|
|
Syllabus WELCOME TO CRITICAL THINKING (PHIL 4)!
Scroll down for Handouts
Syllabus Critical Thinking, Philosophy 4, Spring 2008 Anthony Hanson
Objectives:
To teach the various skills which collectively encompass critical thinking.
These include:
The analysis of language and rhetoric and non-argumentative forms of persuasion and propaganda.
Distinguishing credible sources from non-credible sources.
The logical analysis of arguments and claims.
Identification of fallacious reasoning.
Moral principles as they operate in practical reasoning.
Learning and practicing intellectual virtues.
In this class, we will explore critical thinking and philosophical concepts in the discussion of current events and politics. Issues we will address in the course might include such questions as: Is Affirmative Action unjust and immoral? Is the Death Penalty a just punishment? Is income redistribution and the welfare state unfair and a violation of rights? What are the features of a just war? Is the war in Iraq a just war? What is the proper balance between privacy and national security? Should people have the right to free speech, even though it incites some people (some Muslims recently) to violence? Are religious beliefs irrational, or can one give good reasons for them? Are there universal moral principles that bind everyone or are moral principles just created by people and variable according to culture? Are some cultures and ways of life more conducive to creating conditions for human flourishing and happiness than others? Can't we judge some cultural practices to be wrong, or is this “ethnocentrism”? Are first trimester abortions immoral? Are partial birth abortions murder? Is it wrong to use fetal stem cells in research? Is global capitalism and corporate profit really the evil that many say it is, or is it the necessary engine to rid the world of squalor and poverty? How much can we really know about the world? Is science an objective description of the world, or do its results reflect our biases, goals and purposes? So break the mind-forged manacles of political correctness, and popular assumptions and be ready to express your opinions on these issues, and listen to the opinions of others!
Text - The text for the class is: Critical Thinking, Moore and Parker, McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2007, 8th edition. You can get by with the 7th edition, too.
Class Web Site: http://faculty.deanza.edu/hansontony/
Text Website: Critical Thinking Online Learning Center:
Grading
A. Five Quizzes - (Objective, Multiple choice, True/False, Fill in blanks, short answer) 12 points possible for each. Throw out your lowest score.
B. Final Exam (Comprehensive) 20 points possible
Quizzes - You must purchase from the bookstore, a packet of scantron forms with options a-e as answers. Quizzes cannot be made up, so it is very important to come to class on Quiz days. You can miss one quiz, since you get to throw out your lowest score. Quizzes are at the end of every second week, starting with week 2. You will be given an incomplete or fail if you miss the final exam, depending on the circumstances.
The web site for our text book entitled “Critical Thinking Online Learning Center” (see link above) which is an interactive study guide with quizzes can be found on the back of our text along with a registration code. These quizzes are very useful for studying for the class Quizzes.
Homework/Formal Presentations/Papers
C. Fallacy Team Presentation - 7 Points
D. Critical Thinking Paper 5 points
Grading Team Presentation: Your team will be given one score, and each individual in the team will be given that score (except when there is obvious negligence on the part of a team member.) Therefore your grade on this activity can depend on the work of others. Each group member will also complete a Team Evaluation sheet, in which team members will have the opportunity to evaluate the other members' work on the team project. If you are opposed to this grading method, then you may not wish to take this class. Conversely, your decision to remain in this class is a tacit or implicit agreement that you accept this grading method.
E. Homework. Class work/homework and small writing assignments - 10 points possible. Homework must be in on time. No late homework will be accepted for any reason, including absences. I announce homework assignments only the meeting before they are due, and do not have a predetermined homework schedule that I can give you in advance. Therefore, I strongly advise you to exchange emails with one or more "study buddies," so if you miss class, you can find out what the homework is for the next meeting from them. If you know you will be absent, you should turn in the homework early to me personally or in my mail box if you want credit for it. Group presentations cannot be made up. You should get a cheap paper folder to keep your homework in, since I will collect these.
F. Attendance, Punctuality, Classrom Etiquette - 10 points. This class gives points to reward attendance. You get one freebie absence. After that you lose 2 points for every hour of missed class and one point for every tardy. Leaving class early at any time counts as a tardy, regardless of the circumstances. If you leave class, you should not return that day since it is distracting. No in and out privileges. Please be aware of the drop deadlines in your course catalogue. It is your responsibility to do the paper work to drop the class. If you have obligations that often prevent you from attending class, then you should probably take the class at another time. If you need to leave in the middle of a class, be sure to tell me before class starts, though you may also lose points. If you are late, it is your responsibility to see me after class so that I can change the roster from an absence to a tardy. If you do not, the record will remain as an absence. Classroom etiquette will also affect your grade. Things such as leaving telephones on, talking in class during lecture, failing to participate in team work, sleeping, leaving class early without a prior explanation, and other disruptive behaviors are impolite and disrespectful. On the other hand, helping your fellow students out when they may need it, positively participating in classroom discussions, and generally having a good attitude toward learning is admirable, and will be reflected in this portion of your score.
Final Grade 90-92= A-; 93-100 =A; 80-82 = B-; 83-86 =B; 87-89 =B+; 70-79= C; 60- 62= D-; 63-66 = D; 67-69 =D+; below 60 =F
Office Hours - will be posted in class. There are a number of other ways you can contact me. My e-mail address is anthonyhanson@sbcglobal.net You may drop a note in the student drop box in the administration building or in the Social Sciences Division Office (L-13). You should not use the De Anza email address on this web page.
ACADEMIC HONESTY - Any form of plagiarism or cheating will result in a fail in the class. This includes, copying other people's work and representing it as your own work.
SCHEDULE AND ASSIGNMENTS
WEEKS 1 & 2 - Chapters 1 and 2. What Is Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking and Clear Writing. Quiz 1
WEEKS 3 & 4 - Ch. 3 Evaluating Informative Claims. Chapter 4. Persuasion Through Rhetoric Quiz 2
WEEKS 5 & 6 - Chapter 5. More Rhetorical Devices and Pseudoreasoning (Fallacies), Chapter 6. More Pseudoreasoning and Other Rhetorical Ploys (Fallacies). Quiz 3. Group Presentation due.
WEEKS 7 & 8 -Chapter 7 (Ch. 8 and 9 partial). Understanding and Evaluating Deductive and Inductive Arguments Quiz 4.
WEEKS 9 & 10 - Chapter 7. (Ch. 8 and 9 partial).
Chapter 12 Moral Reasoning. Quiz 5
WEEK 11 & 12 Chapter 12 Moral Reasoning.
(Final Exam - Comprehensive) Critical Thinking Paper Due.
This is the end of the syllabus. Copy and paste the above text into a Word document and print it. SIGN IT BELOW AND BRING IT TO CLASS, AND TURN IT IN FOR CREDIT AS YOUR FIRST HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT!!!
I HAVE READ AND I UNDERSTAND THE TERMS, REQUIRMENTS AND POLICIES FOR THE CLASS:
Signature_______________________________________________________________________________
#####################################################################
Resources
Websites:
Good fallacy website: (More below)
Fallacies <http://ftp2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html>: Very easy to use, extensive listing of fallacies, including examples and a general introduction to the subject, written by Dr. Michael C. Labossiere and hosted at the Nizkor site.
Below are some web sites that are very helpful as Critical Thinking resources.
Particularly, they can supplement our study of fallacies and basic deductive and inductive logic. If you find any other good Critical Thinking web sites, please pass them along, and I will add them to our list!
Critical Thinking Web Sites
The Power of Logic Web Tutor, by Mayfield Publishing Company, is a state of the art interactive tutorial designed to accompany C. Stephen Layman's textbook, The Power of Logic. <http://www.poweroflogic.com/>
Mission Critical, from San Jose State University, is a very useful interactive tutorial for critical thinking. Lots of exercises and explanations of basic concepts are provided. <http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/index.html>
The Critical Thinking Community, sponsored by Sonoma State University, is intended primarily as a resource for instructors, but contains some valuable information for students too. See the glossary of critical thinking terms in the "library," <http://www.criticalthinking.org/>
The Critical Thinking Web Site, created by Longview Community College, is intended primarily as a resource for teachers, but has a section with excellent explanations of the core concepts of citical thinking, including fallacies, that is useful for students. <http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/corenotes.htm>#
Mind Tools provides explanations of problem solving techniques and analytical methods including brainstorming, lateral thinking and statistical methodolgy. <http://www.psychwww.com/mtsite/page2.html>
Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies provides definitions and examples of the standard fallacies taught in critical thinking courses (note the names of the fallacies often vary). <http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm>
Argumentative Writing, by W.D. Godfrey, is a guide to the use of logic in writing and covers the basic concepts of informal logic. <http://www.swifty.com/VB/logic/outline.htm>
Propoganda and Politics has a few examples of fallacies used in propaganda. All the examples are taken from Rush Limbaugh. ~http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman/Politics/prop-pol.html <http://www.teleport.com/stiltman/Politics/prop-pol.html>
A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names contains entries on concepts in logic and critical thinking, including fallacies. http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/ix1.htm#e <http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/ix1.htm>
Logic, is a section of Garth Kemerling's Philosophy Pages, and is a good introduction to elementary logic (based on Cohen and Copi's Introduction to Logic). <http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/lg/index.htm>
Propoganda Analysis Home Page, by Aaron Delwiche, is an excellent discussion of propaganda and logical fallacies using real historical examples. See the Propaganda Gallery, a collection of propaganda film clips. http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/contents.htm#war <http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/contents.htm>
Legal Reasoning: Using the Central Concepts of Basic Logic <http://www.tsulaw.edu/Sophie/LWResources/reasoning.htm>:
Extensive discussion of the topic.
SoYouWanna avoid common logical errors? <http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic.html>: Informative, easy to read article about the different types of errors in logic.
The Atheism Web: Logic & Fallacies <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html>: Article on the Atheism Web that states in its introduction "[t]here's a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate."
######################################################################
Chapter 1 – Study Guide – Fill in definitions, examples, important points about these concepts mentioned in class discussions. Use to study for Quiz 1.
1. Claim
2. Issue
3. Objective claim/issue
4. Subjective claim/issue
5. Moral and Aesthetic claims. Objective or Subjective?
6. Argument, premise, conclusion
7. Premise, conclusion Indicators
8. Deductive Argument
9. Inductive Argument
########################################################################################
Chapter 2 – Study Guide – Fill in definitions, examples, important points about these concepts mentioned in class discussions. Use to study for Quiz
Open concepts –
Closed concepts-
Vagueness-
Semantic Ambiguity-
Syntactic Ambiguity-
Grouping Ambiguity-
Definitions:
1) Stipulative Definitions: The definition establishes how the word will be used in some particular context: "We will call those data that help predict the economy's future 'leading indicators.'"
2) Precising Definitions - The definition takes a vague word and makes it more precise: "By 'walking' we will specifically mean 'moving under one's own power while keeping at least one foot on the ground.'" “ A terrorist is someone whose main tactic is targeting innocent people for death in order to inspire fear in a society, for the purpose of some political goal.”
3) Definition by Example: Pointing to or naming or describing an example of something to which the term applies: “A mouse is the thing here, see.” “By scripture, I mean things like the Koran or Bible.”
4) Definition by Synonym: One may define by synonym, substituting a word or phrase with the same meaning: "'Ophidophobia' is the fear of snakes." “Fastidious means the same as “fussy.”
5) Analytical Definition: An analytical definition states the common features of something as well as the features that distinguish it from other things: "Precipitation is water that reaches the earth's surface from the atmosphere as the result of meteorological causes." “A human being is a featherless biped.” A triangle is a two dimensional closed figure with three straight sides. Often analytical definitions are précising definitions, too.
6) Rhetorical Definitions: Looks like a definition, but is really just an opinion someone holds about the subject: A “Conservative” is a hide-bound, narrow-minded hypocrite who thinks the point of life is to make money and rip off poor people.” “Abortion” is the intentional murder of a human being.”
#######################################################################################
Chapter 4 - Study Guide NonArgumentative Persuasion
Moore and Parker
Nonargumentative persuasion - Claims that through the use of emotive language attempt to persuade you of their truth without offering any evidence or support. Note the contrast between the two claims: 1) The Republicans reduced Welfare payments, 2) The Republicans slashed Welfare payments. The language of #2 suggests that such an action was wrong and cruel without actually giving reasons why.
Slanters - Linguistic devices that manipulate language and use the emotive force of words and phrases to persuade. It is important to note that the presence of slanters is not a reason for rejecting a claim. Slanters can be used in conjunction with arguments to persuade. Writing completely stripped of slanters would be
impossibly dry.
1. Euphemism - The Greek meaning of this word is “to speak well of”. It is a neutral or positive expression used in the place of one with negative associations. “Lay to rest”, for example, is a more positive expression for “bury”.
2. Dysphemism - Opposite of euphemism, an expression used to produce a negative effect on the listener’s attitude toward something, or to tone down the positive associations it may have. Note the increasingly dysphemic connotations of the following: Citizens > Public> Mob > Herd.
3. Stereotype - A thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence when a writer or speaker lumps a group of individuals together under one name or description, especially one that begins with the word “the”, like “the Jew”, or “the Communist”.
4. Innuendo - Insinuating something deprecatory about someone without actually saying it. A teacher might respond to a parent who is inquiring about her child’s academic performance, “Well, she comes to class everyday.”
5. Loaded Question - Technically a loaded question is a form of innuendo because it suggests something derogatory without actually saying it. It suggests this by hiding it within an assumption to a question. The classic, “Have you stopped beating your wife”, contains the assumption that you once beat your wife so if you answer yes or no to this question you confirm the assumption.
6. Weaseler - A weaseler is a particular word inserted into a claim giving the author a way out when the claim is challenged. “Studies show that sugarless gum may actually prevent cavities”. If such a claim is challenged the author can always weasel out of it by saying he only said it “may” work. (Please note that words that are weaselers in one context, may not be in others. The prior sentence contains “may” and is not a weaseler.
7. Downplayer- The attempt to make someone or something look less important or significant “This so-called doctor should not be charging these fees,” someone might say about their chiropractor. Or “John has a “degree” from the Master’s Institute” would be downplaying John’s accomplishment.
8. Hyperbole- An extravagant overstatement, or exaggeration. “My parents are fascists” is a bit over the top, or “Ayn Rand is the greatest writer that ever lived”. Please note that some superlatives are not hyperbole. E.g. “Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time” may, in fact, be true and not an exaggeration.
9. Proof Surrogate - An expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing the evidence or authority, e.g. “Studies show…”, “Informed sources say…”, “Statistics reveal that…”. Such references are not real evidence or support at all. This evidence may exist but until it is specifically cited, the surrogate adds nothing to the claim.
HOMEWORK: LOGIC PACKET 1 FOR CH. 7:
(Copy and paste this packet into a Word document. Complete it and print. YOU MUST GET 15/20 CORRECT (75%) TO GET A PASS ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. SO READ THE TEXT AND LECTURE NOTES CAREFULLY.
SYLLOGISM COMPLETION EXERCISE
The following are examples of syllogistic arguments that are missing the conclusions. Study the two reasons very carefully and complete the syllogism with the conclusion that logically follows ( - makes the argument valid).
1.All fragile things are breakable things. Some glasses are fragile things. Therefore___________.
2.All mammals are warm-blooded animals. All whales are mammals.
Therefore___________
3.All books are things with pages. Some books are mysteries.
Therefore_______________
4. All flowers are pretty objects. All pansies are flowers.
Therefore_________________
5. No animals are plants. All sheep are animals. Therefore_______
SYLLOGISM VALIDITY TESTING EXERCISE
Carefully study the following syllogisms and decide if they are valid or invalid:
6.All zebras are striped animals.
No zebras are polar bears.
Therefore, no polar bears are striped animals.
7.All clowns are funny individuals.
Some sad people are clowns.
Therefore, some sad people are funny individuals.
8. Some sticky substances are yucky things.
All taffy is a sticky substance.
Therefore, some taffy is a yucky thing.
9.All items made of gold are expensive items.
Some rings are items made of gold.
Therefore, some rings are expensive items.
10. All flies are winged creatures.
All butterflies are winged creatures.
Therefore, all butterflies are flies.
MAKE THE ARGUMENTS VALID
Below are arguments that are missing a premise or conclusion (implied). Fill in the missing item that would make them valid (though not circular).
11. 1. All flowers are plants 2._________________3.Therefore, all
roses are plants.
12 1. All birds can fly 2. Some fish are birds.
3. Therefore,______________.
13. 1. No apes can write novels. 2._________________ 3. Therefore,
no orangutans can write novels.
14. 1. ___________________ 2.The Empire State Building is a
sky-Scraper.3. Therefore, the Empire State Building is a tall
building .
15. 1. All conservatives are wealthy. 2. _______________________
3. Some Republicans are wealthy.
16. 1.____________________. 2. Humans are animals. 3. Therefore, they
must eat food to survive.
17. 1. No human being is a person who is perfect. 2. All highly
creative people are human beings.3. Therefore ______________.
18) Is this argument valid? California must be desert because it never rains in California, and anywhere that it never rains has to be a desert. a) Yes b) No
19) Is this argument valid? Nixon was undoubtedly guilty of serious political crimes. So many people think he was guilty-he must have been. a) Yes b) No
20) Is this argument valid? "Since Christmas is always on a Thursday, it follows that the day after Christmas is always on a Friday." a) Yes b) No
*
Final Paper Assignment Phil. 4 Hanson
General Requirements The final paper assignment requires you to write a 750 word (minimum) argumentative essay that applies concepts you have learned in class. The paper must be typed, double spaced, with references and bibliography, and must be turned in by the deadline specified by the instructor.
Content You are to select an essay from the back of the book. The best arguments for this have at least 3 or 4 premises that are supported by the author. You should find an argument that interests you and one that will provide the opportunity for you to write a paper of the required length. This means you should probably find an argument whose conclusion you disagree with. The point of the assignment is to show that you can apply tools learned in class in an evaluation of a real argument. Thus you will identify the issue, reconstruct the argument into premises and conclusion, evaluate the truth of the premises (a little research may be required here) and where applicable, identify forms of non-argumentative persuasion, vagueness, ambiguity, and pseudo-reasoning. Finally, you will make an overall assessment of the argument, applying the concepts of deductive soundness or inductive cogency.
Guiding Questions (Your essay should address these , but not merely answer them as if they are discussion questions. 1. Do you have an introduction to the topic or issue? 2. Do you state your author's conclusion and then your judgment about their argument in a clear thesis statement at the end of the introduction. 3. Is your author's argument stated clearly in standard form (premises and conclusion)? Are there any important premises left out? 4. Do you state whether their argument is sound and explain why? 5. Do you devote a distinct paragraph of the paper to an evaluation of each premise? Is the paper organized well? 6. Do you feel you have convincing arguments, that are not fallacies, for your opinion on the truth or falsity of the premises? Do you make any unsupported claims? 7. Are all your statements relevant to the premise you are evaluating? 8. Do you have reliable data and evidence to support your claims? Is your data relevant to your claims? 9. Have you applied the concepts you have learned in class to the analysis of your chosen argument? 10. Do you have a conclusion that summarizes your results? 11. Is the paper 750 words minimum in length with a bibliography and appropriate references in an approved style? 12. Are there excessive errors in grammar, spelling? Have you enlisted the services of at least one proof reader?
Final Exam Review
1. Give an example of a claim
2. Give an example of a non-claim
3. Give an original example of a subjective claim.
4. Give an original example of an objective claim.
5. Give an example of an objective claim about which we will likely never discover its truth or falsity.
6. Give an original example of an argument with one premise.
7. Give two arguments about morality, one of which is a better argument than the other.
8. Give an example of a claim devoid of any rhetorical devices (slanters).
9. Give an example of one claim filled with rhetorical devices.
10. Explain why rhetorical devices do not provide logical support.
11. Give an original example of a syntactically ambiguous claim.
12. Give an original example of a semantically ambiguous claim.
13. Give examples of two claims one of which is more vague than than the other.
14. Give a one sentence definition of the straw man fallacy.
15. Give an example of an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy.
16. Give an example of a false dilemma fallacy.
17. Give an example of affirming the consequent.
18. Give an example of a sound argument.
19. Give an example of a valid argument with false premises.
20. Give an example of a strong inductive argument.
21. Explain the five moral theories discussed in class.
22. Which moral theory would Cynthia Tucker's Vengeance Argument fall under?
23. " " " " " " Deterrence Argument " " ?
24. " " " " " " Equality Argument " " ?
25. " " " " " " Innocence Argument " " ?
26. " " " " " " Analogy Argument " " ?
Discuss
|
|
|
