• two types of implication: implying w/ certainty & implying w/ probability *

• arguments evaluated by 3 standards: being deductively valid, deductively sound, & inductively strong

• strength of inductive argument is matter of degree, not of personal preference though

• term proof is ambiguous

  • can mean mathematic (deductively sound) or scientific proof (strong inductive argument)

inconsistency plays crucial role in judgments of improbability

• sentences can be: inconsistent, self-contradictory & inconsistent w/ presuppositions

• when given inconsistent info, you should reject SOME info

  • also want to find truth, ALWAYS reject info that is least well-supported/ most likely to be false

• cases where it isn't clear what to revise, need to SEARCH for info

when trying to access a belief, you should not cover up counterevidence & you should pay attention to strength/degree of certainty with which you should hold a belief

• logical reasoner sticks to issue, makes ONLY relevant remarks, doesn't withhold relevant info, and accurately represents position of opposition

• failing to do so is either committing : ad hominem, straw man, false dilemma, faulty comparison, fallacious appeal to authority, genetic fallacy, non sequitur fallacies

  • often are successful at convincing one of what to do/ believe
    • should NOT be successful, often use illicit means of persuasion

• if an argument has a logical form of a fallacy, it might not be a fallacy ex) ad hominem fallacy has logical form: "the argument is made by a person who has a bad trait, so the argument is faulty" by which some arguments of this ad hominem are fine given that trait is relevant to argument quality.

• to defend against deception (propaganda, con games, etc.): demand good reasons before acting & changing beliefs

• One problem: get any reason

• Second (THEN): determine if given reason in good

• loaded language can be effectively used to enliven dull discourse

  • using it to slant supposed objective description -> tech. of deception

PRINCIPLES OF LOGIAL REASONING: * suspend judgment than leap to conclusions w/ insufficient evidence * be alert on loaded language - language that unnecessarily uses a word w/ emotional overtones or evaluative connotations, language that can masquerade as objective description but in fact is slanted to introduce the speaker's own values. * sort out facts from values

HOW TO STRUCTURE ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING: * add main point + thesis statement * introduction + argument for thesis * give counter-arguments +respond to them * end w/ conclusion that summarizes what you've done + suggest additional issues that need investigation

FOR LONGER PIECES: * Introduction: opening, usually includes statement of thesis or conclusion * Middle: support for thesis + assessment of objections to it * Conclusion: summarize what you've done and what still needs doing

• essays can still be effective even if they leave concl. at end/ deal early w/ discounting objections

• most common error in creating argumentative essay is not to adequately develop, the assessment of objecctions

• write first, the worry about structure

• counterargument: instead of direct attack to argument, created new argument for opposite concl.

• writers might:make statements with low info content, mask a true meaning w/ euphemism, doubletalk, innuendo, use sloppy sentence construction, or violate the rules of discourse.

• burden of proof: duty to prove statement you’ve advocated.

  • burden is usually on the shoulders of the person who wants others to accept his/her statement.
  • When two people make statements that disagree, the burden falls on the shoulders of the person making the more controversial statement.

• principle of charity: Giving the benefit of the doubt to writers and speakers who have said something silly or obviously false, and not taking them too literally.

  • readers use to help interpret materials by writers who do not say that they mean/ mean what they say

• people who make statements= have burden of proving statements

  • goals should be to: STICK TO ISSUE, PURSUE THE TRUTH ABOUT ISSUE, & NOT TO SIDETRACK /CONFUSE/ CON OPPONENT

• progress made when issues identified or identified more clearly

  • important to tell difference betw/ addressed issue and suggested side issues

• some disagreements can be settled by drawing attention to issue by more precisely defining/ narrowing issue and noticing when one issue must be settled before another can be fully addressed

• most of what we legit claim is based on what others tell us
  • we have not verified info ourselves, that"s why
• legitimacy= matter of degree
  • as cont. of opinion --> solid knowledge

CHARITY: The principle that says to interpret a claim in its best light. If it seems obviously false, try to find a re-interpretation that makes it reasonable without violating the principle of fidelity by putting words into the claimant’s mouth that the claimant would not accept. * FIDELITY: The principle requiring you to preserve the intended meaning of the speaker's original statements when you are analyzing them.

• judgments on improbability (unlikely) depend on background knowledge & available evidence

• when claim in inconsistent w/ backg. knowledge, we judge the claim to be improbable

• our most reliable source of info. is own observations, if not available, turn to other sources such as science magenzines or new sources (NY times, etc.)

• usually accept claim based on credibility of the sources who tell us to accept claim

  • reliability/credibility of said sources vary
  • w/ less credible ones, should ger independent verification, second opinion from reliable source before accepting

• BE ALERT FOR FAKE NEWS!!

• credible media aims to support info. by getting it from two or more independent sources

• the more knowledge we have + closer body of background knowledge approaches that of the experts, the better will be our own judgments.

• anecdotes (individual report based on own's experience) are not as good evidence as statistical reports

• when no good evidence, suspend belief, or continue w/ disbelief

• getting useful info. about whom to vote for is difficult

  • news about candidates early in election race usually more useful than later on

• facts (objective truths)= OUR GOAL -critical thinkers need to be on alert against people who reject objectivity

• we need self-discipline to overcome natural instincts to overestimate what is wrong + to attack criticization & to over-rely on gut feelings

• appropriate communication, need to ignore irrelevant inexactness

• AMBIGUITY, VAUGENESS, OVERGENERALIZATION, PSEUDOPRECISION, IMPROPER OPERATIONALIZATION = sources of imprecision & potential obstacles to communication

• vaugeness, almost never enitrely eliminated from statements -often is helpful (not getting side-tracked into removing)

• EXCESSIVE VAUGUENESS + AMBIGUITY + OVERGENERALIZATION SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.

• vague v. ambiguity NOT the same

  • ex) purple is vague, not amb since there is no small # of distinct interpretations

• w/ vagueness, uncertain interpretation form a continiuum

• to stay on track: logical reasoner must be sensitive to inadequate precision occuring in sematic disagreements -some due to equivocation or faulty operationalization

• log. reasoner also must be aware of effects on communication due to context, background, knowledge, & difference betw/ universal/non-universal generalization

• clear & precise definitions can aid communication

• definitions used to inform people of words meanings also to make jokes, remove vagueness, & ambiguity + to push a political agenda -ostensive, lexical, stipulative, operational, & by example

• helpful definitions difficult to create esp. operational ones

• also be faulty since too broad, narrow, vague, inappropriate for audience, misleading (grammatical category/connotation), circular, or inconsitent

If a word, phrase, or sentence is too imprecise (for the needs of the audience) because it has two or more distinct interpretations, it is ambiguous.

Every argument contains at least one intended conclusion plus one or more supporting reasons, called premises. * some passages its not easy to tell whether an argument occurs at all, or what premises and conclusion of an argument really are, or how other arguments in passage are related to argument

• DESCRIPTIONS state facts, states of mind, express values, etc.
• EXPLANATIONS DO NOT
  • assume you are already convinced, instead try to show the cause, motivation, or sequence of events
• Some arguments strong enough to be called proofs
• ARGUMENTS usually given to settle an issue one way or another
  • its topic more general that its addressed issue
• Premise & Conclusion indicator phrases serve as guideposts for detecting arguments
  • ALMOST all have implicit elements
• most common: statements of common knowledge definitions of words, principles of grammar, and rules of mathematics
• Rewriting arguments in standard form: helpful way to display essential context ex) sub-arguments
• Arguments can be seen as deductively valid or inductively strong
• • INDUCTIVELY STRONG: premises support conclusion w/ high probability (small chance conclusion is false even if all premises are true)
  • opposite of deductively valid

• if argument has counterexample, cannot be valid

MAIN IDEA/CONCEPT: Logical reasoning is the "guide" to making good decisions.

• **IDEA/CONCEPT (Own Words):** The importance of logical thinking and how it is critical in making a good argument as it assists in getting to know if the given information is truthful or not.

LOGICAL REASONING: IMPORTANT (GUIDE TO MAKING GOOD DECISIONS)

• before accepting a conclusion, ask for reasons
• to support your conclusion, give an argument
• reach the audience's level of reasoning
• design reasons to imply (suggest) conclusion
• there is value in having relevant info
• weigh the pros and cons
• think of possible courses of action
• think of the consequences (if given enough time)
• consider probabilities of said consequences
• when practical, DELAY MAKING IMPORTANT DECISIONS
• assess what is said in light of the situation
• use background knowledge/common sense when drawing conclusions
• extraordinary conclusions need extraordinary evidence
• LOOK FOR EXPERTS!!!
• firmer conclusions need better reasons
• be consistent in reasoning
• look for inconsistencies in your & others' reasoning
• see if explanations fit relevant facts
• can make the opponent's explanations less convincing by showing alternative explanations that HAVEN'T been ruled out
• STICK TO SUBJECT
• DO NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS UNTIL ENOUGH EVIDENCE IS GATHERED.