he speaks of carnal misuse of one’s body, even if that phrase is completely opaque to you, so you have no understanding at all of the Pope’s reasons in support of his conclusion that masturbation is a sin. Still, you recognize the Pope has given some argument, to you the argument sounds like this. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Masturbation is a sin. That’s what the argument sounds like to you. But since you believe in the infallibility of the Pope, you think that whatever there is to say about the reasons that the Pope gave, the conclusion must be true. It must be true that masturbation is a sin since after all; the Pope said it and he argued for it. This is an example of an affirmer argument that is quite different from an analogous supporter argument, where you conclude from the fact that the Pope gave a certain argument that the reasons that he gave in the course of that argument must be good. Right here your not drawing any conclusion about the pope’s reasons because you don’t even understand the pope’s reasons you don’t know what carnal misuse of one’s body is. The only conclusion you’re drawing is that the pope’s conclusion is true. And again for those of you who believe in papal infallibility this will look like a good argument. If the pope is infallible and he argues that masturbation is a sin, than it must be a sin. Okay, so these are examples of affirmer arguments that are at least arguably, good arguments. Now we can look at some examples of affirmer arguments that are not so good.

Fallacies of Relevance – Appeals to Authority

In the last few lectures we’ve been looking at the varieties of ad hominem argument. And in particular, we’ve looked at a bunch of examples of ad hominem fallacies and the different kinds of ad hominem fallacies. Today, I want to start on a new but related topic. The new topic is appeals to authority. So, first let me define appeals to authority, and make it clear precisely how appeals to authority are related to ad hominem arguments. So first, what’s an appeal to authority?

What is an Appeal to Authority?

An appeal to Authority is an argument that begins with premises about a particular person who is making a claim, and ends with a conclusion endorsing that person’s claim.

Example:

Takahashi has given an eloquent presentation of evidence that normalizing US relations with Cuba will result in benefit to both nations.

Takahashi’s presentation was extremely eloquent, and she was very well dressed.

——————————————————————————————

We should accept Takahashi’s conclusion.

 So, an appeal to authority is a kind of argument that begins with premises about a particular person who’s making a claim, and ends with a conclusion that endorses that person’s claim. In a way, you could think of an appeal to authority as the opposite of an ad hominem argument. Right? Remember, an ad hominem argument is one that starts with premises about a particular person who’s making a claim and then ends with a conclusion that is opposed to that person’s claim. In an appeal to authority, you start with the same sorts of premises, but you end with a conclusion that is in favor of that person’s claim. Okay so here’s an example of an appeal to authority. It’s a particularly egregious example not one that anyone would be consciously guilty of making but still an example to give us the rough idea. So, premise one, Takahashi has just given an eloquent presentation of evidence that normalizing US relations with Cuba will result in benefit to both nations. Premise two, Takahashi’s presentation was extremely eloquent, and she was very well dressed. Conclusion, we should accept Takahashi’s conclusion, to the effect that normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba will result in benefit to both countries. Okay. So that’s an example of an appeal to authority. It’s an argument that begins with premises about a particular person, in this case, premises about how eloquent Takahashi was and how well dressed she was. Right, so we start off with premises like that and we end with a conclusion, so we should believe her. We should accept her conclusion because, after all, she was so well dressed and eloquent. Okay, now, as I said, that’s a very egregious example of an appeal to authority, but appeals to authority all have that structure. They start with premises about a particular person, and they end with a conclusion to the effect that what that person said is especially credible, should get special weight. Okay. So, appeals to authority, like ad hominem arguments, come in three kinds corresponding to the three jobs that someone is doing whenever they give an argument or whenever they try to prove a point. Remember, the three things that someone is doing whenever they give an argument or try to prove a point are these. First, they’re implying that they are entitled to put forth claims about the issue. Right. If I’m putting forth claims about an issue then my behavior implies that I’m entitled to do so. Second the person who’s putting forth claims about an issue is making an argument about an issue is implying that the premises that they’re giving actually do support the conclusion that they’re drawing. Right? I wouldn’t be giving certain premises in support of my conclusion unless I believe that those premises really did support that conclusion. So, for me to give certain premises in support of a conclusion is to imply that those premises really do support that conclusion. I might not be saying that the premises support that conclusion, but my behavior clearly implies that I think so. Okay, finally of course, when you give an argument in favor of a certain conclusion, you’re claiming that the conclusion is true. That’s part of the point of arguing for a conclusion, you’re trying to prove the conclusion, establish it, claim that it’s true. Okay, well, corresponding to these three things that people do when they give arguments, there are three different kinds of appeals to authority that we can make, all right?

Three kinds of appeals to authority

Amplifiers: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion that we should place great weight on the person’s point.

Supporters: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion to the effect that the person’s reasons are especially compelling.

Affirmers: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion affirming that person’s point.

We can make a kind of appeal to authority that I call an amplifier. An amplifier is an argument that begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point and ends with a conclusion to the effect that we should place great weight, or place great credence on the point that the person is making. Right, that that person is somehow especially entitled to speak on the issue that they have some special authority that makes their argument deserving of our attention. That’s an amplifier. Or we could give an appeal to authority argument that I call a supporter. A supporter is an argument that begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion to the effect that the reasons that the person is giving in support of their point are especially compelling reasons. And finally, there’s a kind of appeal to authority that I call an affirmer. When you give an affirmer, you’re giving an argument that begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and you end with a conclusion that affirms the point that person is making a conclusion that supports that person’s conclusion insists that that person’s conclusion is true or at least very probably true. So, these are three different kinds of appeals to authority and again they correspond just as the three different kinds of ad hominem argument corresponded to the three different things that some one is doing when they give an argument. Right, the three different kinds of ad hominem argument with three different ways of arguing that the person who is making a point hadn’t successfully executed one of these three jobs. The three different kinds of appeals to authority are three different ways of arguing that a particular person who’s making an argument has successfully executed one or another of these three different jobs. So those are the three kinds of appeals to authority. In the next lecture, we’ll talk about amplifiers. We’ll give some examples of amplifiers. Those are good arguments, and then some examples of amplifiers which, occurring more routinely, are bad arguments.

Dismissers – Deniers

Dismissers

In the last class, we talked about an ad hominem argument called a silencer. And we said that while there are some silencers that are good arguments, a lot of them given in every day life are bad arguments. They’re fallacies. Today I want to talk about another kind of ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument called a dismisser. I want to say what dismissers are. I want to give some examples of dismissers that actually are pretty good arguments, but then I want to give some examples of dismissers that occur in every day life that are bad arguments. Okay. So, let’s start by defining what dismissers are. So, as I said, a dismisser is a kind of ad hominem argument.

What is a Dismisser?

Dismisser: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion to the effect that the person’s reasons are not good.

It begins with premises about a particular person who’s making a point, and it ends with a conclusion. To the effect that that person’s reasons for that point are not good reasons, right? So, a dismisser is not a silencer. It’s not saying that the person has no right to speak about the issue. It’s not saying that we should just disregard anything they have to say about the issue. Fine, they’re entitled to speak about the issue. Maybe we should listen to what they have to say about the issue, but we should not regard the reasons that they gave as good reasons. That’s the point of a dismisser. Now, as I said there are some dismissers that are good arguments.

Example

(1) The fossil fuel industry is eager to operate under as little environmental regulation as possible.

————————————————————————

(2) Therefore, any reasons that the members of the fossil fuel industry give in support of the convulsion that climate change is a hoax are unlikely to provide strong support that conclusion.

Let’s consider a couple of examples. First, consider the following argument. Let’s suppose we’ve just watch an advertisement, in which a coalition of companies in the fossil fuel industry are, giving an argument, in the ad, to the effect that climate change is a hoax. In fact that there, in fact there’s no significant man-made climate change taking place in the environment today. Now, we might argue as follows. ‘Kay, premise, the fossil fuel industry is eager to operate under as little environmental regulation as possible. That’s true of all companies that are interested in turning a profit. Conclusion: Therefore, any reason that the members of the fossil fuel industry give in support of the conclusion that climate change is a hoax is unlikely to provide strong support for that conclusion. Okay, now, that argument, I claim, is a good one. It’s a dismisser where you’re arguing from the interests of the fossil fuel industry. To the conclusion that we should take whatever reasons they give in defence of their conclusion that climate change is a hoax. We should take those reasons with a grain of salt; we should be suspicious of them. Now, of course, that’s not to say for a moment that we should simply deny those reasons or deny the conclusion that climate change is a hoax. That’s a substantive question that requires climatological expertise to answer. But, while we leave it open as a possibility that the argument being made by members of the fossil fuel industry is in fact a sound argument. We only leave it open as a possibility. We recognize that what’s very likely to be true given their interest is that the argument that they are making is not a good argument. Possibly it is. We have to investigate. But based on what we know now about the interests of the fossil fuel industry, it very likely is not a good argument. Okay. So, let’s give another example of a dismisser that’s a good argument. Let’s suppose the head of a particular bureaucracy is arguing that cuts to that bureaucracy’s operating budget would be absolutely devastating. In fact, given the centrality of that bureaucracy’s mission, it’s in fact crucial that they’re operating budget be at least maintained, and preferably, significantly grown. Okay, now we might give the following dismisser argument.

Another example

(1) The head of a particular bureaucracy is eager to have as large an operating budget as possible under her control.

——————————————————————

(2) Therefore, any reasons that she gives in support of the conclusion that her department needs to maintain or grow its current budget are unlikely to provide strong support that conclusion.

We might say look, the head of that bureaucracy is eager to have as large an operating budget as possible under her control. That’s her job, is to gather as many resources as possible and harness them in the service of whatever purposes she sets out to achieve. But from that, we could draw the conclusion that any reasons that she gives in support of the conclusion that her department, her bureaucracy, needs to maintain or grow its current budget. Those reasons are unlikely to provide strong support for that conclusion. Again, that leaves it open. Perhaps the conclusion is true. Perhaps even the reasons provide strong support for that conclusion. And certainly, she’s entitled to have an opinion on the issue; she’s entitled to sound off on the issue. But we should be suspicious. Of her argument, given the interest that she has, given her powerful personal interest in increasing the size of her operating budget, we should be very suspicious of the reasons that she gives. We should assume that they’re false, unless we have good reason to believe that they’re true. We should assume that they don’t support her conclusion, unless we have good reason to believe that they do. Okay, so these are some examples of dismisser ad hominem arguments, that are actually pretty good arguments. But more often than not, dismissers are given in everyday life which are not good arguments and are fallacies. We might dismiss someone’s reasons for a particular conclusion, not because we detect that that person’s own interests, let’s say, their professional interests or their financial interests determined that they would give this argument in favour of this conclusion. But rather because that person has some feature that maybe we don’t like maybe we think they’re too smart by half or maybe there is something about them, strikes us as suspicious. We can’t quite put our finger on it but maybe they just seem vaguely, I don’t know, European something like that. We, we on account of that feature we suspect that whatever argument they’re giving is not a good argument. Okay. Those are examples of dismissers that are fallacies. Let’s consider some examples of those now.

Deniers

In the last two lectures we talked about two different kinds of ad hominem arguments. They were silencers and dismissers. In this lecture we’re going to talk about the third and final kind of ad hominem argument that we’ll be discussing in this course. These are called deniers. So, let’s start off with the definitions of deniers. And then, we’ll give some examples of deniers that actually are good arguments, followed by some examples of deniers that are fallacies. Okay so first, what’s a denier?

What is a Denier?

Deniers: begins with premises about a particular person who is making a point, and ends with a conclusion denying the conclusion of that person’s argument.

Well, a denier is a kind of ad hominem argument that begins with premises about a particular person who’s making a point, right, that’s what makes it an ad hominem, and it ends with a conclusion denying the point that that person is making, denying the conclusion of that persons argument. It’s not saying the person isn’t authorized or entitled to speak on the issue. It’s not saying that the reasons the person presents in favour of their conclusion are somehow defective, false, and insufficiently supportive of the conclusion. Rather it’s saying, independently of any of that, the conclusion is false. The conclusion that that person is coming to is false. So that’s how a denier works. Let me give you some examples of deniers that are actually good arguments. So here’s one. Suppose that Arthur performs the following speech act.

Example

(1) Arthur says “I am an inveterate liar, and most of the time I speak falsely, including now: therefore this very statement is false.”

————————————————————————–

(2) Arthur’s conclusion is not true.

I don’t know why Arthur would do this but let’s just suppose he does. He says I am an inveterate liar, and most the time I speak falsely, including now. Therefore, this very statement is false. Okay, now, if that’s what Arthur says, then we can conclude that the point that Arthur is making, the conclusion that Arthur is drawing from his argument is not true. Alright, because the conclusion that he’s drawing from his argument is, this very statement is false. But the problem is, if it’s true that this very statement is false, then that means that that statement really is false. In which case, it’s not true. So, it can’t be true that this very statement is false. In other words, Arthur’s conclusion, the conclusion that Arthur reaches at the end of his argument, is not true. Now we just proved that. So, we just proved that by thinking about the performance that Arthur gave where he was making a speech act with that content. He said, I am an inveterate liar, most of the time I speak falsely, even now. Therefore this very statement is false. When Arthur says that we can prove that the conclusion that he’s reaching is not true. So there’s an example of a denier. It starts with a premise about a particular person, in this case, Arthur, and it’s a premise about what Arthur does, and it ends with a conclusion to the effect that the conclusion that Arthur drew is not true. So it denies the conclusion that Arthur drew. So there’s an example of a denier ad hominem argument. But that argument actually is a good one. It Arthur issues that particular verbal performance, then the conclusion that he draws is not true. Okay, so there’s an example of a denier that’s a good argument. Here’s another example of a denier that’s a good argument.

Another example

(1) In her argument, Cybil has provided lots of evidence that Susan cheated on the exam.

(2) Though Cybil’s evidence may seem compelling, in fact Cybil is an unrepentant cheater who repeatedly tried to hide her tracks by planting evidence of cheating on innocent people.

——————————————————

(3) Therefore, Cybil’s conclusion is probably not true.

Suppose that Cybil is arguing in front of, let’s say, her university’s Honour Court, that her classmate Susan cheated on some exam that both Cybil and Susan took. Now I might argue as follows. Look into her argument. Cybil did provide a lot of evidence that Susan cheated on the exam but though Cybil’s evidence may seem compelling, in fact Cybil herself is an unrepentant cheater, who repeatedly tries to hide her tracks. She tries to disguise her cheating planting evidence of cheating on innocent classmates. Therefore, I conclude Cybil’s conclusion itself to the effect that Susan cheated, Cybil’s conclusion is probably not true. Susan probably did not cheat despite the evidence that Cybil has presented against here because Cybil does have this track record of planting evidence on innocent classmates. Okay, there also is an example of a denier argument. It starts with a premise about a particular person, in this case Cybil. And, it ends with a conclusion to the effect that Cybil’s own conclusion is false, or at least probably false. So, it doesn’t say Cibyl isn’t authorized to speak on the issue of cheating, it doesn’t say that Cibyl’s evidence doesn’t support her conclusion, it just says that regardless of Cibyl’s entitlement to speak on the issue and the support that her evidence lends to her conclusion. Her conclusion is false, or at least probably false. So that’s another example of a denier argument, and there again we have a denier argument that seems like a pretty good argument. It’s not deductively valid. But it’s a pretty strong argument nonetheless. It’s a strong inductive argument nonetheless. Okay, so those are examples of good denier arguments. But we have to search far and wide to find examples of good denier arguments. What we find more often, especially when we look through the media, are examples of bad denier arguments. Denier arguments in which we conclude that someone else’s argument leads to a false conclusion, and we draw that conclusion based on features of the person that are really irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion that they’re arguing for. We’ll see some examples of that right now.