Critical Reasoning and Logic
PHI-o12-1, Spring 2016
Murchison Gymnasium 4, MWF 12:45-1:50
Contact Information
Instructor: Dr. David Vander Laan
Office: Porter Center 4
E-mail:
Phone: x7041
Office Hours: MW, 2:00-3:30, and by appointment
Texts
Howard-Snyder, Howard-Snyder, and Wasserman, The Power of Logic, 5th ed.
Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl, The Philosopher’s Toolkit
Website
Online Learning Center at www.mhhe.com/howardsnyder5e
Course Aspirations
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” (Prov. 25:2)
The ability to reason abstractly is part of what makes us fully human. When a dog falls for the fake throw seventeen times in a row, we recognize this as a mark of the inferiority of the canine mind (or at least of that dog’s mind). When a human being repeatedly uses the same faulty strategies for dealing with life’s questions, we see a human who is, to some degree, stunted. A flourishing bearer of the divine image is able to generalize--to reason abstractly.
The liberal arts aim at the holistic flourishing of the student, and so at much more than mastery of a pre-selected menu of arguments. The well-trained student will be equipped for novel intellectual challenges. Abstract reasoning skills are crucial because they are highly transferable skills. (In fact, transferring any skill requires some degree of abstraction.)
You are invited to develop the skills and sensitivities of an able reasoner—one who will:
· sniff out faulty arguments for true conclusions
· unmask wrong ideas that appeal to you
· recognize the differences between rhetoric, argument, and foot-stomping
· distinguish good arguments from bad, and help others do the same.
No single course can provide thorough training in all abstract reasoning skills. Creativity, interpretation, communication, and perseverance all play roles in reasoning well. The focus in Critical Reasoning and Logic is the heart of all reasoning: inferences, good and bad. The work chiefly involves identifying, constructing, and evaluating inductive and deductive arguments. The course provides conceptual resources for categorizing arguments and fallacies and lots of practice that will strengthen perceptual skills like seeing the structures of arguments.
Course Learning Outcomes
The Course Learning Outcomes (CLO) for PHI-012 is:
· Argument Evaluation: Students will be able to accurately evaluate a wide range of deductive and inductive arguments.
Assessment of the CLO
· The Argument Evaluation CLO will be assessed in a cumulative final exam.
Program Learning Outcomes
The CLO serves a Program Learning Outcomes (PLO) of the Philosophy Department.
· Skills: Students will be able to construct structurally solid arguments and to critique faulty ones appropriately.
Institutional Learning Outcomes
The CLOs also serves one of Westmont’s Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs).
· Critical Thinking: Graduates of Westmont College will be able to accurately evaluate the strength of evidence in support of a claim and apply critical thinking creatively to problem solving.
General Education
PHI-012 satisfies the Reasoning Abstractly requirement of the Common Inquiries section of the General Education requirements.
Philosophy Major
Though PHI-012 is not required for philosophy majors who are under the requirements of the 2015-16 catalog, it is recommended as a course in practical reasoning skills. Majors under earlier catalogs are welcome to take PHI-012, but are also advised to take PHI-108 (Formal Logic), which is required for majors under the current catalog.
What This Course Will Require of You
As in any mathematics course, the material is cumulative. So it is important to understand new material as it is introduced. Much of our class time will be devoted to practice with argument analysis and proofs. It is absolutely crucial that you do the exercises in the text. Logic is learned almost entirely by practice. The starred exercises in the text will be the assigned problems. You will occasionally be asked to present your answers to the class.
There will be biweekly tests (all of them together, 65% of final grade) and a cumulative final examination (8 am, XXXXXX, May XXXX, 20% of final grade).
The biweekly tests will be designed to encourage very regular practice and careful reading of the texts. Naturally, you should expect questions you have not seen before. Mastery of the material will give you the freedom to think creatively about the test questions.
There will be three application assignments (15% of final grade). These will help you practice your logical skills on arguments in their natural habitat. The assignments will involve argument formalization, fallacy identification, and constructive criticism. Detailed assignment descriptions are given below.
Some of you will have required visits to my office hours, though everyone is encouraged to come. Individual attention is the best kind of help. If the regular hours are not convenient, we will find another time.
I would love to get to know you better. Feel free to invite me to lunch in the DC. After chapel is the best time. I’ll be glad for conversation over lunch. I also take all comers in short games of chess, Scrabble, and the like. If you and a friend would like to try a game of my own design, let me know.
To help you learn most effectively, use of computers, tablet devices, and the like will not be permitted unless the instructor specifically requests it. Cell phones must be turned off and stored out of sight.
You are expected to know and abide by the standards for academic integrity as stated in the Student Handbook and the Academic Policies and Procedures.
Grades will be calculated as percentages and assigned letters according to the chart below.
95 ≤ x A 73.33 ≤ x < 76.66 C
90 ≤ x < 95 A- 70 ≤ x < 73.33 C-
86.66 ≤ x < 90 B+ 66.66 ≤ x < 70 D+
83.33 ≤ x < 86.66 B 63.33 ≤ x < 66.66 D
80 ≤ x < 83.33 B- 60 ≤ x < 63.33 D-
76.66 ≤ x < 80 C+ x < 60 F
Academic Accommodations
Students who have been diagnosed with a disability (learning, physical/medical, or psychological) are strongly encouraged to contact the Disability Services office as early as possible to discuss appropriate accommodations for this course. Formal accommodations will only be granted for students whose disabilities have been verified by the Disability Services office. These accommodations may be necessary to ensure your full participation and the successful completion of this course. For more information, contact Sheri Noble, Director of Disability Services (565-6186,) or visit the website
(https://classic.westmont.edu/_offices/disability). ODS is located in Voskuyl Library rooms 310A and 311.
Argument evaluation application assignment #1, due Feb. 1
Find an already-published argument and use the methods we have used in class to show that the argument is valid. The aim is to apply your skills to an argument found in the wild. All your work must be your own.
You may use a historical author, a newspaper or magazine editorial, a textbook (not including logic texts), or any other source. The argument must be one that is actually offered, not merely mentioned (say, for the sake of example). The argument need not be long, but the formal version should clearly require at least three inferences (i.e., three steps after the premises).
Your assignment should include
o your own well-crafted version of the argument (see section 2.2 of the text),
o your scheme of abbreviation,
o your evaluation of the well-crafted argument,
o a photocopy or printout of the original argument with bibliographic information,
o a staple.
If the original argument is long, the relevant portions should be in bold or highlighted. You may have to paraphrase to make the language uniform. Be faithful to the original, but make the changes that are necessary to remove ambiguity and make the logical structure clear.
Pay careful attention to the following.
Well-crafted arguments:
· Number each statement.
· In the right-hand margin, label each statement as a premise or indicate which earlier statements support it (e.g., “from 1, 2”).
· Eliminate hedges, discounts, repetitions, assurances, and other excess verbiage.
Schemes of abbreviation:
· Each letter should represent a statement, a complete sentence that is true or false.
· Be careful not to conflate similar but distinct statements. Use different letters.
o E.g., “There has not been sufficient demand for geothermal energy” is not the same as “There will not be sufficient demand for geothermal energy.”
o E.g., “Congress should adopt new guidelines” is not the same as “Congress will adopt new guidelines.”
· Causal statements (“The tsunami caused the reactor explosion”) are not in general conditionals (if T then R).
Fallacy identification application assignment #2, due March 7
Find an argument already published either in print or online, and show that it is faulty. You may find one that commits an informal fallacy discussed in class or some other. In either case you should explain the problem clearly. The problem you identify should be something other than a false premise, unless it then commits a fallacy we have discussed (such as false dilemma).
Some good sources of bad arguments are online discussion boards, letters to editors of newspapers or magazines, and op-ed pieces (e.g., for or against a presidential policy or a proposition to be decided by California voters). The argument must be one that is actually offered, not merely mentioned (say, for the sake of example).
Your assignment should include
· a photocopy or printout of the original argument with bibliographic information,
· your well-crafted version of the argument,
· the name of the fallacy, if it has one,
· your own explanation of the flaw in reasoning,
· in unclear cases, explanation of how matters are unclear, and
· a staple.
Naturally, all your work must be your own.
If the original argument is long, the relevant portions should be in bold or highlighted. You may have to do some paraphrasing to make the argument well-crafted; be sure that you are faithful to the original, but make the changes that are necessary to remove ambiguity and make the logical structure clear.
Constructive criticism application assignment #3, due April 15
Contribute to a debate in a public forum (e.g., the editorial page of a newspaper or newsletter, or an issue-oriented online discussion board or blog) by criticizing an argument published there. Your criticism should be accurate, clear, and charitable. Use the tools we have developed in this class (whichever are needed) to assess the argument. Then further the discussion by suggesting how it might proceed in light of your criticism.
In addition to your public contribution, turn in a concise diagnosis of the argument you criticize. Not every logical criticism is rhetorically sensitive, so this diagnosis may be more technical than your public contribution.
· Turn in the original, your contribution to the public forum (both the criticisms and positive suggestions), and your private assessment (including a well-crafted version of the argument and any formalization that is appropriate).
· If you formalize the argument in statement logic or predicate logic, either give a natural deduction proof or show the argument invalid by a truth table or the finite universe method.
· If you identify an informal fallacy, name it (if it has a specific name) and discuss what makes any unclear cases unclear.
· Be courteous and fair. Do not write, “I am a student of logic” or anything of the sort. Make a genuine effort to persuade and to move the discussion forward.
· Use a staple.
It goes without saying that you must do original work. The person to whom you respond and the organizer of the forum must be people you do not already know. Your assessment is to be a bona fide contribution to public conversation. Your assessment will be public, and your name will be on it. Do work that you will be proud of.
Schedule
Below is a provisional list of reading assignments and class topics for the semester.
Identifying and Understanding Arguments
Jan. 11 Introduction
Validity and Soundness
Jan. 13 The Power of Logic, 1.1, Validity and Soundness
The Power of Logic, 1.2, Forms and Validity
Jan. 15 The Power of Logic, 1.3, Counterexamples and Invalidity
The Power of Logic, 1.4, Strength and Cogency
Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Holiday (Monday class meets on Tuesday)
Jan. 19 The Power of Logic, 2.1, Arguments and Non-arguments
The Power of Logic, 2.2, Well-Crafted Arguments
Jan. 20 The Power of Logic, 2.3, Argument Diagrams
Jan. 22 Well-crafted arguments, continued
Jan. 25 TEST ONE
Logic and Language
Jan. 27 The Power of Logic, 3.1, Logic, Meaning, and Emotive Force
Jan. 29 The Power of Logic, 3.2, Definitions
Feb. 1 The Power of Logic, 3.3, Using Definitions to Evaluate Arguments
Makings distinctions
APPLICATION ASSIGNMENT #1 DUE
Categorical Logic
Feb. 3 The Power of Logic, 5.1, Standard Forms of Categorical Statements
The Power of Logic, 5.1, The Traditional Square of Opposition
Feb. 5 The Power of Logic, 5.3, Further Immediate Inferences
Feb. 8 TEST TWO
Feb. 10 The Power of Logic, 6.1, Standard Form, Mood, and Figure
The Power of Logic, 6.2, Venn Diagrams and Categorical Statements
Feb. 12 The Power of Logic, 6.3, Venn Diagrams and Categorical Syllogisms
Feb. 15-16 Presidents’ Holiday
Feb. 17 The Power of Logic, 6.4, The Modern Square of Opposition
The Power of Logic, 6.5, Enthymemes
Feb. 19 The Power of Logic, 6.6, Sorites and Removing Term Complements
The Power of Logic, 6.7, Rules for Evaluating Syllogisms
Feb. 22 Practice day
Feb. 24 TEST THREE
Informal Fallacies
Feb. 26 The Power of Logic, 4.1, Fallacies Involving Irrelevant Premises
Feb. 29 More fallacies of relevance: Accident, missing the point, and argument from
adverse consequences
The Philosopher’s Toolkit, 3.12 Genetic fallacy
Mar. 2 The Power of Logic, 4.2, Fallacies Involving Ambiguity
The Philosopher’s Toolkit, 3.21, Principle of charity
Mar. 4 The Power of Logic, 4.3, Fallacies Involving Unwarranted Assumptions
The Philosopher’s Toolkit, 3.6, Circularity
The Philosopher’s Toolkit, 3.22, Question-begging