Lecture notes Chapter 11-14

Chapter 11 Making Value Judgments

factual statements attempt to describe, value judgment places a value (negative, positive) on the ways things are :

• 1) The government was wrong in using that much force in removing Elian

• 2) Shakespeare makes better reading than Agatha Christie

• 3) Physicists should have refused to cooperate in the making of nuclear weapons

• 4) It is generally right to promote democracy in nondemocratic lands.

• 1) The government removed Elian

• 2) These people more people read Agatha Christie than Shakespeare

• 3) Many physicists cooperated in the making of nuclear weapons

• 4) Democratic countries never try to promote democracy in nondemocratic lands.

In real life, the boundary between value judgments and factual statements is often unclear. Sometimes they are mixed in together : ‘the meeting was dominated by that arrogant group ".

The way value judgments are usually inferred is through loose derivation. This brings along a certain level of vagueness. Factual claims (as they apply to value judgments ) have to be evaluated on their reliability esp. If there is only one witness who is biased (such as Arlene)

Unstated facts have to be pulled into the argument and examined. Before making value statements, it is important to have all the facts

Consequences of accepting a value judgment.

How do we weigh reasons for making a value judgment?

Decision theory sometimes attached numbers to opposing value-this practice might be difficult to defend.

The Ben Franklin system.

Make a table of pros and cons.

Cross out arguments of equal value against one another.

Choose that side that has important arguments left after this operation. Apply the FRISCO approach to the whole operation

How to write a value argument.(argumentative writing)

• 1) Strategies. Always keep your audience in mind. Be wary of the indirect strategies such as the unstated conclusion.

  The Ben Franklin approach will help you organize your argument into reasons, counterarguments, and ‘on balance'.

• 2) Strength. Obviously you should pick the strongest arguments

• 3) Temperance. Be fair, temperate and open to alternatives.

• 4) Factual bases.

• 5) Checklist and revisions. (16 points )

Issue of relativism.

Basic cultural relativism

factual cultural relativism

Sophisticated cultural relativism.

Basic : what is right is judged by cultural norms.

Problems : moral reform is never possible.

How to deal with cultural interference?

(Third: there are some moral standards that are considered absolute by almost all cultures.)

Factual cultural relativism simply states that value statements made by different cultural often differ radically.

Sophisticated cultural relativism states there is no way of establishing one value statement as correct.

Problem : does s.c.r not simply mean we are unwilling to take a stand on anything?

Personal relativism.

"Whatever I approve of is right" In other words, to say that something is right simply means to approve of it.

Problem : what if we have an issue that one person says is right and the other one says its wrong? Ennis feels that the alternation that either absolutism or relativism is right is in itself defective, no matter how you define absolutism:

• 1) The belief that all cultures believe in a basic set of values

• 2) the belief that there is one set of value principles that we know and that always applies. This is clearly wrong; there are exceptions to every rule.

• 3) Some things are clearly wrong and some clearly right. (Is that really absolutism )

What's the definition of a definition? Reported meanings that are in accord with usage, as dictionaries try to do.

A reported definition is in itself a factual statement. It can be wrong, right or partly right.

Sometimes a reported definition focuses on how someone uses a word. Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says to Alice ‘there's glory for you !"

Testing a reported definition. Try out various examples and see if they fit under the definition. Exceptions prove your definition is deficient. An ideal definition has no exception.

If desired, diagrams can help elucidate definitions. Please note that these circle diagram have different meanings from the circle diagrams we used for deductive validity , these circles represent actualities and not potentialities.

In putting together definitions

• 1) avoid obvious counterexamples

• 2) if you wish, use qualifiers such as roughly or by and large

• 3) admit that there are borderline cases

We can define a word any way we want- see the Humpty Dumpty example- provided we explain this to our audience.

Classification definitions

Meaning : a general class followed by distinguishing features.(designed to distinguish the object within its class ) Examples on page 329.

Rules for classification definition:

• 1) A classification definition must contain a general class term

• 2) A classification definition must contain features that are supposed to distinguish what is defined from the rest of the class.

• 3) The defining part and the term being defined should ne equal in coverage.

  Diversion: this is different in different languages.

  Negatives in a definition usually don't work as well. It usually does not exclude enough.

• 4) Definitions should not include negatives

• 5) Circular definitions are ruled out. A woman is a human being who is not a man .So what is a man? A man is a human being who is not a woman. Or

Diversion : in much writing,, definitions lead to other definitions that lead to other definitions. E.g. religion is conversion to the sacred. The sacred is what has experienced theophany. Theophany is the appearance of God etc This leads to a ‘mirage' effect.

Some alternatives to Classification Definition. Words like : proof, paralell, if, scientific method easily escape classification definition.

Equivalent-expression definition.

T say that A is to say that B.

A range definitions (taking from Max Black's concept of a mountain range ) contains a list of features . One missing feature make the example fall outside of the range of definitions.

Other forms of definitions : synonyms. ; lugubrious means gloomy

Examples and negative examples.

Using the word in its context.

Using definitions in your writing or presenting. Classification definitions often work best. Range definitions are helpful when the boundaries of the concept are unclear.

Chapter 13 Arbitrary Stipulative Definition Positional Definition Definition Strategies

You remember Humpty Dumpty's position that words can mean anything depending on ‘whose is the boss'.

In arbitrary stipulative Definitions and Positional Definitions, we are not trying to make a factual statement about a word or its usage. We are trying to accomplish something with our definition.

We are teaching you here to distinguish between three kinds of definitions : reporting, arbitrary stipulating and expressing a position. It can be helpful to distinguish these because they require a different kind of defense when challenged

. In the arbitrary stipulative definition, we are trying to agree on a meaning for the sake of communication. Humpty communicated that the word ‘glory' from now on was going to mean ‘a nice knock-down argument'. Kant announced that the categorical imperative (a term nobody had used before him ) was going to mean : ‘act in such way that you can will the maxim on which you act at the same time to be a universal law'.

It makes communication easier. Another example is word ‘argument' as used in this course, even though that is also a reported meaning

To give a positional definition is to express a position or point of view on some issue e.g. my issues with the NEOB staff on ‘clinical' vs ‘medical'. The example of the definition of the word ‘car' in Ennis' insurance policy.

Sometime the line between stipulative and positional definition is very thin.

Summary : arbitrary stipulative definitions are attempts to specify a meaning for the sake of convenience in communication. Positional definitions are those that express a position on an issue. (Also called persuasive definition )

Definitional strategies

Even positional definitions cannot mean whatever you decide it means (to that extent, Humpty Dumpty was not right) They still have to be defended.and justified. Why should your audience accept your definition of the term?

Danger of introducing confusion with a stipulative definition. In example 13:7 (read ) J does not fall into the trap and restates the problem without using the term.

You can a) be flexible and work your way around the stipulative definition or b) reject the stipulation altogether (that's not what ‘argument'means!!!)

Danger of using a positional definition to avoid the issue. (Example 13:8) How do you deal with this :

• a) you could just say ‘nonsense'

• b) You could accept the definition and still prove it was wrong to cut in line

• c) You could distinguish between different kinds of selfishness

• d) you could refuse to accept the definition of ‘selfish".(what did the boy clam say to the girl clam ? ‘You're so shellfish!".)

T commit the fallacy of equivocation means to exploit a shift in meaning in arguing for a conclusion. For instance : when judging my employees, I define a lie as anything short of the truth, and as such don't tolerate any lies. In judging my own behaviour, I define a ‘white lie' as no lie at all and tolerate it.

Impact equivocation. Happens when the speaker or presenter shifts meanings without really being aware of what s/he is doing, but the impact on the audience is the same as that of a equivocation.

Considering several possible meanings. One might have to work through an argument several times, considering a different meaning of the definitions every time, before concluding : ‘whatever the interpretation of the terms, the argument is defective'.

A simpler strategy would be just to focus on one meaning and examine the argument with that in mind.

Summary :

A arbitrary stipulative definition is a suggestion, a request or a demand that the audience agree to a meaning in order to conveniently conduct the business at hand

A positional definition expresses a position or point on some issue.

Do not confuse the definition activities : reporting, stipulating or expressing an opnion.

Be careful about introducing into a discussion a definition that differs from the correct reported definition. (Ennis did this with the word ‘argument' in the book)

Shifting term meanings in the middle of an argument to derive some benefit is called the fallacy of equivocation

Sometimes that fallacy of equivocation is unintended but the impact on the audience is the same : impact equivocation

How do you deal with folks who manipulate meaning and definition in an argument?

• 1) Make sure that there is a defense for the positional definition by asking ‘why do you define it that way ?"

• 2) Be flexible , reformulating's one's concern in other words

• 3) Reject the definition, perhaps because it strays too far from the reported definition, or there are clear counterexamples of the definition etc.

• 4) Examine the argument several times ,each time attributing a new possible meaning to the term

• 5) Showing that accepting the definition has serious unacceptable consequences

• 6) Show evidence of equivocation : that a key term used in one sense in the argument is used in a different sense in another part.

Make it very clear how you use specific terms

What act are you performing : reporting, stipulating or expressing a position?

Good example from the abortion discussion ; how do you define a fetus ? How a human being? If you make a choice, you have to offer a defense. You are not Humpty Dumpty

Sometimes the meaning of a term is clear to everyone and defining it is a waste of your audience' time.

. Chapter 14 Applying Critical Thinking :Frisco,Overview and Critical Thinking in Conversation and Preservation.

FRISCO in making a decision in what to believe or do.

• F: What are you trying to decide? What are the issues?

• R: what are reasons for and against

• I: How do you get from information to decision?

• S: Di I clearly understand the situation?

• C: Is there clarity about the terms you and others use?

• O: checking over everything.

What kind of inferences are being used?

Value judgment? Based on what info?

Deductively valid conclusion? If so, how is the argument formed?

Loose derivation?

Should assumptions be added or clarified?

What are the critical thinking dispositions ?

• 1) You care that your beliefs are right and that your decisions are justified ; you care to ‘get it right' to the highest extent

• a) you seek alternatives : (hypotheses, conclusions, plans ,sources and you are open to them)

• b) endorse one position to the extent, but only to the extent, that it is justified by the information available.

• C) be well-informed

• d) seriously consider points of view other than your own.

• 2) You represent your position honestly and clearly .This means

• a) you are clear about the intended meaning of what you say, write or otherwise communicate, seeking as much precision as the situation requires.

• B) you determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or the questions

• c) you seek and offer reasons

• d) take into account the total situation

• e) you are reflectively aware of your own basic beliefs.

• 3) You care about the dignity and worth of every person.

• A) you discover and listen to other's view and reasons

• b) take into account other's feeling and level of understanding, avoiding intimidating or confusing others with your critical thinking prowess

• c) You are concerned about other's welfare.

Ennis' advice

• 1) Keep the situation and the focus in the back of your mind

• 2) Make sure that the focus is agreed on, if not explicitly stated

• 3) Make sure the focus is not changed is mid-discussion unless there is a good reason for this

• 4) Make sure that the reasons and the evidence are out in the open

• 5) Judge the reasons and evidence

• 6) Listen to what the speaker ( and yourself ) are saying

• 7) Note the reactions of other people

• 8) Make sure that what;s being said is clear enough for the situation

• 9) See how the given reasons bear on the focus

• 10) look for assumptions

• 11) Be thinking about possible alternative conclusions or reasons consistent with the acceptable reasons and evidence.

• 12) See how it all applies to concrete examples, if the discussion is abstract.

• 1) General clarification questions

• 2) Main point questions

• 3) Reason-seeking questions

• 4) Questions seeking the connection between reasons and the conclusion (relevance)

• 5) Questions seeking clarification of word-meaning

• 6) Seeking the import or significance of the conclusion

1) tell'em what you going to tell ‘em 2) tell ‘em 3) tell ‘em what you just told ‘em. )

Challenging a position

• 1) Producing an apparent counterexample.

• 2) Suggesting a possible inconsistency

• 3) Dubious reasons or evidence

• 4) Weak source (e.g. conflict of interest)

• 5) False or dubious assumption.

• 6) Circular argument : "A Marxist is someone who adheres to the teachings of Marx. The teachings of Marx are what Marxists believe in'

• 7) Changing the subject , or argumentum ad hominem

• 8) Insufficient reason or evidence

• a) Undefined positional definition

• b) Overgeneralization

• c) Oversimplification

• d) Emotional language without sufficient substance (I'll always be there for you)

• e) Faulty analogy - comparing apples and oranges

• f) Neglect of a point of view

• g) General failure to follow or ‘what are you on about?"/non sequitur (the conclusion does not follow) ‘My daughter, God's paths sometimes lead across rivers) (Babette's Feast)

• 9) Equivocation

• 10) Fallacy labels (appeal to authority, transfer, equivocation)

• 1) Restate the question

• 2) If several question are posed, dealt with them one by one. (Some smart alecks will only respond to the weakest challenge- makes you look good)

• 3) Summarize your answer when you finished

• 4) Admit to the weakness of your memory, but compensate

• 5) Admit possible problems with your position as they are pointed out

• 6) define your terms

• 7) Respond appropriately to a challenge to your analogy.

• A) I just say that to make a point

• b) the difference might not be a difference

• c) the difference is insignificant (value judgment!!)

• 1) the challenge presupposes an assumption that may me at issue or untrue : ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?:

• 2) The questioner attributes a false assumption to your position

• 3) Somebody explicitly misdescribes your position (the straw man fallacy)

• 4) The person changes the subject

• 5) The questioner provides an abstract position or point, the import of which you do not see

• 6) The questioner asks for an unneeded definition

• 7) the questioner offers a positional definition the acceptance of which would hurt your position.

• 8) You are asked a hypothetical question.

Large group presentation- might me necessary to stick to one point.

Small group presentations : more room for challenges and questions

.