An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity - always yours

More documents

Recommendations

Info

108 ARGUMENT ANALYSIS ing. It will be too restrictive if we demand that all good arguments must be valid. We would have to give us most of our scientific knowledge. Note that if a good argument is either valid or inductively strong, this implies that an inductively weak argument can never be a good argument. Condition 3: The premises are not question begging The first two conditions are still not sufficient for a good argument. Consider this circular argument, where the conclusion appears as a premise: Oatmeal is good for your health. Oatmeal is good for your health. This is surely a bad argument since no independent reason has been given to show why oatmeal is healthy. However, the argument is actually sound. First, the premise is indeed true, because oatmeal has lots of fibre and can lower blood cholesterol. Furthermore, the argument is valid. Since the premise is the same as the conclusion, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premise is true! This example shows that not all sound arguments are good argument. To deal with this problem, we should require that the premises of a good argument cannot be question-begging—that is, they should not assume what the argument is trying to establish. (See also page 176 for further discussion.) Condition 4: The premises are all relevant to the conclusion Consider this argument: Albert Einstein was a physicist. All physicists studied mathematics. Albert Einstein played the violin. Albert Einstein studied mathematics. This is presumably a non-question-begging, sound argument. If we accept the premises, we ought to accept the conclusion. Yet there is something wrong with the argument—namely, that the third premise is irrelevant to the conclusion, even though it is true. If we remove this particular premise, it does not affect the strength of the argument at all. The extra premise is a distraction and liable to create confusion, and it fails to provide a good reason for the conclusion. Bearing this in mind, we should require that a good argument does not contain any irrelevant premises.
FOUR WAYS TO ATTACK AN ARGUMENT 109 Summary: Definition of a good argument 1. The premises are true or highly plausible. 2. The argument is deductively valid or inductively strong. 3. The premises are not question-begging. 4. All the premises are relevant to the conclusion. 12.2 FOUR WAYS TO ATTACK AN ARGUMENT Now that we know what a good argument is, what should we do when we come across an argument that is nor good? It is important not to rely on your gut feeling and just dismiss the argument. See if you can think of one or more reasons why the argument should be rejected. In general, there are four main ways to attack an argument: two direct methods and two indirect ones: 1. Direct method 1: Attack the premises. If you can show that an argument relies on at least one implausible premise, that is a good way of showing that the argument is not good enough. But sometimes you do not have to go all the way to show that a premise is false. You might argue that there is simply not enough evidence to show that the premise is true. This falls short of arguing that the premise is false, but it passes the burden of proof to the opponent. But remember, just because an argument has a false premise, it does not follow that the conclusion is false! 2. Direct method 2: Attack the reasoning. Even if the premises are all very plausible, you need to check whether the reasoning of the argument is acceptable. The argument might be invalid or inductively weak, or question begging. 3. Indirect method 1: Attack the argument indirectly by attacking the conclusion. If you can show that the conclusion of an argument is false, this implies that there must be something wrong with the argument. This strategy of refuting an argument is useful when it is difficult to evaluate an argument directly, perhaps because it is too long or convoluted. Of course, this strategy does not really explain what is wrong with the argument. 4. Indirect method 2: Give an analogous argument that is obviously bad. The idea is to compare the original argument with another argument. If the new argument is obviously bad, and it has the same structure as the original one, then the original one is likely to be a bad argument as well. This is a good strategy to use when it is difficult to see what is wrong with an argument, or your opponent refuses to admit that the argument is no good.
Page 2 and 3:
This page intentionally left blank
Page 4 and 5:
Page 6 and 7:
Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & S
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
VIII CONTENTS 9 Valid and sound arg
Page 12 and 13:
X PREFACE • This book has a compa
Page 14 and 15:
2 INTRODUCTION Which is more import
Page 16 and 17:
4 INTRODUCTION knowing the rules of
Page 18 and 19:
6 INTRODUCTION 1. The first questio
Page 20 and 21:
8 INTRODUCTION • Open-mindedness:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
12 THINKING AND WRITING CLEARLY Con
Page 26 and 27:
14 THINKING AND WRITING CLEARLY own
Page 28 and 29:
16 THINKING AND WRITING CLEARLY •
Page 30 and 31:
18 THINKING AND WRITING CLEARLY Tip
Page 32 and 33:
20 THINKING AND WRITING CLEARLY g)
Page 34 and 35:
22 DEFINITIONS • The referent of
Page 36 and 37:
24 DEFINITIONS is too wide because
Page 38 and 39:
26 DEFINITIONS sophisticated sense.
Page 40 and 41:
28 DEFINITIONS 3.5.2 Definition by
Page 42 and 43:
30 DEFINITIONS 3.2 Evaluate these d
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
34 NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITI
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
42 LINGUISTIC PITFALLS ambiguous. A
Page 56 and 57:
44 LINGUISTIC PITFALLS change of di
Page 58 and 59:
46 LINGUISTIC PITFALLS BILLY : All
Page 60 and 61:
48 LINGUISTIC PITFALLS absolve anyb
Page 62 and 63:
50 LINGUISTIC PITFALLS 5.4 GOBBLEDY
Page 64 and 65:
52 LINGUISTIC PITFALLS c) Our cooki
Page 66 and 67:
54 TRUTH false, but we would never
Page 68 and 69:
56 TRUTH matter of linguistic conve
Page 70 and 71: 58 TRUTH i) If Rebecca is Shannon's
Page 72 and 73: 60 BASIC LOGIC 7.1.1 Consistency A
Page 74 and 75: 62 BASIC LOGIC Q, or equivalently,
Page 76 and 77: 64 BASIC LOGIC "or both", or "but n
Page 78 and 79: 66 BASIC LOGIC • PiffQ. • P whe
Page 80 and 81: This page intentionally left blank
Page 82 and 83: 70 IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS of opinion
Page 84 and 85: 72 IDENTIFYING ARGUMENTS it easier
Page 88 and 89: 76 VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS This s
Page 90 and 91: 78 VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS genera
Page 92 and 93: 80 VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS 9.2.5
Page 94 and 95: 82 VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS If P t
Page 96 and 97: 84 VALID AND SOUND ARGUMENTS 9.4 SO
Page 100 and 101: 88 INDUCTIVE REASONING highly confi
Page 102 and 103: 90 INDUCTIVE REASONING elusion give
Page 104 and 105: 92 INDUCTIVE REASONING tive strengt
Page 108 and 109: 96 ARGUMENT MAPPING Every person is
Page 110 and 111: 98 ARGUMENT MAPPING of arguments ex
Page 112 and 113: 100 ARGUMENT MAPPING elusion. Separ
Page 114 and 115: 102 ARGUMENT MAPPING Homosexuality
Page 116 and 117: 104 ARGUMENT MAPPING a) High school
Page 122 and 123: 110 ARGUMENT ANALYSIS As an example
Page 124 and 125: 112 ARGUMENT ANALYSIS b) We should
Page 126 and 127: 114 SCIENTIFIC REASONING or perhaps
Page 128 and 129: 116 SCIENTIFIC REASONING crease our
Page 130 and 131: 118 SCIENTIFIC REASONING the planet
Page 132 and 133: 120 SCIENTIFIC REASONING dollars in
Page 134 and 135: 122 SCIENTIFIC REASONING report. Ho
Page 136 and 137: 124 SCIENTIFIC REASONING 13.3 Some
Page 138 and 139: 126 MILLS METHODS 14.1 THE METHOD O
Page 140 and 141: 128 MILLS METHODS 14.3 THE JOINT ME
Page 142 and 143: 130 MILLS METHODS feet is not among
Page 144 and 145: 132 MILLS METHODS d) Situation Cand
Page 146 and 147: 134 REASONING ABOUT CAUSATION Simil
Page 148 and 149: 136 REASONING ABOUT CAUSATION suffe
Page 150 and 151: 138 REASONING ABOUT CAUSATION immor
Page 152 and 153: 140 REASONING ABOUT CAUSATION i) Te
Page 154 and 155: 142 DIAGRAMS OF CAUSAL PROCESSES an
Page 156 and 157: 144 DIAGRAMS OF CAUSAL PROCESSES co
Page 158 and 159: 146 STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY 17.1
Page 160 and 161: 148 STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY •
Page 162 and 163: 150 STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY A mi
Page 164 and 165: 152 STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY On t
Page 166 and 167: 154 STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY 17.4
Page 168 and 169: 156 STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY 4,12
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
160 THINKING ABOUT VALUES It is the
Page 174 and 175:
162 THINKING ABOUT VALUES Once thes
Page 176 and 177:
164 THINKING ABOUT VALUES is flat o
Page 178 and 179:
166 THINKING ABOUT VALUES will be c
Page 180 and 181:
168 THINKING ABOUT VALUES Similarly
Page 182 and 183:
170 THINKING ABOUT VALUES 18.2 M Ou
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
174 FALLACIES One further clarifica
Page 188 and 189:
176 FALLACIES All circular argument
Page 190 and 191:
178 FALLACIES 19.4.1 Irrelevant res
Page 192 and 193:
180 FALLACIES the question. Murder,
Page 194 and 195:
182 FALLACIES • Non sequitur: Non
Page 196 and 197:
184 FALLACIES g) All my Facebook fr
Page 198 and 199:
186 COGNITIVE BIASES These question
Page 200 and 201:
188 COGNITIVE BIASES • Subjects w
Page 202 and 203:
190 COGNITIVE BIASES more likely to
Page 204 and 205:
192 COGNITIVE BIASES - Avoid framin
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
196 ANALOGICAL REASONING a big appe
Page 210 and 211:
198 ANALOGICAL REASONING Furthermor
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
202 MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS 22.1
Page 216 and 217:
204 MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS So if
Page 218 and 219:
206 MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS the s
Page 220 and 221:
208 MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS succe
Page 222 and 223:
210 MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS about
Page 224 and 225:
212 MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS EXERC
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
216 WHAT IS CREATIVITY? The observa
Page 230 and 231:
218 WHAT IS CREATIVITY? Step 1 : Pr
Page 232 and 233:
220 WHAT IS CREATIVITY? remedy our
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
224 CREATIVE THINKING HABITS made o
Page 238 and 239:
226 CREATIVE THINKING HABITS materi
Page 240 and 241:
228 CREATIVE THINKING HABITS orate
Page 242 and 243:
230 CREATIVE THINKING HABITS Ellis
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
234 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES any of t
Page 248 and 249:
236 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES SOLUTION
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
242 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES 1 l.l.h
Page 256 and 257:
244 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES 12.1.f T
Page 258 and 259:
246 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES 13.4 One
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
250 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES 17.3.d T
Page 264 and 265:
252 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES 19.2.e F
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Bibliography Ackerman, J., Nocera,
Page 270 and 271:
258 BIBLIOGRAPHY McRae, C, Cherin,
Page 272 and 273:
260 BIBLIOGRAPHY Wolf, G. (1996). S
Page 274:
262 INDEX consequentialist reasonin
show all

An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity - always yours

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?