After A Word From These Sponsors...

Here are some links on advertising and reasoning.

• The first is about the underlying intellectual dishonesty in even the most honest of ad campaigns.
  
• By the way, if you're into advertising, that entire blog is great. I'm a bit biased, though, since I used to work with the guy who writes it.
• Here's a radio interview with the director of FactCheck.org, a great website devoted to debunking claims in political ads.
• I also used to work with the guy who interviewed FactCheck's director. Yup, I'm a pretty big deal.
• I wish those fact checking websites made a difference. Actually, I just wish they didn't hurt their own cause. Silly humans and your naturally biased minds!
  

Now for some news stuff.

• Here's the dirty secret on how news is made.
  
• Lots of people worry about conservative or liberal news media bias. But there are several interesting biases that are much less talked about. Here's a discussion of the bias toward anything that's dangerous or newsworthy.
  
• Here's an interview with a scientist who claims that similar biases exist in scienctific research journals.
  
• What's so important about news, anyway? Here's an interesting argument against caring so much about current events.

Finally, here's a recent Saturday Night Live skit on the distortions of political ads:

I'll Rationalize... Later

Links-a-plenty on superstition and rationalization:

• Even the least superstitious of us believe in magic a little bit. I'm looking at you, sports fans.
  
• Recent moral psychology suggests that we simply rationalize our snap moral judgments. (Or worse: we undercut our snap judgments to defend whatever we do.)
  
• Humans' judge-first, rationalize-later approach stems in part from the two competing decision-making styles inside our heads.
  

And some links on procrastination:

• Why do we do it?
• How can we stop doing it?
• A website devoted to getting you to stop it.
  
• How to use it to your advantage.
  
• Is it really so bad? After all, da Vinci did it all the time.

Wished Pots Never Boil

Here are a few links on the psychological impediments we're discussing recently:

• Malcolm Gladwell argues that stereotyping is unethical AND illogical.
• If you're a fan of The Secret, you should beware that it's basic message is wishful thinking run amok.
• Why don't we give more aid to those in need? Psychological impediments are at least partly to blame.
  

Team Veggies!

Here are some links and a video on animal ethics:

• Vegetarians Still Love the Smell of Bacon
• David Foster Wallace: Consider the Lobster
• How to Cut Back on Meat Slowly
• What Is The Meatrix?
  
• Animal Research (Peter Singer's Sometimes OK with It!)
• Peter Singer on Michael Vick & Dog Fighting
  
• Audio Interview with Peter Singer
• Michael Pollan's "An Animal's Place"
• Is Worrying About the Ethics of Your Diet Elitist?
• Huge List of Resources on the Moral Status of Animals

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Peter Singer

Ron Paul Interview
Bob Barr Interview

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Fallacies, Fallacies, Everywhere

My best friend the inter-net has some nice examples of the fallacy of equivocation. Here are two good ones:

A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Margarine is better than nothing.

Nothing is better than butter.

Therefore, margarine is better than butter.

Also, speaking of non sequiturs, here's a cute cat picture:

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

Clever.

Homework #2

Homework #2 is due at the beginning of class on Monday, April 6th. The assignment is to answer Problems 1-18 (except DON'T do #6, #7, #9 or #12) in Exercise 4-1 on pages 86-88 of our textbook. Don't worry about explaining why the argument commits the fallacy. Also, these arguments don't just commit fallacies from chapter 4. Some commit fallacies from chapter 3.

(If you read this, write "Why is anything anything?" at the bottom of your homework to receive some extra points on the assignment.)

Possible Paper Articles

Here are some links to good articles you could use for your paper on explaining and evaluating an article's argument:

Bad Stereotyping
race & gender = insufficient info

The Idle Life is Worth Living
in praise of laziness

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower
are some people just not meant for college?

The Financial Crisis Killed Libertarianism
if it wasn't dead to begin with

Consider the Lobster
David Foster Wallace ponders animal ethics

Who Would Make an Effective Teacher?
we're using the wrong predictors

Loyalty is Overrated
adaptability & autonomy matter more

FBI Profiling
it's a scam, like cold reading

Singer: How Much Should We Give?
just try to think up a more important topic

The Dark Art of Interrogation
Bowden says torture is necessary

Can Foreign Aid Work?
Kristof says it has problems, but we should use it

Against Free Speech
but it's free, so it must be good

You Don't Deserve Your Salary
no one does

What pro-lifers miss in the stem-cell debate
love embryos? then hate fertility clinics

Is Worrying About the Ethics of Your Diet Elitist?
since you asked, no

Is Selling Organs Repugnant?
freakonomicists for a free-market for organs

Should I Become a Professional Philosopher?
hell 2 da naw

Blackburn Defends Philosophy
it beats being employed

Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding Args

Here are the answers to the handout on understanding arguments that was assigned as optional extra credit.

1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship

2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.

3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.

5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.

6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.

7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.

8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.

9. (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.

12. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.

----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website , and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website .

How Many Are Those Doggies In the Window?

The only semi-reliable source I was able to find on the total population of dogs on Earth places the number at around 400 million. That book, however, doesn't explain how it arrived at that figure, and it does warn that the estimate could be off fairly significantly.

Here's a map the top ten pet dog populations by country (although there's no source on this map's estimates, so caveat emptor):


Also, some dogs do not bark. That's why, in the inductive argument we discussed in class, I was careful to conclude only that "Most dogs bark," not "All dogs bark."

One more random fun fact: they used 217 dalmations to film the live-action remake of 101 Dalmations.

Hey, this is too much focus on dogs for my taste.

Cat Statements

What kind of statements are these?

Let us know in the comments.

Evaluating Deductive Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- valid
overall - sound

2) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t a great prez.
Bush was the greatest prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
structure- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

3) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)
P2- true
structure- invalid (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

4) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- valid (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - unsound (bad first premise)

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
structure- invalid (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) All students in here are humans.
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.

P1- true
P2- true!
structure- valid (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)

13) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)

(More on Sisyphus)

Email Subscriptions

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

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. I used a blog for this course last semester, and it seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

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

1. Go to http://ccclogic09.blogspot.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Course Details

Logic & Reasoning
Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 121, Section 02
Spring 2009
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Noon – 12:50 p.m. in Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://ccclogic09.blogspot.com

Required Text
Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 10th edition (Howard Kahane & Nancy Cavender)

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

This course focuses on understanding and evaluating arguments. We’ll first learn how to identify the components and structures of arguments. We’ll then learn how to pick apart the bad reasoning found in some arguments by going over logical fallacies, which are the different ways an argument can go wrong. We’ll also discuss psychological impediments that can throw us off. These are the ways most people naturally are led to reason incorrectly.

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

Grades
90-100% = A
80-89% = B
70-79% = C
60-69% = D
below 60% = F

Midterm: 15%
Final: 25%
Quizzes (2): 7.5% each (15% total)
Oral Report: 15%
Short Paper: 5%
Group Projects (3): 3% each (9% total)
Other Homework (3): 4% each (12% total)
Attendance/Participation: 4%

Exams: The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (50 minutes). The final exam is cumulative: it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will last 50 minutes and will be held during finals week.

Quizzes: Quizzes aren’t cumulative. Quiz #1 tests everything covered during the first 4 weeks of class, and quiz #2 tests everything covered after exam #1 (weeks 7 through 9). Quizzes will last 20 to 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of class on the scheduled day.

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

Short Paper: There will be a short papers (250-500 words each) on understanding and evaluating an argument.

In-Class Group Projects: In addition to the group project and a lot of informal group work, there are three in-class group projects due at various times throughout the semester.

Other Homework: There will be three total homework assignments. Each one is due at the beginning of class the day they are due.

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

Extra Credit: There will be some optional extra credit assigned throughout the semester.

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

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

Important Dates
January 20th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
February 3rd: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
February 10th: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
April 23rd: Last day to withdrawal from Fall Classes.

Course Schedule

January 21—23
Wednesday: Introduction to class (no reading)
Friday: Logic Intro (no reading)

January 26—30
Monday: Understanding Arguments (1.1-1.6) (group work)
Wednesday: Evaluating Arguments (2.1-2.2)
Friday: Arguments: Deductive (2.3) (group work)

February 2—6
Monday: Evaluating Deductive Args (no reading)
Wednesday: Fancier Args & Statements (2.4.-2.5)
Friday: Arguments: Inductive (2.6-2.8); Homework #1 due

February 9—13
Monday: Arguments: Abductive (no reading) (group work)
Wednesday: Fallacies (3.1-3.2)
Friday: Fallacies (3.3); Quiz #1 (and group work)

February 16—20
Monday: Fallacies (3.4-3.6)
Wednesday: Fallacies (finish chapter 3); Group Project #1 (in class)
Friday: Fallacies (4.1-4.3)

February 23—27
Monday: Fallacies (4.4; 4.6)
Wednesday: Fallacies (4.7) (group work)
Friday: Fallacies (finish chapter 4)

March 2—6
Monday: Fallacies (5.1-5.3); Homework #2 due
Wednesday: Fallacies (5.4-5.7)
Friday: Fallacies (5.7-5.9) (group work)

March 9—13
Monday: Fallacies (finish chapter 5); Group Project #2 (in class)
Wednesday: Review for Midterm (no reading); Paper #1 due
Friday: MIDTERM

March 16—20
SPRING BREAK! (no class) (woo?)


March 23—27
Monday: Psychological Impediments (6.1-6.3)
Wednesday: Psychological Impediments (6.4-6.6)
Friday: Psychological Impediments (6.6-6.9)

March 30—April 3
Monday: Psychological Impediments (group work)
Wednesday: Cognitive Biases (handout)
Friday: Cognitive Biases (handout); Group Project #3 (in class)

April 6—10
Monday: Intellectual Honesty (3.3, 3.7, 4.5)
Wednesday: Intellectual Honesty: Charity (handout)
Friday: Intellectual Honesty: Ignorance (group work)

April 13—17
Monday: Intro to Writing Essays (9.1-9.2); Quiz #2
Wednesday: Writing Essays (9.3-9.4)
Friday: Writing Essays (finish chapter 9); Homework #3 due

April 20—24
Monday: Evaluating the Source: Ads (10.1-10.3)
Wednesday: Ads (10.4-10.5)
Friday: Evaluating the Source: News (11.1-11.4)

April 27—May 1
Monday: News (11.5-11.8)
Wednesday: Reliability of Experts (handout)
Friday: Prepare for group presentations (no reading) (group work)

May 4—8
Monday: group presentations (no reading)
Wednesday: group presentations (no reading)
Friday: group presentations (no reading)

May 11—13
Monday: review for Final Exam (no reading)
Wednesday: FINAL EXAM (12:00--12:50)