PHL101: Critical Thinking
Lanigan Hall 104, MWF 11:15 - 12:25 p.m.
Professor: Craig DeLancey
Office: Piez Hall 225
Office Hours: MW 1:45 -- 3:15 p.m., most Fridays 1:45 -- 3:15 p.m., and by appointment
Email: delancey@oswego.edu
Past Assignments
26 August.Topic: Introduction; class structure; topics of the
course; Plato's Cave; the goal of Critical Reasoning. Assignment: read, if you can:
Jowett's translation of Plato's
Allegory of the Cave.
29 August. Topic: Kinds of claims. Assignment: read
Jowett's translation of Plato's
Allegory of the Cave.
31 August. Topics: Kinds of claims; introduction to
Observation and observation generalizations; observer bias.
Assignment: due, at the beginning of class, on a single page,
give one example of each kind of claim. Do not use an example from
class, but try to find one in the newspaper or some other print
publication. Label clearly the kind of claim it is, and then quote
the claim, and list your source.
2 September. Topics: Observation and observation
generalizations; mass observations and generalization.
7 September. Topics: Observation and observation generalizations; statistical sample; randomness; representativeness.
9 September. Topics: Observation and observation generalizations; probabilistic generalizations; gambler's fallacy.
12 September. Observation and observation generalizations. Other caveats with evaluation: witness examples. Memory fallibility. Interpretation.
14-16 September. Introduction to Arguments. Introduction to
deduction, validity, soundness.
19 September. Argument. Basic connectives.
21 September. Argument. Connectives continued. Symbolizing
arguments in English and basic proofs.
23 September. Argument. Connectives continued. Symbolizing arguments in English.
26 September. Quiz 1: observation and the notion of validity
and soundness. Study questions include:
- What kinds of claims are there?
- What do we mean when we stipulate that we will be concerned
primarily with determinate claims? That is, what is a determinate
claim?
- What are some of the sources of claims?
- What kinds of observations are there?
- Concerning generalizations made from observations:
what is a sample? What is it to be representative?
What is a random observation? What are the effects of
sample size on our generalizations?
- What are some of the biases and human failings that occur
when we make or evaluate:
- Particular occurent observation based claims
- Particular remembered observation based claims
- Generalization claims
- Probabilistic claims
- What is a valid argument? What is a sound argument?
- What is the truth table for conditionals (if...then...
statements)
For the exam, the mean was 37.4 and the standard deviation was 8.4.
28 September. Argument. Truth tables for other connectives.
30 September. Howework: symbolize and make a truth table for
the following arguments. Say which one is valid and which invalid.
Also, circle the relevant row of the truth table which shows if it is
valid or invalid. You will need to use your own common sense to
identify the premises and the conclusion.
- If Katrina is a category five hurricane, then
the levees will break. The levees will break. Katrina
is a category five hurricane.
- Either chocolate is good for you or it is bad for
you. Chocolate is not good for you. Chocolate is bad
for you.
- Tom will go to London just in case he goes to Paris.
Tom will go to Paris and Amsterdam. So, Tom will go to
London. [Warning: this requires a table with eight rows!]
- Congress can raise taxes if they can lower costs.
Congress can either lower costs or raise costs. Congress
cannot raise costs. Congress can raise taxes. [Warning:
this requires a table with eight rows!]
Scale used in grading this assignment: for each problem, 1
point for correct symbolization, 2 points for a correct table,
1 point to saying whether the argument was valid or not, and
1 point for circling the row(s) that showed whether it was
valid or not. Class grade: mean 12.6, standard deviation 4.8.
Class topic: review of arguments with truth tables. Example
of inference rules.
3 October. Fallacies.
5 October. Fallacies. Also, here's an optional
extra-credit assignment that will be due at the beginning of
class. Try your hand at using inference rules. Try to prove the
following two arguments using just inference rules. We forego the
translation step.
Argument 1:
~P
W v T
T
--> P
-----
W
Argument2:
R <--> S
~~S
R --> V
-----
V
Grading was done on a scale of 6 points, 2 for the first and 4
for the second proof.
10 October. Fallacies. Homework: find at least three
different examples, each of a different fallacy, in mass media
publications. You can print and highlight, but it would be better
to copy (cut and paste!) the relevant text and cite the source.
Give the relevant text, name the fallacy, and explain briefly why
this is an instance of the fallacy. To be handed in at the
beginning of class. Class topic: review fallacies; start theory
topic.
This was a tough assignment. It's clear that we could have used
more time with fallacies -- but the advantage of homework is that
we get to see where we are all most confused and can address the
confusion. Here's how I graded the assignment. If you used
sources on the web that were basically fallacy textbooks, I gave
you a zero. That is obviously not what I asked, nor is a logic
www site an example of mass media, and it really is tantamount to
cheating (or, at the very least, E-worthy laziness). Otherwise, I
gave 1 point for handing something in and 1 point per example for
having an example. Then, I gave 1 point if I could through
painful twists and turns of reason kind of sort of see how your
example might be appropriate, or 2 points if it is a nice clear
example and/or explained well. Mean was 5, standard deviation of
3. Here are some good examples of fallacies
that some of you found.
12 October.Scientific Method. Deductive nomological method
with falsificationism. Falsificationism.
14 October. No class.
17 October. Quiz on basics of deductive arguments. Topics
will include: what is a valid argument? What is a sound argument?
How should we define "and", "or", "if...then...", "...just in
case..." and "not..."? That is, what are the truth tables of
these connectives? Show an argument is valid or invalid using a
truth table. Identify the kind of fallacy in several reading
passages (all forms are fair questions: ad hominem, tu quoque, red
herring, appeal to ignorance, inappropriate slippery slope, straw
man, inconsistent or disputed definition, begging the question,
false dilemma, ad populum, genetic fallacy). Please
note, I waffled in class on whether I thought you should know
the truth tables that define the connectives, or on whether I
would include them on the test. I've decided I think you should
know them, if only because it is hard to understand the arguments
we have made if the meanings/definitions of the connectives are
not clear to you already.
The average was a 30, with a standard deviation of 11. Please
note the following: among those who did all 3 homeworks, the
average was 34; those who did just 2 averaged 29; those who did
just 1 averaged 24; and those who did no homeworks averaged 13.
Please note that these numbers do not count those people who were
too busy to come take the quiz (their zero will count, however,
against the final grade calculation, and greatly benefit the curve
for those who can wake up before 10:20).
19 October. Scientific Method. Falsificationism
clarified.
21 October. Randi! While watching, consider the following
questions: what are the cases of unfalsifiable claims that others
make to Randi? What are the cases where it seems likely that
observer expectation is shaping particular occurent observations?
Extra credit: identify and write on a sheet of paper three
instances of implicit unfalsifiable claims in the Randi video.
The claims will be implicit because they are unlikely to have been
stated clearly but are likely to be obvious (e.g., Palm reading
can predict your past and future). Explain clearly enough what
the implicit claim is, and why it cannot be falsified. Due
Wednesday 26 October at the beginning of class.
24 October. Scientific Method. Theory comparison.
Discussion of mistakes and observation. Review of the meaning of
falsificationism. Complicating the case: the Duhem thesis.
26 October. Scientific Method. Review of examples in
Randi. Duhem thesis.
28 October. Scientific Method. Duhem principle.
Review.
31 October. Quiz on scientific method. Questions will
cover such topics as: Describing the steps of the deductive
nomological method (e.g., as a series of steps); Duhem's addition
to the method; consequences for a hypothesis when predictions it
entails are found false, or when they are found true; criteria of
theory comparison, their order of importance, and what the
criteria mean; falsifiability; examples of unfalsifiable
statements and why they are a problem. Mean was 28.8, standard
deviation was 15.
2 November. Reports. The difference between evaluating
reports and our other evaluations (especially of arguments). A
series of observations and hypotheses: media consolidation, cost
cutting and the effects on information recycling; silent consent
to editing.
4 November. Reports. Observations and hypotheses
continued. Introduction to Herman and Chomsky's analysis.
7 November. Read Herman and Chomsky, pages 1-36.
There will be a short quiz at the beginning of class on this
chapter. Topic for lecture: introduction to Chomsky's analysis.
You will also find it helpful, although it is not required, to
read the introduction to Herman and Chomsky's book. While
reading chapter 1, ask yourself, according to Herman and Chomsky:
- What is the purpose of mass media (corporate media)?
- What are the five filters of the propoganda model?
- Do the reporters, editors, and so on who make media products
believe that they are producing propoganda?
Reading quiz
Topic for lecture: Chomsky's analysis.
9 November. Read Herman and Chomsky, pages 37-86.
There will be a short quiz at the beginning of class on this
chapter. While reading chapter 2, ask yourself, according to
Herman and Chomsky:
- What does their model predict about victims that are
harmed by the nation or clients of the nation of the media,
versus those harmed by nations opposed by the nation of the
media. That is, what are "worthy" and "unworthy" victims?
- Describe the cases of Jerzy Popieluszko and religious
figures in Latin America. Summarize the difference in
coverage, both quantitative and qualitative. Compare
Popieluszko's coverage to that of Rutilio Grande and Oscar
Romero, or the murder of Nuns in El Salvador, or religious
murders in Guatemala, or Human Rights commissions murders in
Guatemala.
- What are the quantitative differences in coverage seen in
these cases? What are the qualitative differences in
coverage? (For example, compare Popieluszko to Romero
coverage, and describe the differences in how the cases and
information is described, what is included in descriptions,
etc.)
Topic for lecture: Chomsky's analysis.
Quiz.
11 November. Read Herman and Chomsky, pages 87-142.
There will be a short quiz at the beginning of class on this
chapter. Topic for lecture: Chomsky's analysis.
Quiz.
14 November. Reports. PR. Summary.
16 November. Beneath reason. Introduction to a random set
of concerns: bullshit, propaganda and emotion, the insinuated
inference, and comfortable assumptions and the mere exposure
effect. We start with bullshit. Please read Harry Frankfurt
"On Bullshit" pages 1-35. While reading, ask yourself:
- What is Frankfurt trying to do?
- What is humbug? What does it mean to be misrepresenting
but not a lie? What is misrepresented?
- What is the example of the Fourth of July speech
meant to illustrate?
- What is the analogy between shoddy products and bullshit?
18 November. Bullshit, continued. Please read Harry
Frankfurt, pages 35-67. Quiz on Herman and Chomsky's model, and
on Frankfurt's theory. Topics include any and all the reading
questions for H & C and Frankfurt's books. This is our last of
our four main quizes before the final.
21 November. Bullshit conclusion.
28 November. Beneath reason. Propaganda and emotive
control. Triumph of the Will.
2 December. Beneath reason. Discussion of Triumph of
the Will. Other influences: mere exposure effect. Analysis
of ethical statements.
5 December. Ethical reasoning: separating fact from value.
See our class notes.
7 December. Due at the beginning of class is a brief homework on our last topic.
Class topic will be what we left out of critical thinking: what
goes unsaid, and what you know and do not know. As part of this,
we will be discussing the contemporary explosion of information.
(Recognizing that the explosion of information is accompanied by
an explosion of misinformation, we will also have an extra credit
assignment: working in teams of 1-5 people, create a fake web site
that convincingly misinforms on some issue. For example, you
might make a web site that explains how the seasons happen as a
result of the Earth moving farther and closer to the sun. Or the
history of Oswego as it was settled by Swedish moslems escaping
the Inquisition, and so on. Your goal is to make it as convincing
as you possibly can. Email me before class, or come to class with
a page for me, listing all who worked on it and the URL.)