|
Suggestions and Goals: The primary goal of this chapter is to get students to pay closer attention to what they read, and to begin the process of recognizing arguments. I say "to begin the process" because for many students being proficient at recognizing arguments will not be accomplished in one chapter, and the process of recognizing arguments is a sub-goal of all the remaining chapters, particularly chapters 4 & 5 (informal fallacies) and chapters 7-10, 12 (symbolic logic). As the text indicates, recognizing arguments will not always be a black and white affair. One will often have to argue for a particular interpretation. Recognizing arguments is part of the general process of clarifying and communicating, and that even if there is a lot of disagreement on what is being said or claimed, most often there is a focused range of interpretations. Most logic books emphasize that we should be charitable in our interpretations, giving the best possible interpretation in terms of the strength of the argument. Take the Practice Quiz on Structuring Arguments. Another goal of this chapter is to get students to think about the meaning of words, but to present the problem of meaning in a more exciting and relevant way than the dry discussion of definitions found in most logic books. My discussion of types of definitions and rules is less complete than usual. Partly this is because I think it is misleading to think that meaning can be controlled by rules. It is more important to stress that meaning is tied to beliefs, our "webs of belief" according to Quine. Also, students should be shown that people not only try to persuade by providing reasons for their conclusions, but they also often attempt to "color" their positions favorably with emotive language or cover up something about their positions or actions with euphemisms. My concern then is to get you to think about how people use words, be critical about whether people have a right to use words in a particular way, and to be aware that tricks may be involved in presenting the illusion of evidence. Did Reagan have a right to call the MX-missile the "Peacekeeper"? Did he make his case to the people of the U.S. that we needed to spend $25 billion for the MX missile to make our nation more secure? When discussing the wisdom of a military intervention is the military fully accurate in using terms like "collateral damage" and "friendly fire"? Although I have mentioned the traditional distinction between emotive meaning and cognitive meaning, implying that there is some sort of objective meaning apart from our subjective perspectives, I think it is important to stress that emotion is not always inconsistent with logic. By using the examples of "comfort women," "collateral damage," and "female circumcision," one can make the point that there are times where the most rational response to a situation is to fully sympathize with the pain and confusion, or joy and serenity of those in a particular human condition. Yes, logic teachers want students to learn how to be more critical, focused, and disciplined in their thinking, and there are clearly times when feelings can lead to scattered thinking. However, I don't want you to think that you must be like Star Trek's Spock all the time. Furthermore, biases and feelings often not only help us see a particular perspective, but are also not inherently inconsistent with clearly articulating a perspective and the arguments that go with it. I would also argue that biases and feelings are not necessarily inherently inconsistent with evaluating positions. My position on emotion could easily lead to some very deep philosophical debates, but at the very least, you should be aware that I am not advocating that to be logical you must suppress other aspects of your humanity. My way of handling this is to emphasize that we possess particular tools and that logic is a very important tool. However, as with any tool there are appropriate and inappropriate applications. When buying a car it should be obvious that the right approach is to be critical and very picky, and suppress emotional reactions. Any favorable emotional reaction shown when seeing a new car will make it less likely that the salesperson will be motivated to lower the price. On the other hand, what is the best way of falling in love? Should one use logic or emotion? If you answered "logic," I don't want to know you. I suppose it is possible for a person to write down some sort of checklist of preferred characteristics and then actually act on it by finding someone this way, but I would have a very hard time having such a person as a friend, let alone a lover. But what about marriage? In my opinion we should use both tools, logic and emotion. The fact that marriage is such an important decision tells us a lot about how logic and emotion can often work together. The last section on truth probably will be
very
difficult for
you.
But my better students will always want to discuss
the question, "What
do you mean by true premises?" I have argued for a
concept of a
reliable
belief and certain cognitive goals: a willingness to
adopt an
experimental
attitude, to accept fallibility and self-correction,
of valuing
hypothetical
thinking and tentative acceptance, rather than
categorical thinking and
a search for absolutes. With these cognitive values
we can see the
practical
value of logic, of not only defending ourselves
against tricks, but
also
of having a better chance of resolving our
disagreements and confusions
if we use unforced, open, focused discussion, and
free but disciplined
following of reasoning trails. Reminders:
Remember: X, because Y. If X is very controversial or at least much more controversial than Y, then this format will contain an argument. Example: Abortion should be legal, because a woman should have a right to control what takes place in her body. X, because Y. If X is just a public event, something accepted and not controversial, then this format will contain an explanation. Example: Many women have had abortions in the
United States,
because
it has been legal since the 1970s. Example: The Japanese government supported comfort stations and comfort women for troops during World War II. It would not be illogical to be very upset
with
what happen to
these
women. One would not be irrationally judging the
Japanese government
by being upset emotionally regarding the injustice
of forcing young
girls
to be sex slaves.
Relativism -- Everything is relative. All beliefs are true. No beliefs are wrong, because there can be no universal, certain, objective justification for any belief. All beliefs are based upon cultural influences. Absolutism -- Some beliefs are certain, universal, and objective. See the discussion of Plato in Chapter 2. Reliable Beliefs -- This concept is being advocated in Chapter 2 as the correct interpretation of truth. It is based on the philosophy of pragmatism. Some beliefs are universal and objective, but no belief is certain. Some beliefs have so much evidence for them that we should be able to say that they are probably true and that they serve as a practical basis for action. That is, the evidence is so overwhelming for a particular belief that a reasonable person would act as if the belief were true. Example: Gravity A relativist would say that we don't know if the law of gravity is true everywhere on earth. We can't be certain, because our generalization has not been completely tested everywhere. There might be places where if a person jumped off a building a person would not fall. We don't know, because we have not tested those places. Furthermore, a relativist would say that gravity is true, because we have been brainwashed by our culture to believe it is true. It is possible to overcome any cultural belief by learning a different way of seeing reality, by learning or participating in a different culture for instance. In some cultures people practice meditation and claim that one can learn to change one's thoughts and defy gravity by levitating. An absolutist would say the idea of relativism applied to gravity shows how silly relativism is. We know with certainty that if you jump off a building, you will fall. It is known absolutely and universally that gravity applies everywhere on earth. The law of gravity is an objective truth, and this truth is totally independent of one's culture. Followers of the concept of a reliable belief would say that both the relativists and the absolutists are partly right. First of all, they would agree with the relativists on the technical logical point about certainty. Technically we can't say that we know every possible place on this planet will obey the law of gravity. No belief is certain. But, the followers of this concept would say that the belief in gravity is objective and universal, that we have an overwhelming amount of evidence that anyone, no matter what culture they are from, would fall from a tall building if they jumped. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence to know that the practical way to live your life is not to jump off buildings. A major implication to think about next is how the concept of a reliable belief applies to claims discussed in Chapter 3, such as smoking cigarettes and health, Darwin's theory of evolution, and the world view of modern science (age and size of the universe). For more on the issue of relativism consider the example of female circumcision. In some cultures, young girls have areas of their genitals surgically removed with razor blades or pieces of glass without any anesthesia. These areas would allow girls to experience pleasure during sexual intercourse and this is exactly what the men in those cultures want not to happen, believing that the girls and later women will either stay virgins until they are married or remain faithful to their husbands when they are married. In the United States when this procedure is conducted by families immigrating, the people are arrested for child abuse. If you are a relativist, the families are doing nothing wrong; they are simply following their cultural tradition. On the other hand, if you are either an absolutist or believe in reliable beliefs you would support the notion of Universal Rights. Some ways of living are wrong and some are right. Young girls would have certain rights no matter what culture they are from. For more on female circumcision, see the links below. Warning! This article is very graphic. http://dhushara.tripod.com/book/orsin/rites/rite.htm Also, see the story of international model Waris Dirie. New York Times article on "Genital Cutting." Ronald C. Pine |