Critical Thinking 5

Navy Pilot experience and intuition are the good evidence.

Are there any fallacies in the reasoning ?

A fallacy is a reasoning " Trick "  that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. Major kind of evidence :  

1. Analogy
2. Authority (Research Studied)
3. Either-Or (False Dilemma) 
4. Intuition & Personal Experience, Observation

How good is the evidence ??
Why should I believe ??
Does the claim need evidence to support it ??

Sometimes, the reasoning consists of analogy, authority, and so on..., not a single fallacy. When you spot a fallacy, you have found a legitimate basis for rejecting the argument.

Website:
Damer's Attacking Faulty Reasoning.
The Nizkor Project :Fallacies.
The Fallacy Zoo.

1. Appeal to Analogy : ( The Most Important )

   
Arguments by " Analogy ", argue from one specific case or example to another example, reasoning that because the two examples are alike in many ways they are also alike in one further specific way. Communicators often use " Resemblances "  as a form of evidence, They reason in the following way. if these two things are alike in one respect, then they will probably be alike in other respects as well.

In one sense, all analogies are faulty, because they make the mistaken assumption that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other important respect. It is probably best for you to think of analogies varying from very weak to very strong. But even the best analogies are suggestive. Thus, if the author draws a conclusion about one case from a comparison to another case, then she should provide further evidence to support the principle revealed by  the most significant similarity.

Analogies have been highly productive  in " Scientific "  and " Legal "  questions.

In many " Scientific Questions " , appeal to analogy can facilitate the abstruse problems.
" BBC : Engineering Connections "  that uses analogies to illustrate how to facilitate the
complicated mechanical problem into the easy way to perceive.

In the " Human Behavior ", analogy also plays an important role in the argument.
Justice : What's the right thing to do. Michael Sandel

 The Structure of Analogies

The first part of an analogy involves a familiar object or concept. The object or concept is being
compared to another familiar object or concept.

The second part is the relationship between the familiar objects or concepts. The relationship is
used to create a principle that cane be used to assist the understanding of a different object or
concept.

Finally, the relationship of the new or unfamiliar object or concept is described in the same format
as the known object or concept.

Evaluating Analogies

1. The number of ways the two things being compared are similar and different.
2. The " Relevance "  of the similarities and differences.

A productive way to generate your own analogies  : 

1. Identify some important features of what you are studying.
2. Try to identify other situations with which you are familiar that have some similar features. Give free rein to your imagination. Brainstorm.
3. Try to determine whether the familiar situation can provide you with some insights about the unfamiliar situation.

A word of caution : you can almost always find some similarities between any two things. So,
analogical reasoning will not be persuasive simply because of many similarities. Strong analogies will be ones in which the two things we compare possess " Relevant "  similarities and lacks relevant differences. All analogies trying to illustrate underlying principles. Relevant similarities and differences are ones that directly relate to the underlying principle illustrated by the analogy.

 

AVN Awards.

Another strategy that may help you evaluate reasoning by analogy is to
" Generate Alternative Analogies "  for understanding the same phenomenon that the author or
speaker is trying to understand. Such analogies may either support or contradict the conclusions  inferred from the original analogy. if they contradict the conclusion, then they reveal the problems in the initial reasoning by analogy.

For example, when authors argue that pornography should be banned because it is harmful to
women, as well as to all who view it, they are using the particular analogy to draw certain
conclusions about pornography : Pornography is like a form of discrimination, as well as a means by which people are taught women are nothing but sex objects. Others, however, have offered  alternative analogies, arguing that pornography is " A statement of women's sexual liberation. "

Many " Invention "  and " Creative "  can attribute to analogies.

In thinking about pornography, you could try to think of other situations in which people repeatedly think something is demanding because of the way people are treated in a given situation, or because of what watching something might cause others to do. Do segregation, racist/sexist, jokes, or employment discrimination come to mind ?? How about arguments' claiming playing violent video games, watch action movies, or listening to heavy metal music cause children to act violently ?? Do they trigger other ways to think about pornography ?? You should now be capable of systematically evaluating the two brief analogical arguments.

Example (0)

In the above articles, we can understand " The Speed Limit " , " Minor League Baseball ", and
" Aircraft Carrier "  which use the Analogy to support the conclusion.

Example (1)

People take in their car for servicing and checkups every few months without complaint. Why
shouldn't they take similar care of their bodies ??

This argument suggests that getting a regular physical checkup is like taking your car in for regular servicing. Cars need that kind of attention - otherwise, major problems may develop.
Well, says Dr. Beary, our bodies are like that.  *Dr. John Beary III,quoted in " News You Can Use ", U.S News and World report, 11August 1986.

Analogy requires a relevant similar example
Analogies do not require that the example used as an analogy be exactly like the example in the
conclusion. Our bodies are not just like cars, after all. We are flesh and bone rather than metal,
we last longer, and so on. What cars are made of is relevant to Dr. Beary's point; his argument
is about the upkeep of complex systems.

One relevant difference between our bodies and our cars is that our bodies do not need regular
" Service " in the way our cars do. Cars need service to replace or replenish certain parts and
fluids : oil changes, new pumps or transmissions, and the like. Our bodies don't. Replacing parts
or fluids is much rarer and is more like surgery or blood transfusion, not regular " servicing " at all. Still, it's probable true that we need regular checkups-otherwise problems can develop undetected. So the doctor's analogy is only partly successful. The " service " part makes a poor analogy, though the checkup part is persuasive.

Example (2)

In the 2004 presidential election, the war in Iraq was an important issue. opponents of the wars used the analogy comparing the war in Iraq to the " Vietnam War ". The use of Vietnam as an analogy to the war in Iraq was not only an attempt to explain what is happening in Iraq now, but also to cause people to look negatively upon the war in Iraq.

Conversely, proponents of the war in Iraq used the analogy comparing the war to
" World War II ". World War II carries with it more positive connotations than does the Vietnam War, so this analogy is used to reframe the discussion in terms more favorable to the war in Iraq.

George W. Bush compares Iraq, terror wars to World War II
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/bush.speech/

 

Shock and Awe. Iraq War

Pearl Harbor. WWII

Pearl Harbor. WWII.

Germany : Adolf Hitler = Iraq : Saddam Hussein ??????  

I don't want to get involved into any political position, search " Compare WWII to Iraq War "
on Google, you can find many articles about this issue. But just think about the " Education ",
" Infrastructure ", and " Mechanized Equipments "  between Germany and Iraq, before searching...

2. Appeal to Authority  (Research Studied, Statistics)

How much expertise or training does the authority have about the subject about which he is
communicating ??

Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.
No one can become an expert, through direct experience, on everything there is to know. We
cannot taste every wine in the world to determine which is the best. We cannot know what the
trial of Socrates was really like. We are unlikely to know firsthand what is happening in the state
legislature or outer space. Instead, we must rely on others better - situated people, organizations,
or reference works - to tell us much of what we need to know about the world. We need what are called " Arguments from Authority ".

Research Studies as Evidence : 

One form of authority that relies a great deal on observation and often carries special weight is
the research study : usually a systematical collection of observations by people trained to do
scientific research.

Oil Price Statistics.

What is special about the scientific method ??

First, it seeks information in the form of " Publicly Veritable Data", data obtained under conditions such that other qualified people can make similar observations  and see whether they get the same results.

Second, the major characteristics if scientific method is " Control "  , the using special procedures to reduce error in observations and in the interpretation of research findings. Physical scientists frequently maximize control by studying problems in the laboratory so that they can minimize the extraneous factors. Unfortunately, " Control "  is usually more difficult in the social world than in the physical world; thus, it is very difficult to successfully to apply the scientific method to many  questions about complex human behavior.

Third, " Precision Language "  is the major component of the scientific method. Concepts are often confused, obscure, and ambiguous.

                                          Always Remember " Research Studies as Evidence " 

1. Research varies greatly in " Quality ".
2. Research findings often contradict one another. Always ask : Have other researches verified the findings??
3. Research do not prove the conclusion. Researchers must always " Interpret "   the meaning of their findings, and all finding can be interpreted in more than one way. thus, researchers' conclusions should be treated as demonstrated " Truth " . When you encounter statements such as " research findings show... "  you should translate them into " researchers interpret their research findings as showing... " 
4. Like all of us, researchers have expectations, attitudes, values, and needs that bias the questions they ask, the way they conduct their research, and the way they interpret their research findings. However, regardless of how objective the scientific report may seem, important subjective elements are always involved.
5. Speakers and writers often distort or simplify research conclusions. major discrepancies may occur between the conclusion merited by the original research and the use of the evidence to support a communicator's beliefs.
6. Research varies in how artificial it is. Often, to achieve the goal of control, research loses some of its " Real World "  quality.
7.  " Academic Freedom "   is an important institute of the research findings.

 Research Sample : 

The process of selecting events or persons to study is called " Sampling ".
Because researchers can never study all events or people about which they want to generalize,
they must choose some ways to sample, and some ways are preferable to others. You need to keep several important considerations in mind when evaluating the research sample:

1. The sample must be large enough to justify the generation or conclusion.
2. The sample must possess as much breadth, or diversity, as the types of the events about
     which conclusion are to drawn.
3. The more " Random "  the sample, the better.

3. Either-Or ( False Dilemma )

Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two. We overlook alternatives when we make decisions. Two or three options stand out, and we wight only these.

Example (0)

" Existentialism is  Humanism " philosopher Jean-Paul Satre tells of a student of his, during the Nazi occupation of France in World War II, who had to choose between making a risky voyage to England  to fight with the Free French and staying with his mother in Paris to look after her. Satre paints the picture as if the young man must either stake everything on a flight to England and thus totally abandoned his mother, or else commit himself entirely to her and give up any hope of fighting the Nazis. But surely he had other possibilities. he could have stayed with his mother and still worked for the Free Fench in Paris; or he could have stayed with his mother for a year and tried to ensure her position, gradually making it possible to leave. And are we to think of his mother as completely dependent and graspingly selfish, or was she perhaps a little patriotic and possibly self-sufficient too ?? Had he even asked her what she wanted ?? Very likely, then, the student had other options.

On ethical issues too we tend to overlook alternatives. We say that either the fetus is a human being with all the rights you and I have, or else it is a lump of tissue with no moral significance a t all. We say that either every use if animal products is wrong or all of the current uses are acceptable, and so on. Again, however, surely other possibilities exist. Try to increase the number of options you consider , not to " Narrow Them " .

4. Intuition & Personal Experience, Observation 

When we use intuition to support a claim, we rely on " Common Sense ", or on our " Gut Feeling ", or on hunches. A major problem with intuition is that it is private; other have no way to judge its dependability. Thus, when intuitive beliefs differ, as they so often do, we have no solid basis for deciding which ones to believe.


Boeing 747 Cockpit. Pilot, Co-Pilot.

However, sometimes " Intuition "  may in fact in be relying on some other kind of evidence, such as extensive relevant personal experiences and readings. For example, when an experienced pilot had an intuition that the airplane doesn't feel right as it taxis for takeoff, we might be quite supportive of further safety checks of the airplane before takeoff. Sometimes, " Hunches "  are not blind. As critical thinkers, we would want to find out whether claims relying on intuition have any other kinds of evidential support.

For another example, Sports players. Such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods... Their personal
experiences are great stories, it is difficult to become the belief.

Phrase like " I know someone who..." , and " In my experience, I've found ..."  should alert you to such evidence. Because personal experiences are very vivid in our memories, we often rely on them as evidence to support a belief. For example, you might have a really frustrating experience with a car mechanic because she greatly overcharges you for her service, leading you to believe that most cars mechanics overcharge. While the generation about car mechanics  may or may not be true, relying on such experiences as the basis for the general belief is a mistake !!  Because a single personal experience, or even an accumulation of personal experiences, is not enough to give you a " Representative "   sample of experience.