Critical Thinking: Biases, Vested Interests, and Conflicts of Interests

Introduction
The previous chapter on arguments focused on how differences in systems of beliefs give rise to arguments.  People with disparate systems of beliefs often hold differing values and beliefs, which in turn influence what they consider to be basic assumptions (to be used in an argument as premises).

It should also be mentioned that sometimes the difference isn't so much that the values are different in an absolute sense, but that they are held to different degrees.  For example, much social psychology has shown that conservatives favour attributing moral status and providing resources to "in group" members, while liberals often concern themselves more with "out groups" (than do conservatives).   This is not to say conservatives don't care about "out groups" or that liberals don't care about "in groups,"; instead, it is a matter of relative value.

For more information on the psychological differences between conservatives, liberals, and libertarians check out this great website: http://www.moralfoundations.org/index.php?t=home

So, why does this all matter to us as critical thinkers?  There are a host of reasons, but here are two important ones:  The first is that understanding the role of systems of belief in an argument can help  make us aware of biases in the premises (both our opponents argument and in our own).  The second is that understanding an opponent's bias can give us hints as to how we might sway the opponent to our own point of view.

Mommy?  What's a Bias?
A bias is an "inclination or prejudice for or against" some fact or point of view.  In arguments, what this means is that we are prone to giving undue favour or neglect to some fact or point of view.  Everybody does this (except me); it's part of being a human being.

There is a wealth of evidence in the psychological "litra-cha" demonstrating that we begin with our position first then collect or reject evidence and reasons to support that pre-existing position.  Our pre-existing position is usually grounded in emotion/preferences rather that "Reason."  The more emotional our investment in an issue, the greater the likelihood that some kind of bias has crept into our supporting arguments--in attributing either undue strength to a supporting assertion or in overlooking or dismissing  contrary reasons or evidence.

Biases:  Too Illegit to Quit?
We've established people (except me) have biases.  Now what?  Do we automatically rejet everybody's arguments 'cuz they're biased?  Nope.

We can make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate biases.  The distinction will depend mostly on how opposing reasons, evidence, and arguments are portrayed, and if there are any intentional important omissions.  As you might have guessed an illegitimate bias is one in which the arguer poorly or dishonestly represents the aforementioned elements, or if the bias leads to weak logical connections between premises and the conclusion.  Any website or blog with a strong political bias in either direction will provide excellent samples of arguments with illegitimate biases.

A legitimate bias is simply favoring a point of view but not in a way such that the opposing position is misrepresented.  It allows an impartial observer to fairly evaluate the proposed point of view.  For example, I think everyone should be allowed to own an assault riffle bow that fires swords for self-defense.   That's my point of view.

My argument is that they are not prohibited by the Constitution, therefore, they should be legal.  My opponents reply that the 2nd Amendment isn't about arms for personal self-defense but for a well-regulated militia that should be controlled by the Gov't.  They'd also argue that just because a small group of people a few hundred years ago voted on something, doesn't mean that we need to accept it now.  Societies and circumstances change, and the best laws reflect that.  Notice that even though I'm biased toward people owning assault rifle bows that fire swords, I don't distort the opposing arguments.

Vested Interests
A vested interest is when an arguer (or someone paying the arguer) stands to benefit from their point of view being accepted.  When vested interests are involved there's a very high likelihood of illegitimate bias.

For example, when certain industries spend millions of dollars to pay lobbyists and "donate" to politicians, we can be fairly certain that their arguments for special treatment or exemption contain illegitimate biases.

Not all vested interests need be financial.  One might be motivated by the desire for power, fame, revenge, attention, sex, etc.. or to get out of trouble/prove one's innocence.

We should be cautious of dismissing arguments out of hand just because the arguer has a vested interest in the outcome.  That they have a vested interest tells us nothing about the argument's validity which should be evaluated independently   When there is a vested interest, it simply means we should be extra cautious about illegitimate biases (and omissions).

Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest is a vested interest on steroids; i.e., when vested interests are extreme.  In such cases there is usually an ethical issue involved too, and in professional settings, conflicts of interest have to be disclosed.

For example, in medical research if a university study of a drug is funded by the company that produces the drug, this is a conflict of interests for the researchers.  It must be disclosed at the beginning of any research that is produced.

An important recent example of a conflict of interest in medicine that wasn't disclosed was Andrew Wakefield's anti-vaccine research article in the Lancet.  What he did not disclose in his research was that he had been paid several millions of dollars to do research on vaccines by a company that was developing an alternative to the conventional vaccine.    

There was a clear conflict of interest because he stood to gain so much if his research showed that conventional vaccines are unsafe and that the company that had funded the research was developing an alternative.

In the end, his results were never replicated, his methods shown to be unethical, his data drawn from a statistically insignificant sample size (12 children), and the article was subsequently retracted by the publisher.  However,  because of the fear that came about because of his "research," there was and continues to be tremendous damage to public health.

Summary:  
We all have biases.  What matters is the degree to which they distort the presentation of evidence and reasons in arguments both for and against the arguers position.  Biases are illegitimate when they cause distortion such that arguments cannot be fairly evaluated..  

Critical Thinking: Systems of Belief 2: Know Your Audience

Review
Hey guys, in the last section we looked at systems of belief from the point of view of the arguer.  Doing so helps us to become better critical thinkers in two important ways: 

(a)  it helps us to identify what might be hidden assumptions in the argument that we might (i) attack or (ii) (if we agree with the position) try to strengthen.  

(b) When we turn a critical eye on our own beliefs and values, understanding systems of belief allows us to identify premises or beliefs that might not be accepted at face value by our opponent(s).  If we can identify these elements, we can anticipate where our opponent will attack our argument and launch a pre-emptive defensive strike by strengthening those premises/assumptions.

One final review note is to recall the elements that influence our system of belief (often unbeknownst to us). They include things like: race, sex, nationality, culture, language, family, economic class, social class, religion/non-religion, peer group, career, education, and whether you like cilantro or not. 

Systems of Belief and the Audience
Obviously facts about the person making the argument are important (especially when it's me!) but as critical thinkers and arguers it's also good to consider the system of belief of the audience to whom the argument is addressed.  

There are two general ways to "chop up" the concept of 'audience': (a) according to clusters of values and (b) according to anticipated receptivity to our argument.

When we consider an audience as a group that shares common beliefs and values we call this a specific audience.  Some examples would be Catholics, faculty, Democrats, hockey fans, the NRA, the ACLU, Hispanics, tourists, people that live in Summerlin, philosophers, and so on.  There are often specific audiences within larger specific audiences.  For example, Republicans are a sub-group of American, and 'Ron-Paul Republican' is a sub-group of Republicans.  Wherever there are 'clumps' of values, there are specific audiences.

A universal audience is more of an abstract concept than an actual blood and flesh audience.  While it's debatable that there is a set of (non-trivial) values that unite everyone, you should think of a universal audience as "the common person." As an arguer addressing a universal audience, you'd want to begin with assumptions/values/beliefs that just about any rational person could agree to (such as pizza makes us happy).

Suppose you were a Ron-Paul-lovin', Ayn-Rand-worshipping, pick-up-truck-drivin' Libertarian and you wanted to logically explain to a Karl Marx-lovin', Grateful dead-listenin', group-hug hippy Liberal why there should be no restrictions on the right to bear arms.  It might do you some good to consider something about your audience's values and basic assumptions.  Much of what you might say about gun rights would take for granted things that those damn hippies would object to! 

So, what should you do? Well, what you'd want to do is "construct an argument that makes an effort to respond to your audiences convictions and concerns" (p. 19).  If you begin with premises/assumptions/values that you share with the hippies, then you stand a chance of working an argument that they will at least consider.  

Conversely, if you begin your reasoning with premises that bear no relation to those of your audience, they won't even try to follow your reasoning because you are beginning with premises to which they don't agree.

Key point:  A good argument is sensitive to the values/beliefs/convictions of the intended audience.  A good arguer will modify their argument depending on the audience.

Three Types of Audiences based on Receptivity:
Generally we can distinguish between 3 types of audience based on (anticipated) degree of receptivity to the argument. 

A sympathetic audience probably already agrees with many of the values connected to the conclusion of the argument.  For example, if I'm arguing against abortion to a group of evangelical christians, I probably don't have to spend much time arguing for the premise that a fetus is a person with rights.

An open audience does not share our position but is open to considering it.  Such audiences generally don't have values so disparate from those of the arguer.  We don't have to search too hard to find common ground in values and beliefs from which we may begin to reason toward our argument.

A hostile audience does not share our position or many of our values and beliefs and is not open to considering it.  For obvious reasons this is the toughest type of audience to argue with.  When common beliefs and values are scarce, it is difficult to find a starting point from which to begin.  Some political debates can appear this way because some groups value individual autonomy over collective needs.  When differences are so fundamental, it's hard to know where to begin.  

Also, with a hostile audience, because the differences in beliefs and values are so fundamental, they are central to that group's identity.  Relinquishing those values might mean leaving the group, something to which most are adverse. The emotional component makes arguing with a hostile audience even more difficult because heightened emotions often shut us off to 'reason'.

The Flip Side
While it is very helpful to take into account your audiences' beliefs and values, we should be cautious not to exploit them.  We see this happen all the time with cults, psychics, medical quackery, and--of course--politics.  An unscrupulous cult leader or "psychic" can appeal to an audiences' values for reasons of exploitation.  

Recall from previous lessons that most of our values and beliefs are acquired uncritically as a result of how we experience the world.  Because of their uncritical origins, we are often eager to assent with anyone who shares our beliefs/values.  Right?  Now look into my eyes and give me all your money!

However, while you might be able to pursued a particular audience with an argument that appeals to specific values, once you try to apply that same argument to a broader audience, you will surely encounter resistance!

Conclusion
The lesson here is that it is important to take into account the values and beliefs of your audience in how you present your argument.  The most effective arguments begin with the values and beliefs shared by the specific audience at which the argument is targeted.  And then, using reason, reasons, and evidence you lead them down the garden path into the waiting jaws of your conclusion.

A caveat is that, while your argument should be tailored to a specific audience, it should not rely so heavily on the beliefs and values of that audience such that a more general audience wouldn't take the argument seriously. 

Critical Thinking: Arguers and Systems of Belief

Review: 
In the last post we gave a formal definition to an argument:  a set of reasons and evidence that support a conclusion.  We also discussed the two main components of an argument: the premises and the conclusion.  Recall that the conclusion is the central claim that the arguer is trying to make.  If they do their job well, they will support that claim with relevant premises (i.e., reasons and evidence).  If they don't, they might as well just be waiving their hands in the air and jumping up and down.

In this next section we will look at how certain facts about the person or group making an argument influences various aspects their argument.

Arguers and Systems of Belief
Overview
As much as many of us would like to think we are objective thinkers, we often are not.  Hume famously argued that "reason is slave to the passions."  The general idea is this:  We begin with a position that we are emotionally attached to and we collect evidence and arguments to support what we already believe.  This is as opposed to how most people think they operate; that is, collect evidence and consider reasons and then see where that leads.  There is a wealth of psychological research showing that Hume was right about most people, most of the time.

Mommy, Where do Beliefs Come from?
As we go through our early life, we uncritically acquire a "web" of beliefs based on experiences.  How we experience the world, and the types of experiences we have depend heavily on things out of our control.  Typical elements that form our system of belief include: race, culture, socio-economic class, attractiveness, gender, education, family life, religion/non-religion, nationality, geography, and so on.

Often, before our ability to reason develops, may of these beliefs become central to our identity.  To have them shown to be false would be to admit that something important to our identity is false.  Having our identity come under scrutiny is often an emotionally painful experience and so we vigorously protect the beliefs that form the core of our identity--often ignoring contravening reasons and evidence.

So, why does this all matter?  Because when it comes to arguments about things that are really important to us, our arguments are often driven by emotion rather than reason and even-handed evaluation of reasons and evidence.  So, on such issues, instead of entering the debate with the attitude, "well, lets look at the reasons and evidence for both positions and evaluate which is best," what often happens is we enter a debate with a pre-existing particular position.  We then use arguments to defend the position that we already held--no matter the relative quality of argument for the other position.

In other words, we are emotionally attached to a conclusion before any real critical thought begins.  From that conclusion, we use argumentation, reason, logic to arrive where we already were!  Our reason is slave to the passions; i.e., reason serves to justify the positions we already hold.  Or, to paraphrase Hume again, "man is not the rational animal but the rationalizing animal."

(Note: There are several recent trends in psychology and philosophy that argue that rather than having a distorting effect, emotions play an important role in various domains such as social and ethical reasoning.)

Now, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with holding a position on an issue, however, what is important is to be aware of how our web of beliefs and emotions influence our ability to effectively argue for a position and evaluate the issue. 

Elements of a Web of Belief
As critical thinkers we need to pay close attention to how a person's web of beliefs influences the assumptions they will make; that is, what sorts of things will they take for granted. For example, in the abortion debate, opponents of abortion will often take it for granted that a fetus is a person.  This assumption stems from many facts about their personal history.  Such facts might include: race, religiosity and religion (or lack of), gender, sex, education, career, and socio-economic class.

Some proponents of abortion might even agree that fetus is in some ways a person.  But for them the desires of the autonomous woman carrying the fetus outweigh those of the fetus.  But is this a scientific question where someone in a lab coat can put all the fetus' desires into a beaker and put all the pregnant woman's desires into another then put them on a scale and measure which have more weight?  No.  To demonstrate that one set of desires has more weight than the other requires argument--and that argument must begin from common premises if opposing sides are to have any hope of agreement. 

For many people in this debate, the answer to this question will depend heavily upon the different elements that helped to build that individual's web of beliefs.  Their position will likely not come out of having spent month studying the academic literature on the issue and carefully evaluating the arguments on all sides.  It is for this reason that arguers must seek and begin with common ground with their opponents.

Why Do the Elements that Build Someone's System of Belief Matter?
How to Win an Argument
What is interesting is that based on a person's web of beliefs we can sometimes "reverse engineer" some of the elements that influenced their web of beliefs and also identify what many of their unstated assumptions are.  Doing so can be an important step in deciding how to engage with the arguer.

If our goal is to show our opponent why his argument is problematic or persuade him to our point of view, you must be able search for and identify common ground from which you can build to your conclusion rather than his.  If you both begin from different assumptions, no progress will ever likely be made!

A key to bringing someone to your point of view is to find common assumptions (premises) and show how your conclusion, rather than your opponents follows from these assumptions.

How to be a Philosopher
A true philosopher seeks truth above all else--or at least (non-foolish) consistency.  While we can use our understanding of systems of beliefs and the elements that form them, we can also use this information on ourselves.

It would be foolish to think that magically we are the only ones without ideological blind spots and unexamined assumptions!  Introspection on how our own gender, culture, religion/non-religion, family, education, career, peer group, etc... shape the way we experience the world (and in turn our beliefs and assumptions about it) is a valuable exercise. Doing so allows us to see where we have uncritically accepted certain views.

I can give a recent example in my own life.  Because I grew up agnostic/atheist and most of my friends are agnostic/atheist, for most of my life I've tended to see religion as a harmful thing.  However, over the last half-year or so, I've seen and experienced religion in different contexts beyond something to criticize.

My study of the role community in restoration of criminals to productive members of society has led me to see religion as a (positive) powerful force for bringing the elements of community necessary for restoration.  While I doubt you'll find me in the pews any time soon, re-evaluating some of my assumptions about religion has changed my system of beliefs and many of my fundamental assumptions toward religion.

Interestingly, it was the emotional impact of reading about and experiencing (I went to a church with a friend to experience it) how the community elements of religion can change lives for the better in ways that might be much more difficult (but not impossible) for secular society.   In short, this is more evidence that much of what Hume said was right.  It is our emotions that lead our reason, not the other way around.

Next week we will read an article by J. Haidt, a psychologist, who gives empirical evidence for Hume's idea that we often can't change peoples deeply held views by reasoning, it must be through emotion.

Critical Thinking: Case Study on How to Lay the Smack Down

So, this meme has been floating around the intertubes for a couple of years. It popped up again in my feed. It's such a great example of a poor argument. I've commented on it before, but not to the degree that you will soon experience. In the comments section, a friend and former roommate of mine from U of H gave a pretty good example of how to deconstruct a poor argument. So, sit back and enjoy, how to lay the smack down on facebook with Seth Robertson:


Note: I want to make clear that my intent (in this particular post) is not to post things that are deliberately anti-religious. The fact that this meme has to do with religion is incidental. The main point is that this meme is a poor argument for the existence of God and does not adequately address the professor's concerns. This does not necessarily imply there is no God, it only suggests that the particular argument in the meme is a poor one to use as an argument for God's existence. There are also poor atheist arguments, and as I see them in my news feed, I will post them too. And again, a poor argument against there being a god doesn't mean we ought to conclude that there is one. It only tells us that the particular argument being used is a poor one.


That said, we should not suppose that arguments are irrelevant to what we should or should not believe. In perennial issues, such as God's existence, while we should not attach our assent or dissent to just one argument, we should be sensitive to the relative strength of arguments on either side. That sensitivity should be reflected in the degree of certainty we hold in certain beliefs.

First read the argument (dialectic) then check out my friend's comments which I've posted below.

Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent.)

Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ?

Student : From … GOD …

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn’t.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?

Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.

Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.

Seth's Comments:
Problems with this letter:

1. Einstein never did this. It does not even match with Einstein's religious beliefs. Einstein was agnostic.

2. If this was a real professor, he should be reprimanded or fired for harassing a student.

3. If this was a real professor, he should be reprimanded or fired for being a total idiot.

3. If this was a philosophy professor, he'd be the worst philosopher ever. Excluding Heidegger.

4. The professor begins with a very poorly articulated version of the infamous"problem of evil." A better version of it goes like this. God is always good (all-good). If one has the power, it is good to intervene to stop an evil thing from happening. God has the power to do anything (all-powerful). But there is evil in the world, which means that God did not intervene (even though he could have, because he is all-powerful. That means that there is a good thing that God didn't do. So God is not simultaneously all-good and all-powerful.

5. This "problem of evil" is a big deal. It is such a big deal that not only does it have its own name, but attempted solutions to it have their own name (theodicies). It's not easy to solve.

6. Even if it was easy to solve, the student never even tries. At no point does he offer a counter-argument to the problem of evil. Personally, I think it is possible to solve the problem of evil. The student doesn't bother. That's no way to win an argument.

7. The professor then says " Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you." Actually, science doesn't say that. We clearly have more than five senses. In addition to the obvious five, there are also senses like balance and proprioception (you can close your eyes, move your hand to the left, and still tell roughly where your hand is). In fact, I think the commonly agreed upon number of senses for now is somewhere around 20 or 21.

8. Next, the professor gives a just terrible argument that no agnostic or atheist one in her right mind would make. It goes like this: We don't perceive God with sight, smell, taste, sound, or touch, so "science says" God does not exist. Evidently, by "science," the professor means some version of hyper-radical empiricism that no scientist ever actually believed in. If we could only believe in the existence of things that we personally perceived, I would not be justified in believing that my great-great grandfather existed, or that atoms existed, or that planets that were too far away to see with the naked eye existed.

9. The more philosophically robust version of the terrible argument that the professor ran goes like this: as science progresses, we create new scientific theories that explain phenomenon naturalistically that were previously thought of as only explainable supernaturallistically. Thus, there is less and less of a motivation to posit a theoretical supernatural entity as the cause of events in our world.

10. Let me re-emphasize that no scientist thinks that we are only justified in believing things that we can directly perceive.

11. The student then goes on to deploy some quasi-Augustinian argument about the nature of heat and light. He says that "heat is energy." More accurately it is molecular kinetic energy. But whatevs. The student then says that cold is the absence of heat, so there is no such thing as cold. This is a non-sequiter. There is such a thing as "cold." It is roughly any atmosphere below a certain threshold of molecular kinetic energy. It is subjective to humans, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

12. The student does the same thing with light. I swear, the only point of this section is to rehash an ancient argument provided by Augustine that the author must have thought was neat because it is totally irrelevant to any point. The student says , "In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?" Again, this is a non-sequiter. Just because "darkness" occurs when there is lower than a certain threshold of light particles and reflective surfaces does not mean that "darkness" does not exist.

13. Same thing with death.

14. The student tries to get to the point. It seems to be that the problem of evil assumes duality. Well, Christianty cerainly assumes duality in many cases too (heaven & hell, right and wrong, for example).

15. The student says "Science can't even explain a thought." Wait what?

16. The student says "To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing" Aww, that is very touching and profound. But it has absolutely nothing to do with anything the professor said.

17. The student then tries to turn the tables on the professor, but arguing that unobserved entities and processes do exist. This is actually fair. The problem is that his individual arguments are so bad.

18. The student says " Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor." What? We've observed evolution happening tons and tons and tons of time.

19. The student then says "Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?" This implies that evolutionary theory is just an opinion. If you're a creationist, fine, but evolutionary theory is not "just like your opinion, man." Further, at the collegiate level, it is very common for professors to give a lecture about their opinions on certain matters. That's why they are professors.

20. "(The class was in uproar.)" Yeah right. If this actually happened, everyone would be sitting there, abashed, waiting for this student to get down off her pulpit so class can continue. It would be awkwardly silent, not uproarious. Also, hopefully, students would transfer out of the class because the professor is a moron.

21. The student asks if anyone has seen the professor's brain. There is a dis-analogy between this argument and the "we-can't-observe-God-so-he-doesn't-exist" argument. We could, in principle, observe the professors brain. It'd be easy. It would not be so easy to observe God.

22. Then, it says "The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving." Is this really a Christian principle? That it is faith that keeps things alive and moving? Then who do unfaithful people live or move around? There are lots of them. And they're living. And they are moving. If there were no people, there could be no faith. But the planets would still move. And plants would still live. So this claim must be false.


In conclusion, this "article" is really problematic. If Christians want to be afforded any intellectual respect, we / they can't keep arguing against idiot strawmen like the "professor" from the article. Christians as a whole have to stop their anti-intellectualism - if they have any faith at all they should believe that the things they believe in would be proven by science, given enough time. Instead, they'd rather forward chain letters containing no real substance, but managing to make the Christian reader feel giddy that some down-home country boy sitting in that great cesspit of sin (the American college classroom) had proved the atheist college professor (who probably had pre-marital sex and voted for Obama) wrong.


Oh yeah. And that down-home country boy in the American college classroom / cesspit of sin was Einstein.

Critical Thinking: Defining an Argument, Premises, and Conclusions

Defining an Argument
Argument: vas is das? For most of us when we hear the word 'argument' we think of something we'd rather avoid.  As it is commonly understood, an argument involves some sort of unpleasant confrontation (well, maybe not always unpleasant--it can feel pretty good when you win!).  While this is one notion of 'argument,' it's (generally) not what the term refers to in philosophy.

In philosophy what we mean by argument is "a set of reasons offered in support of a claim."  An argument, in this narrower sense, also generally implies some sort of structure.  For now we'll ignore the more particular structural aspects and focus on the two primary elements that make up an argument: premises and conclusions.

Lets talk about conclusions first because their definition is pretty simple.  A conclusion is the final assertion that is supported with evidence and reasons.  What's important is the relationship between premises and conclusions.  The premises are independent reasons and evidence that support the conclusion.  In an argument, the conclusion should follow from the premises.

Lets consider a simple example:
Reason (1): Everyone thought Miley Cyrus' performance was a travesty. 
Reason (2):  Some people thought her performance was offensive.
Conclusion:  Therefore, some people thought her performance was both a travesty and offensive.
Notice that so long as we accept reason 1 and reason 2 as true, then we must also accept the conclusion.  This is what we mean by "the conclusion 'follows' from the premises."

Lets examine premises a little more closely.  A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the conclusion of the argument.  In the context of arguments we can use 'reasons', 'evidence', and 'premises' interchangeably.  For example, if my conclusion is that dogs are better pets than cats, I might offer the following reasons:

(P1) dogs are generally more affectionate than cats and
(P2) dogs are more responsive to their owners' commands than cats.

From my two premises, I infer my conclusion that

(C) dogs are better pets than cats.

Lets return to the definition of an argument.  Notice that in the definition, I've said that arguments are a set of reasons.  While this isn't always true, generally, a good argument will generally have more than one premise.  

Heuristics for Identifying Premises and Conclusions
Now that we know what each concept is, lets look at how to identify each one as we might encounter them "in nature" (e.g., in an article, in a conversation, in a meme, in a homework exercise, etc...).  First I'll explain each heuristic, then I'll apply them to some examples.

Identifying conclusions:  
The easiest way to go about decomposing arguments is to first try to find the conclusion.  This is a good strategy because there is usually only one conclusion so, if we can identify it, it means the rest of the passage are premises. For this reason, most of the heuristics focus on finding the conclusion.  

Heuristic 1:  Look for the most controversial statement in the argument.  The conclusion will generally be the most controversial statement in the argument.  If you think about it, this makes sense.  Typically arguments proceed by moving from assertions (i.e., premises) the audience agrees with then showing how these assertions imply something that the audience might not have previously agreed with.

Heuristic 2:  The conclusion is usually a statement that takes a position on an issue.  By implication, the premises will be reasons that support the position on the issue (i.e., the conclusion).  A good way to apply this heuristic is to ask "what is the arguer trying to get me to believe?".  The answer to this question is generally going to be the conclusion.

Heuristic 3:   The conclusion is usually (but not always) the first or last statement of the argument. 

Heuristic 4:  The "because" test.  Use this method you're having trouble figuring which of 2 statements is the conclusion.  The "because" test helps you figure out which statement is supporting which.  Recall that the premise(s) always supports the conclusion.  This method is best explained by using an example.  Suppose you encounter an argument that goes something like this:

It's a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit.  It tastes delicious.  Also, lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer

Suppose you're having trouble deciding what the conclusion it.  You've eliminated "it tastes delicious" as a candidate but you still have to choose between "it's a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit" and "lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer".  To use the because test, read one statement after the other but insert the word "because" between the two and see what makes more sense.  Lets try the two possibilities:

A:  It's a good idea to eat lots of amazonian jungle fruit because lots of facebook posts say that it cures cancer.

B:  Lots of facebook posts say that amazonian jungle fruit cures cancer because it's a good idea to eat lots of it. 

Which makes more sense?  Which is providing support for which?  

The answer is A.  Lots of facebook posts saying something is a reason (i.e. premise) to believe that it's a good idea to eat amazonian jungle fruit--despite the fact that it's not a very good reason...

Identifying the Premises
Heuristic 1:  Identifying the premises once you've identified the conclusion is cake.  Whatever isn't contained in the conclusion is either a premise or "filler" (i.e., not relevant to the argument).  We will explore the distinguishing between filler and relevant premises a bit later, so don't worry about that distinction for now.

Example 1
Gun availability should be regulated. Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too.http://listverse.com/2013/04/21/10-arguments-for-gun-control/

Ok, lets try heuristic #1.  What's the most controversial statement?  For most Americans, it is probably that "gun availability should be regulated."  This is probably the conclusion.  Just for fun lets try out the other heuristics.

Heuristic #2 says we should find a statement that takes a position on an issue.  Hmmm... the issue seems to be gun control, and the arguer takes a position.  Both heuristics converge on "gun availability should be regulated."

Heuristic #3 says the conclusion will usually be the first or last statement.  Guess what? Same result as the other heuristics.

Heuristic #4.  
A:  Gun availability should be regulated because people with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you. 

Or

B:  People with easy access to guns are more likely to kill you because gun availability should be regulated.

A is the winner.

The conclusion in this argument is well established.  It follows that what's left over are premises (support for the conclusion):
(P1)  If your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, they’re more likely to kill you than if they don’t have access. 
(P2)  Studies show that P1 is true, not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. 
(C)  Gun availability should be regulated.

Example 2
If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns. This means only “bad” guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage. Gun control is a bad idea.
Heuristic #1:  What's the most controversial statement? Probably "gun control is a bad idea."

Heuristic #2: Which statement takes a position on an issue? "Gun control is a bad idea."

Heuristic #3:  "Gun control is a bad idea" is last and also passed heuristic 1 and 2.  Probably a good bet as the conclusion. 

Heuristic #4:  
A: If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns because gun control is a bad idea.

OR

B: Gun control is a bad idea because if you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

The winner is B, therefore, "gun control is a bad idea" is the conclusion. 

All 4 heuristics point to "gun control is a bad idea" as being the conclusion therefore we can safely infer that the other statements are premises:

(P1)   If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will have guns.

(P2)   This means only “bad” guys would have guns, while good people would by definition be at a disadvantage.
(C)     Gun control is a bad idea.

Looking Ahead
Also, many arguments can also contain what are called 'hidden', 'unstated,' or 'assumed' premises.

To understand the notion of a hidden premise lets look at (P1).  Can you find the hidden premise?  Here it is: (HP1) What makes a good pet is that it is affectionate.  This is an assumption that displays the values of the arguer.  (Note: hidden premises might not always be about values.)

However, there may be people who don't value affection as a marker of being a good pet.  Maybe for some people what makes a good pet is that it is clean or self-reliant.  So, a huge part of being a good critical thinker is to look beyond the stated premises and to try to find the assumed premises.  When we do this, the task of assessing the relative strength and weaknesses of an argument's premises (and, in turn, the argument itself) becomes much easier.

A cat lover could now counter the dog-as-better-pets argument by showing that the hidden assumption upon which the relevance of (P1) relies isn't universally true, and therefore the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

So, the cat lover can show that (C) (dogs are better than cats) doesn't necessarily follow from (P1) (dogs are more affectionate than cats) because (P1) is only relevant to the conclusion if we also assume that affection-giving is a key determinant of 'good pet-ness'.  In other words, the dog proponent's argument only works if we also accept their hidden assumption/premise. 

However, showing that (C) doesn't follow from (P1) doesn't mean (C) is false, nor does it show the contrary, that cats are better pets than dogs, it only shows that "dogs are better pets than cats" can't be established through this particular argument.

In other words, it could very well be true that dogs are better pets than cats but this argument doesn't show it.  In order to prove that dogs are better than cats we'd need a different argument. 

This brings us to an interesting point which I'll discuss in the next section: systems of belief, biases, and values.  When (as often happens) arguments involve values, evaluating an argument as 'true' or 'false' becomes difficult because it is an open question whether a value (that is supporting a major premise or conclusion) can be 'right' or 'wrong'.  This is more a question for ethics, but as far as being good critical thinkers goes, it  is extremely important to be able to recognize when and how a premise or conclusion is ultimately supported by a value judgement, bias, or system of belief.

The next post will give an overview of systems of belief, biases, and values, and their role in arguments and critical thinking.

Summary:
An argument is a set of reasons or evidence offered in support of a claim.

A premise is an individual reason or piece of evidence offered in support of a conclusion.

A conclusion is the claim that follows from or is supported by the premise(s).

Key ideas:
1) Just because a conclusion is true, it doesn't mean that the argument in support of the conclusion is a good one (i.e. valid).  Truth and justification are two different things!

2)  Be on the alert for hidden premises!