Logic and Critical Thinking-2

Recap
●
Arguments and Premises
●
Sentence vs. proposition
●
Truth, validity, and soundness
●
Deductive and Inductive inferences
●
Logical vs. physical impossibility
 Inferences all the time...
●
See them in earphones
– Infer they must be listening to music
●
hear them speaking in good Hindi
– infer that they must be from the north
●
See the two together
– Infer they must be a couple
●
See a bearded guy wearing a kurta and carrying a jhola
– Infer he must be from JNU
●
Know she’s pursuing her engineering from IIT
– Infer she wrote JEE
●
Know he’s a billionaire
– Infer he’s a happy man
 Significance of Deductive Inference
●
Deductive inference as
– Non-ampliative
●
It does not provide us with any new information
– The truth of the conclusion is hidden within the premises
●
All reptiles lay eggs; no mammals lay eggs; no mammals are reptiles.
●
If the conclusion of a valid deductive argument turns out to be false, then
it means one of the premises are false
– if you find a sad entrepreneur, then you call into question the truth of one of the
premises in the valid argument:
●
all entrepreneurs are billionaires; all billionaires are happy; therefore, all entrepreneurs are happy.
– or if you find a species that lays eggs as well as suckles its young, then either your
premise that no reptiles lay eggs is wrong, or your definition of a ‘mammal’ or a
‘reptile’ is inadequate.
 Inductive Inference
●
As ‘ampliative’
– It provides new information
●
They are non-monotonic
– Can always be made weaker or stronger by additional information
●
From a sample to a population
– every swan I have ever seen has been white therefore all swans are white
●
From a correlation to a causal generalization
– Everyone who is a chain smoker has a disposition to lung cancer. Smoking
causes cancer.
●
Compare scientific generalizations with superstitions
●
RCTs
 The circularity of Inductive Inference
●
What makes inductive arguments legitimate?
– The Principle of the Uniformity of Nature
●
Which tells us that the future will always be like the past
– This underpins every single inductive argument
– But what makes this principle legitimate?
●
Inductive inference
– Hence, circularity
– The future has always been like the past in the past
●
therefore the future will be like the past in the future
Truth, Validity, and Soundness: Various
combinations
●
valid arguments containing only true propositions
●
valid arguments containing only false propositions
●
invalid arguments containing only true propositions
●
invalid arguments containing only true premises and have a false
conclusion
●
valid arguments having false premises and a true conclusion
●
invalid arguments having false premises and a true conclusion
●
invalid arguments, of course, containing all false propositions
– See p. 30 of Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic
 Exercise
●
Many children have developed autism shortly after having
been given the MMR jab, therefore the MMR jab causes
autism.
●
Many undergraduates like to get drunk at the weekend, so I
should imagine that as it is Saturday, James may be in the pub.
●
The IMD predicts thunderstorms over the next few days in
Hyderabad. Therefore, there will be rain in the next few days.
●
Since the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 level and the crime
level have increased sharply. Atmospheric CO2 causes crime.
 Fallacies
●
what is a fallacy?
– A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be
correct, but that proves on examination not to be so.
– A form of argument in which the premises appear to
support a conclusion but, in fact, do not; the term is often
used to refer to familiar types of logical mistakes that may
be used to trick or mislead.
– A fallacy, also called a “courtroom trick” is an identifiable
category of argument that does not support its conclusion.
 Sophistry vs. Fallacy
●
Sophistry is the art of deluding an audience with
arguments that one knows to be illogical or misleading.
●
On the other hand, when an illogical argument is used
innocently, without the speaker’s being aware that it
is, in fact, illogical, then logicians call it a fallacy, a term
that implies nothing about the speaker’s motives.
●
Baseline check
– Thank you for smoking (2005)
 Classification of Fallacies
●
fallacies of relevance
●
fallacies of defective induction
●
fallacies of presumption
●
fallacies of ambiguity
 Fallacies of Relevance
●
most numerous and frequent
●
the premises of the argument are simply not relevant to
the conclusion. However, because they are made to appear
to be relevant, they may deceive
●
they arise when there is no real connection between the
premises and the conclusion of an argument. Because
that connection is missing, the premises offered cannot
possibly establish the truth of the conclusion drawn.
●
The appeal to the populace
●
The appeal to emotion
●
The red herring
●
The straw man
●
The attack on the person
●
The appeal to force
●
Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion)
– *Caveat...
A red herring
 Fallacies of defective induction
●
the mistake arises from the fact that the premises of the argument, although relevant
to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that relying on them is a blunder.
– The argument from ignorance
●
The Malaysian airlines flight MH370 disappeared without a trace over the Indian Ocean. No conclusive
evidence has been found to explain its disappearance. There must be some mysterious force at play.
●
Ancient Aliens argument
– The appeal to inappropriate authority
●
Authoritative prefixes: Dr./Prof./Baba/Sri/Sadguru/Sir/Lord/Highness
●
Einstein said that god does not play dice, hence quantum mechanics must be false.
– False cause/post hoc ergo propter hoc/slippery slope
●
Ever since this government came into power, there have been very few protests. It must be doing something
good for the people, indeed!
– Hasty generalization
●
My uncle has been a chain smoker his entire life and is in perfect health. It is a hoax that smoking causes
cancer.
 Fallacies of Presumption
●
too much is assumed in the premises. The inference to the
conclusion depends mistakenly on these unwarranted
assumptions.
– Accident
●
All those who study arts and humanities are weak in math.
– Complex question
●
Have you stopped plagiarizing on your assignments?
– Begging the question/circular argument
●
Fried foods are bad for you because they are not part of a healthy diet.
●
Induction is a reasonable form of inference, since experience shows it to be
the case that there is uniformity in nature.
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
●
The incorrect reasoning in fallacies of ambiguity arises from the equivocal use of
words or phrases. Some word or phrase in one part of the argument has a meaning
different from that of the same word or phrase in another part of the argument
– Equivocation
●
technology = progress
●
reservation = discrimination
●
Anti-ruling party = Anti-national
●
IQ = intelligence
●
welfare = freebies
– Amphiboly
●
No smoking allowed
– Accent
●
Mutual fund investments are subject to market risks, please read the offer document carefully.
●
Terms and conditions apply.
 Some common fallacies
●
Ad hominem: A fallacy that depends on an attack against the
person making a claim instead of the claim that is being made.
●
Straw man: exaggerating or misrepresenting the claims of the
opposition in order to more easily appear to refute those claims.
●
Circular argument: when the premise and the conclusion are
different sentences expressing the same proposition
●
Equivocation: The fallacy of equivocation occurs when we change
the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument
●
Distinction w/o a difference: a fallacy that occurs when we try to
draw a distinction between two things that are not, in fact, distinct.
 Kinds of Ad Hominem
●
Abusive
– “Television entertainer Bill Maher argues that religion is just a
lot of foolish nonsense. But Maher is an arrogant, shameless,
self-righteous pig. Obviously his arguments are not worth
listening to.”
●
Circumstantial
– Poisoning the well
●
Attacking motivations
– Tu quoque
●
You did it too!
 Examples
●
A majority of the population thinks we coddle
criminals. It’s time we got tough on crime.
●
UFOs must be real because a significant portion of
the population takes UFO sightings seriously.
●
“Which phone should I go for?” “You must buy a
Redmi phone, because it is the largest selling phone
in India.”
 More examples...
●
Every morning, he steps out onto the porch and exclaims,
“Let this house be safe from tigers!” Then he goes back
inside. His wife asks him, “What’s that all about? There
isn’t a tiger within a thousand miles of here.” The man
says, “See? It works!”
●
“I was jogging out to centerfield when I picked up a scrap
of paper. I got some good hits that night, and I guess I
decided that the paper had something to do with it. The
next night I picked up a gum wrapper and had another
good night. I’ve been picking up paper every night since.”
●
The Republicans say we should shrink the deficit and cut down on
government spending. But these are the same people who cranked up
the deficit by getting us into two wars simultaneously. These are the
same people who cranked up the deficit by passing tax breaks for the
rich. These are the people who gave us the Bush years of spending
more massive than any preceding administration of either party.
●
Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools.
Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they
used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression of all
religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that
what we want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Mr.
Goldberg’s argument is nonsense.
●
The United States says that North Korea is stockpiling nuclear
weapons and is, therefore, a danger to world peace. But surely both
Israel and the United States have their own stockpiles of nuclear
weapons!
●
“Kejriwal talks about the economy because it will benefit him
politically.”
●
“You either marry Julie and have a wonderful life and family, or you
live the rest of your life as a lonely bachelor. Go ahead. Make your
choice.”
●
Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.
●
Brexit: Vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’
●
The first person I met in Delhi was cold and rude. The second person I met in
Delhi was cold and rude. I guess everybody in Delhi must be cold and rude
●
“Many ships and planes have utterly disappeared in the regions of the Bermuda
Triangle, without explanation and often without a physical trace. Some
mysterious force must be at work beneath the waves.”
●
“In order to build something like Puma Punku you need writing and planning.
All the mainstream archaeologists agree upon one thing, that the Imara didnt
have any writing. So how is it possible that they built all of this without plans?”
●
Jamie Bartlett: “i think it’s an important job for journalists to try to ask about
the negative possibilities of this stuff (wrt automation and disruption)”.
Sam Altman: “I think if you continue this thrust of, shouldn’t we stop progress,
no one’s going to take you seriously, because people want this stuff”.
●
Why do you rob banks? because that’s where all the
money is.
●
It’s wrong to kill animals because animals feel pain.
●
Why are you called John? Because that’s what my
parents named me.
●
It’s not that I don’t care about you; I’m just not
concerned with your life choices.
●
●
My GPS says that we should take route 70 to route 97. You
think we should take route 85 to Buckminster Road after
looking at a map. I’m thinking that the GPS directions are better
because the GPS is equipped with the latest route-finding
algorithm.
●
Look at the line for that new movie! It is out of the theater door,
down the street, and around the corner. That film must be great.
●
I was reading the expert reviews for this product on its website.
All of them were outstanding. I think that this could be the
product we’ve been waiting for.
 Some more critical thinking...
●
It’s wrong to kill animals because animals feel pain.
●
It’s not that I don’t care about you; I’m just not
concerned with your life choices.
●
Reservation is a form of discrimination; therefore
reservation is wrong!
●
Look at the line for that new movie! It is out of the theater door, down
the street, and around the corner. That film must be great.
●
our brains are not meant to hold so many passwords. That's science.
Manage your passwords with Lockwise when you join Firefox
●
You say caste-based reservation is way to correct the historical
wrongdoings of our caste society. Then what about the economically
poor who are from upper castes? Should we just ignore them?
●
Many ships and planes have utterly disappeared in the regions of the
Bermuda Triangle, without explanation and often without a physical
trace. Some mysterious force must be at work beneath the waves
– Ignorance as evidence
 This good-old chestnut
●
A: “You really need to clean those dishes in the sink.
You make yourself a snack and just clutter the
kitchen and leave it for me. That is not respectful or
fair to me.” B: “Well, if you want to talk about
messes and respect, what about the fact that you
never put out the garbage? You just let it get to a
point where I have to always put it out myself.”
 Whataboutism?
●
A form of red herring
●
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/
understanding-whataboutery/295794
 How to discover a fallacy
●
Identify the conclusion of the argument
●
Identify the premises stated in support of the argument
●
Do the premises lend independent support to the conclusion?
●
No?? Then, it’s a fallacy!
– To identify the fallacy, ask how the premises is being used to support the
conclusion.
●
Is it restating the conclusion in other words?
●
Is it setting up a false dichotomy?
●
Is it attacking the person/character/morality?
●
Is it playing with words?
●
Is it setting up a strawman version of the conclusion?
●
Is it distracting from the issue at hand?
●
“Like any rational entity, the algorithm learns how to modify
the state of its environment—in this case, the users mind—in
order to maximize its own reward. The consequences include
the resurgence of fascism, the dissolution of the social
contract that underpins democracies around the world, and
potentially the end of the European Union and NATO. Not
bad for a few lines of code, even if it had a helping hand from
some humans. Now imagine what a really intelligent
algorithm would be able to do.”
– Stuart Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the
Problem of Control
●
“Here are a few examples of jobs that humans used to do but that
technology automated long ago, at least in developed countries:
clothes washer; rickshaw driver; elevator operator; punkawallah (a
servant in India whose sole job was to work a manual fan for cooling
the room, before the days of electric fans); computer (a human,
usually female, who performed tedious calculations by hand,
particularly during World War II). Most people will agree that in
those instances replacing humans with machines in such jobs made
life better all around. One could argue that today’s AI is simply
extending that same arc of progress: improving life for humans by
increasingly automating the necessary jobs that no one wants to do.”
– Melanie Mitchell, Artificial Intelligence: A guide for thinking humans
 Note about Refutation
●
Just because someone makes a bad argument for a conclusion
does not give us rational justification for thinking that the
conclusion is not the case.
– An argument provides us good reason to believe in the likely truth of the
conclusion. If an argument fails, then it means that those specific
premises do not give us reason to believe that conclusion.
●
But it doesn’t mean that there can be no other set of premises that
does. There could be a good argument for that conclusion, and
this one just isn’t it. Every true proposition can be made the
conclusion of a terrible argument.
– All men are mortal. Thursday follows Wednesday; therefore New Delhi is
the capital of India
 Explore
●
Peter Burke, The Polymath: A cultural history from
Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag
●
David Epstein, Range: Why generalists triumph in a
specialized world
●
Waqas Ahmed, The Polymath: Unlocking the power of
human versatility
●
Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign
against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters
 Practice
●
E.g., Wag the Dog (1997)
●
Thank You for Smoking (2005)
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaHRN7UhRo
– Catch the fallacies?
 Resources
●
Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic
●
Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic
●
Edward T. Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments
●
Fallacyfiles.org
●
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
●
https://www.ancientaliensdebunked.com/
●
Podcasts
– The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
– Fallacious Trump
●
Watch
– Wag the Dog (1997)
– Brexit: The Uncivil War (2019)
– The Front Runner (2018)
 Note about Refutation
●
Just because someone makes a bad argument for a conclusion
does not give us rational justification for thinking that the
conclusion is not the case.
– An argument provides us good reason to believe in the likely truth of the
conclusion. If an argument fails, then it means that those specific
premises do not give us reason to believe that conclusion.
●
But it doesn’t mean that there can be no other set of premises that
does. There could be a good argument for that conclusion, and
this one just isn’t it. Every true proposition can be made the
conclusion of a terrible argument.
– All men are mortal. Thursday follows Wednesday; therefore New Delhi is
the capital of India
 Resources
●
Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic
●
Fallacyfiles.org
●
Podcasts
– The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
– Fallacious Trump
●
Watch
– Thank you for Smoking (2005)
– Wag the Dog (1997)
– Brexit: The Uncivil War (2019)
– The Front Runner (2018)