Critical thinking: A concise guide by Bowell & Kemp (4th edition) - a summary
- 3754 reads
Critical thinking
Chapter 1
Introducing Arguments
To attempt to persuade by giving good reasons is to give an argument.
Not all attempts to persuade (using language) are attempts to persuade by argument.
some are attempts to persuade by means of rhetorical devices
Rhetoric: any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to believe, desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or action, but attempts to motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used.
An attempt to persuade by argument is an attempt to provide you with reasons for believing a claim, desiring something or doing something.
Arguments appeal to your critical faculties, your reason.
Rhetoric tends to rely on the persuasive power of certain words and verbal techniques to influence your beliefs, desires and actions by appeal to your desires, fears and other feelings.
threats and bribes are arguments (not rhetorics), for they give a reason to do something
Rhetorical techniques can be manipulative and coercive. Their use should generally be avoided by those who aspire to think critically and to persuade by reason.
When analysing attempts to persuade, we have to perform three tasks:
When we put forward an argument we are either advancing an opinion or recommending an action.
In either case we give a number of claims intended to support the claim or the recommendation.
These two types of argument can be collapsed into one.
All arguments can be understood as attempting to provide reasons for thinking that some claim is true (it states how things really are).
To say that a claim is true is to say that what is claimed is how things actually are.
A single claim does not constitute an argument.
An argument needs more than one claim.
There are special terms for the two parts of arguments
An argument: a set of propositions of which one is a conclusion and the remainder are premises, intended as support for the conclusion.
A proposition: the factual content expressed by a declarative sentence on a particular occasion. The same proposition may be expressed by different sentences.
Different sets of sentences could express the same argument and a particular sentence within an argument could express more than one proposition.
Which proposition the sentence expresses is usually discernible by careful attention to context.
Indexicals: the meaning of an indexical changes relative to its context of use or relative to the person to whom it refers.
Arguments for analysis are set out in a particular style, with the premises listed in the order that they occur in the reasoning process and the conclusion appearing at the bottom.
We can refine this style and further clarify the argument by numbering the premises P1, P2, and so on, and drawing a line between the last premise and the conclusion (which we mark with a C).
Inference bar: the line between the premises.
This style of setting out arguments is called the standard form.
It is to maximize clarity.
Reconstructing the argument: setting out arguments in standard form. The result is a reconstruction of the argument or an argument-reconstruction.
When reconstructing arguments, you should take five steps:
The question of whether a passage or speech contains an argument is the question of whether the speaker or writer is attempting, by means of that passage or speech, to persuade her audience of some conclusion by offering premises in support of it.
This is a question about the intentions of the writer or speaker that cannot always be answered unless we know something about the context (the circumstances in which the passage or speech appeared or took place).
When we’ve determined that an argument is being advanced, its premises and conclusion are often buried deep among the other elements of a speech or text, and there are not hard-and-fast rules for distinguishing the propositions that form an argument from those that perform some other function in a text or speech.
Identifying arguments is largely a matter of determining what the author or speaker intends by interpreting her words, and this comes with practice.
Often writers and speakers leave some of their premises unstated because they assume that readers and listeners will know what they have in mind.
Identifying conclusions
Once you have determined that a text or speech contains an attempt to persuade by argument, it is easiest to proceed by identifying its conclusion.
determining whether a passage contains an attempt to persuade by argument and identifying the conclusion of that argument do not always occur independently.
Several points make the identification of conclusions an easier task
Once you have decided that a passage or speech contains an attempt to persuade by argument, try to see what he main point of the passage or speech is. Ask what point the speaker or author is trying to establish, that point will be the conclusion. Once you come to reconstruct an argument for analysis, paraphrasing the main point as one simple proposition will make the argument easier to handle. A writer or speaker may make the same point in a number of different ways, so you may have to settle upon one particular way of expressing it.
Any proposition on any topic can be a conclusion. The type of subject matter of a proposition is not in itself a guide to identifying whether or not that proposition is intended a the conclusion of a passage’s argument. The premisses and conclusions of arguments should ideally be expressed in declarative sentences, but in real-life arguments they may be expressed otherwise. When reconstructing arguments, we may need to rewrite premises and conclusions as declarative sentences in order to clarify the propositions expressed.
A single text or speech may contain several arguments for several different but connected conclusions. Sometimes we argue for one point, then a second, and then use those conclusions as premises in an argument for a third and final conclusion. These chains of arguments are known as extended arguments.
A helpful guide to recognizing arguments is provided by those words that usually indicate that a writer or speaker is putting forward and argument. Commonly, a writer or speaker will state the conclusion of their argument before stating the premises. Indicators are not foolproof and should not be treated as a substitute for careful identification of attempts to persuade by argument. Not all arguers will help the critical thinker out by making use of indicator words.
Indicator words are not parts of the propositions that the argument comprises, rather they introduce or frame the conclusion and premises.
Conclusions sometimes remain unexpressed. These are implicit conclusions. They are only implied or suggested by the actual text or speech content, not explicitly expressed by it. This usually happens when the speaker or writer thinks that the context is sufficient to make the conclusion obvious so that it literally ‘goes without saying’. This is often a bad idea.
Identifying premises
As you go through the process of identifying an argument’s conclusion, it is likely that you will also spot some or all of its premises.
The identification of an argument’s premises is a search for reasons given by the writer or speaker to think that their conclusion is true.
Guides:
Extraneous material
Much of what people say or write when putting forward an argument plays no role in the argument itself.
Before identifying those propositions, the argument’s conclusion and the premises given as support for it, we often have to identify and hive off this material, which has no role to play in the reconstruction of the argument.
Words that function as indicator words can be used for other purposes.
The distinction between arguments and explanations can be confusing where the explanation of actions is concerned. This confusion arises because, in the case of actions, reasons are the causes.
The explanation of an action normally involves specifying the reason for it.
In asking about reasons for actions, we are sometimes looking for a justification (we want the person to give us an argument for why the action is reasonable or acceptable), and other times we just want an explanation, in the sense of wanting to know the cause.
The conclusion of one argument may serve as a premise of a subsequent argument. The conclusion of that argument may itself serve as a premise for another argument, and so on.
The intermediate conclusion is used as a premise for a further argument. These are extended arguments.
We give more conclusions numbers. C1 is the conclusion of an argument whose premises are P1 and P2, C2 is the conclusion of an argument whose premises are C1 and P3. So C1 is the conclusion of one argument and the premise of another.
Normally, the last conclusion reached is the proposition that the arguer is most concerned to establish, it is the ultimate target.
This is the conclusion of the argument, whereas any other conclusions, reached as steps along the way, are called intermediate conclusions.
We sometimes want to concentrate for a moment on a particular part of an extended argument. We well sometimes speak of the argument from P1 and P2 to C1, or of the argument from C1 and P3 to C2. We can also speak of the inference from P1 and P2 to C1, and the inference from C1 and P3 to C2.
All reasoning consists of inferences. Each step of reasoning is an inference
Critical thinking
Chapter 1
Introducing Arguments
To attempt to persuade by giving good reasons is to give an argument.
Not all attempts to persuade (using language) are attempts to persuade by argument.
some are attempts to persuade by means of rhetorical devices
Rhetoric: any verbal or written attempt to persuade someone to believe, desire or do something that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or action, but attempts to motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used.
An attempt to persuade by argument is an attempt to provide you with reasons for believing a claim, desiring something or doing something.
Arguments appeal to your critical faculties, your reason.
Rhetoric tends to rely on the persuasive power of certain words and verbal techniques to influence your beliefs, desires and actions by appeal to your desires, fears and other feelings.
threats and bribes are arguments (not rhetorics), for they give a reason to do something
Rhetorical techniques can be manipulative and coercive. Their use should generally be avoided by those who aspire to think critically and to persuade by reason.
When analysing attempts to persuade, we have to perform three tasks:
When we put forward an argument we are either advancing an opinion or recommending an action.
In either case we give a number of claims intended to support the claim or the recommendation.
These two types of argument can be collapsed into one.
All arguments can be understood as attempting to provide reasons for thinking that some claim is true (it states how things really are).
To say that a claim is true is to say that what is claimed is how things actually are.
A single claim does not constitute an argument.
An argument needs
Critical thinking
Chapter 2
Language and rhetoric
Once we’ve determined that a text or a speech contains an attempt to persuade by argument, the remainder of argument-reconstruction is largely a matter of interpreting the speech or text as accurately as possible.
Ambiguity
Ambiguity can be used, often deliberately, to obfuscate the content of an argument or rhetorically to obscure the persuaders true point.
A sentence is ambiguous in a given context when there is more than one possible way of interpreting it in that context.
There are two types of ambiguity:
Lexical ambiguity
Lexical ambiguity: a property of individual words and phrases that occurs when the word or phrase has more than one meaning.
Extension: the set or group of things to which an expression applies.
(for example, the extension of the word ‘cow’ are all the cows in the world).
An ambiguous word or phrase has two or more separate and different extensions.
Ambiguous words and phrases can bring their ambiguity into sentences, making those sentences capable of having more than one possible interpretation.
Words that are potentially lexically ambiguous are not necessarily ambiguous in every context.
When interpreting sentences that are lexically ambiguous, we have to focus on the context in which they are written or said and the consequent probability of each of the possible interpretations being the correct one.
Syntactic ambiguity
Syntactic ambiguity: when the arrangement of words in a sentence is such that the sentence could be understood in more than one way.
Vagueness
The meaning of a word or expression is vague if it is indefinite or if it is uncertain what is conveyed by the word in the context under consideration.
Sometimes, someone aware of the weakness of their own position will deliberately leave their meaning vague in order to camouflage that weakness and to evoke strong feelings of approval or disapproval in their readers or listeners.
Words can also have a clear meaning, but which have an indefinitely demarcated extension.
(like colors)
Primary and secondary connotation
The rich secondary connotation (bijbetekenis) of some words provides a further source of vagueness.
Primary connotation: a given thing falls within a word’s extension if, and only if, it fist a certain rule associated with the
.....read moreWst-r
Chapter 3
Logic: deductive validity
Argument reconstruction: the representation of arguments in standard form, so as to give us a clear and comprehensive view of them.
Argument assessment: the determination of whether or not arguments provide good reasons for accepting their conclusions.
An argument is a system of propositions.
Propositions: a set of premises advanced in support of a conclusion.
People succeed in expressing the propositions they have in mind in varying degrees of clarity. An argument may depend upon premises that the arguer does not state at all, but which he or she is implicitly assuming.
Since the purpose of argument-reconstruction is to determine exactly what argument has been given, part of the task is to clarify what the arguer actually said, and to supplement what the arguer actually said (to make explicit what was merely implicit in the arguer’s statements).
Argument-reconstruction is essentially a task of interpretation.
The principle of charity.
In such facts pertaining to the context in which the argument is given, together with the specific words used by the person, will constitute the total evidence you have for reconstructing the argument.
If, in the third case, you have to chose what representation of the argument is true, it depends on your purpose.
Critical thinking
Chapter 5
The practice of argument-reconstruction
The first step in reconstructing an argument is to make a list of the argument’s premises and conclusion as concisely and clearly as possible.
Making such a list is only the first step towards a complete reconstruction.
Expressive epithet: terms used to refer to some person, group or other entity but that characterize the entity referred to for rhetorical purposes.
When reconstructing arguments we should strive to display the logical relationships in an argument in the simplest, clearest and most familiar ways possible.
This is not always possible, and doing it will sometimes distract us from other points we are trying to make.
Not only do actual statements of arguments typically include a lot of material that is inessential to the argument, they often exclude some of what is essential to the argument.
Our task is to make the argument fully explicit.
A proposition is implicit: the proposition is part of the argument intended by the arguer but it has not actually been stated by the arguer.
To make a proposition explicit: to state it.
Connecting premise: the premise which you have to make
.....read moreCritical thinking
Chapter 6
Issues in argument assessment
The role of an argument is to give us reasons for accepting its conclusion as true.
The aim is to give an argument by which the intended audience is ought to be persuaded.
We cannot always tell whether or not the argument is sound.
Sound arguments must have true premises.
Since we do not always know which propositions are true and which false, we cannot always tell whether an argument is sound or not.
To say that an inductively forceful argument is defeated for a person: the person reasonably believes the premises, but, nevertheless, reasonably rejects the conclusion.
(They have, for example, extra information).
An inductively forceful argument whose premises you have reason to accept is rationally persuasive only if your total evidence does not defeat the argument for you.
To say that an argument is rationally persuasive for a person:
Rationally unpersuasive argument: an argument that is deductively sound and valid, but gets you no closer to knowing the truth-value of the conclusion.
Rational persuasiveness is doubly relative.
Since people are in different states of information at different times, an argument may be rationally persuasive for one person, but not for another.
Seven points to bear in mind as regards rational persuasiveness:
1 It is not possible for the conclusion of a deductively valid argument to be defeated by a person’s total evidence. This is only possible for inductively forceful arguments.
2 Rational persuasiveness is not part of the definition that the argument be sound (either deductively or inductively).
Critical thinking
Chapter 7
Pseudo-reasoning
Fallacies count as arguments in the sense that they fit our definition of an argument. They consist of a set of propositions, some of which premises, one of which is a conclusion. But, one way or another, they are bad arguments.
A fallacy: a mistake in reasoning.
One commits a fallacy when the reasons advanced or accepted in support of a claim fail to justify its acceptance.
A fallacy can be committed either when one is deciding whether to accept a claim on the basis of a fallacious argument with which one has been presented or when one is presented the fallacious argument oneself.
A fallacious argument or inference: one in which there is an inappropriate connection between premises and conclusion.
Almost all fallacies fall under one of the following two types:
The majority of fallacies that we encounter in everyday texts and speech are substantive fallacies.
A fallacious argument can have true or false premises.
Simply having false premises does not make an argument fallacious.
Nor does having true premises guarantee that an argument is not fallacious.
A proposition accepted on the basis of a fallacious argument may turn out to be true as a matter of actual fact.
The best way to become acquainted with the different types of fallacies is to practise identifying and analysing them.
As they are attempts to persuade by argument, you need to reconstruct them in standard form and then use techniques of argument analyses and assessment to demonstrate the ways in which they are fallacious.
Many types of fallacious argument are effective as rhetorical ploys.
Formal fallacies
Formal fallacies: patterns of argument whose reasoning makes purely logical mistakes.
Each type of fallacy constitutes an invalid argument.
The fallacies will be recognized by the presence of the particular invalid pattern.
Affirming the consequent of a conditional
Affirming the consequent for short.
This occurs when we argue from the conditional premise that if P (the antecedent), then Q (the consequent) together with the premise that Q to the conclusion that P.
P1) If P then Q
P2) Q
---------------------
C) P
Example:
P1) Is someone is a philosopher, then
.....read moreThis magazine contains all the summaries you need for the course WSRt at the second year of psychology at the Uva.
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Field of study
Add new contribution