The Ground Beneath Our Feet: Foundations of Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning
MINDS ON
“
Skepticism is the first step on the road to philosophy.
~ Denis Diderot, French philosopher of the Enlightenment period.
In philosophy, “skepticism” is the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
Now, some schools of Philosophy intentionally seek out to address this skepticism - such as empiricism (definition:the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.)but, in general, having a healthy dose of doubt is generally necessary when engaged in the study of Philosophy. This is because Philosophy, unlike Science, often addresses issues that defy empirical evidence and testable hypotheses.
This is where philosophical reasoning comes into play.
Reasoning is the set of processes that enables us to go beyond the information given, especially when the world around us does not always give us complete information. For example, look at the following images – what is happening here?
Reasoning
Reasoning is the process of thinking about something in a rational way in order to form a conclusion or judgment.
Look at the three images in sequence as presented above.
1. What do you think is the scenario in each image?
2. What assumptions did you make, based on the information given?
3. Explain your reasoning. In other words, explain how you arrived at your answer to these discussion prompts.
This information should be archived as you may refer back to it later.
ACTION
Philosophical Reasoning
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. For example, you may have overheard someone engaged in a discussion say, “Look, be reasonable.” When people make this comment, they are usually asking others to:
- be open to changing their minds;
- avoid bias;
- think logically;
- dig deeper for the truth, whether they like that truth or not; and/or
- set aside narrow-mindedness, superstitions, magical thinking, and impulsiveness.
Philosophical reasoning then, at its root, is about engaging in discourse - one that asks the participants to argue a point, a thought, an issue, with logic. You will need to learn how to discuss philosophical questions the way philosophers do, as presented in, “How to Argue,” a video created by Crash Course.
Parts of an Argument
What constitutes an argument?
Well, as simple and yet as odd as this may sound, arguments are composed of sentences. In fact, they are made up of a particular type of sentence, known as a proposition.
A proposition is a declarative sentence - or statement - that has a truth value. To be more precise, a proposition is a sentence that expresses facts that can be either true or false. For example, “Today is Tuesday” or, “It is very hot today.” Now, it could be Tuesday, so this statement would therefore be perfectly true. No one would argue with it. This statement, then, is NOT a proposition. However, a statement such as,"It is very hot today" is debatable. Is it "very" hot today? Well, that is a statement that one could quibble about depending on an individual's tolerance for heat. What is ‘very hot” for one person, might be a perfectly pleasant day for another - and we could argue about that point.
Are there kinds of sentences that are not propositions?
Yes. Questions, commands, exclamations, etc., are all types of sentences that are not propositions because they lack a truth value. Examples include “Go open the door!” and “What is today’s date?”
These types of sentences fall outside of our criteria.
Typically, most of the propositions in an argument state facts or provide information which supports the claim being made. These propositions are known as premises - a proposition serving as a reason for a conclusion. The following statement is an example of this: "Since the housing market is depressed and interest rates are low, it's a good time to buy a home."
The claim being made is known as the conclusion of the argument - a proposition that is supported or entailed by a set of premises.
Arguments always have one conclusion, but the number of premises can vary quite a bit.
Types of Arguments
Philosophers distinguish between two broad methods of arguing: deductive and inductive. The deductive method moves from the more general to the specific, whereas the inductive method moves from a specific case to a more general conclusion.
| Deductive Arguments | Inductive Arguments |
|---|---|
|
Deductive arguments are supposed to be watertight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be valid) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. The classical example of a deductively valid argument is:
It is simply not possible that both 1 and 2 are true and 3 is false, so this argument is deductively valid. |
Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. An example of a strong inductive argument would be:
We are not 100% certain that the conclusion is true, but it is more than likely, based on past outcomes, that the conclusion is true. |
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Let’s imagine the following scenario:
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Each of them cares more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. “You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent, I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, she (or he) will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.
You are Tanya - what do you do?
Steps:
- Explain what you chose to do - and your reasons for this decision.
- Record your analysis in your Philosopher's Notebook, using the following prompts.
- How did you validate your reasoning?
- What premises did you put forth?
- What claims were made?
- Were your arguments deductive or inductive?
Logical Fallacies - What They Are, and How to Avoid Them
Simply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning.
For example, say people try to argue with you and base their positions on a bad piece of reasoning - not information, but reasoning - in other words, how they assert their position, or try to persuade you to come around to their way of thinking.
For example: There is a huge Math midterm exam in two days. You are concerned that you are going to fail and mess up your overall average - an average that you need to maintain to get into the college you want. While you are walking through the cafeteria, wondering how to rearrange your schedule so you can get maximum prep time, someone from class whom you barely know calls you over to a table. Turns out that particular someone got a copy of the mid-term and offers you a copy. Now, leave alone the ethical issue here (we will get back to that in another unit). You decline, saying that you don’t think it is right. This person then argues with you and wants to know what the big deal is - says to you, “Look, everyone else is doing it, so it's not like it’s really cheating if we all have the same edge.”
That is an example of bad reasoning. That classmate is using what is known as “the bandwagon fallacy” or “authority of the many.” She or he is trying to persuade you that if an idea is popular, or if many people believe it is right, then it must be right.
So logical fallacies are not about the content of the argument - we will cover that later - they are about the reasoning that individuals use to justify why they think that they are right.
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Fallacies can be categorized as either formal or informal.
| Formal Fallacies | Informal Fallacies |
|---|---|
| Earlier in this activity, we stated that deductive arguments are supposed to be “watertight” - meaning that the argument is unable to be disputed or questioned. Therefore, any deductive argument that fails this standard is technically flawed and is thus incorrect. Such an argument is committing a logical error and is a deductive fallacy. | Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. This means that all inductive arguments, even the good ones, are deductively flawed. So, to distinguish between a “good” or “bad” argument, we speak more in terms of “strong” and “weak.” So an informal fallacy has more to do with whether the critical thinking behind an argument was “weak” or “strong.” |
Examples of Logical Fallacies
Below is a chart of some of the more common logical fallacies you may have encountered. This list is not conclusive, and you will have to conduct some research on your own to get a more complete description and example for those listed, but this should give you an idea of how often these fallacies occur in arguments.
To further assist you, the fallacies have been categorized based on the cause of the fallacy such as relevance (definition:Some logical fallacies are caused by assuming that all parts are equally important and, since some parts are important and true, all parts must be important and true.), ambiguity (definition:A logical fallacy can be caused by a lack of clarity or by a misunderstanding of the words.), or presumption(definition:Presumption of truth without proof can cause a logical fallacy.).
LogicalFallacies
Defining and Curing Logical Fallacies
Understanding a logical fallacy often requires deconstructing it: this means to pull it apart and point out the error in logic or reasoning.
For this exercise, you will need to complete the following steps:
- Find an example of a logical fallacy in modern media - this could be advertising, comedy, cartoons, comics, politics, etc.
- Describe and explain how the logical fallacy is present in your example.
- Explain how you would “cure” this logical fallacy by addressing what a logical and reasonable argument would look like, instead. For example:
Bandwagon fallacy: An argument is only appealing because of its growing popularity. For example, you are being asked to accept an argument based on peer pressure.
Example: Hey, everyone else is cheering for the Cowboys, so let’s do it too!
Cure: It is improbable that “everyone” is cheering for the same team. If you prefer a different team, don’t let others coerce you into doing or thinking their way because it is critical that one thinks for oneself.
CONSOLIDATION
Critical Thinking and Philosophy
Philosophy’s Dangers and How to Avoid Them
Critical thinking about fundamental questions carries some dangers. Analysis taken to an extreme turns into empty word games and hair-splitting. To avoid this danger, remember that critical thinking skills are not ends in themselves, but tools of inquiry. You will use them to build arguments about the questions posed...and to evaluate the positions of others. It is also important that you respect others when they produce good reasons - especially when you disagree with their conclusions.
Raising fundamental questions about the meaning of life or good and evil can be a frustrating and disturbing experience. The best way to prevent philosophical anxiety is to keep an open mind.
From Philosophy: The Big Questions, Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., Toronto (2003).
As mentioned at the beginning of this activity, it is important to keep a healthy level of skepticism when engaged in philosophical discourse, but it needs to be balanced.
Arguing for the sake of arguing, or in order to badger your opponent into submission, is not the definition of “winning” an argument. In fact, if you want to expand your worldview through Philosophy, don’t think of “winning” at all - that isn’t the point.
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do, or what to believe. It is a tool that you must use to properly lay a foundation for philosophical inquiry - and not wield as a weapon.
Watch the following video by Geoff Pynn of Khan Academy, “Introduction to Critical Thinking,” to see how critical thinking is applied in an argument.
Learning Goals and Success Criteria
Learning Skills and Work Habits