Introduction To LogicDiscussion Guide 2

Taken directly from Chapters 3 and 4 of our textbook

Moore and Parker’s Critical Thinking

HUM120Cindy Cruz-Cabrera

CredibilityChapter 3

CREDIBILITY

• What is credibility

• There are two grounds for suspicion in cases where credibility is the issue:

• The claim itself

• The sources of the claim

CREDIBILITY BY INTEREST

• A person who stands to gain something from our belief in a claim becomes an interested party (must be viewed with suspicion)

• A person who has no stake in our belief in our claim one way or the other is a disinterested party

IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

• Physical characteristics – gender, height, age, ethnicity, accent

• Personality and mannerisms

• Clothing

• REMEMBER: Just by looking at someone we cannot ascertain that person’s truthfulness, knowledge, or character. (while there are exceptions, this is generally true)

Determining Credibility

• It is reasonable to be suspicious if a claim either lacks credibility inherently or comes from a source that lacks credibility.– When does a claim lack credibility inherently? (its

content)

– When does a source lack credibility?

• A claim lacks inherent credibility to the extent it conflicts with what we have observed or what we think we know – our background information – or with other credible claims.

ASSESSING THE CONTENT OF A CLAIM

Does the claim conflict with our personal observations?

• Our own observations provide the most reliable source of information about the world.

• Observations and short-term memory are far from infallible.

• All kinds of factors influence and affect our observations and recollections of them.

Factors that Affect Observation

• Our physical and emotional condition

• Environmental conditions.

• Our beliefs, hopes, fears and expectations

• Our personal interests and biases affect our perceptions and judgments we base on them

• REMEMBER: Critical thinkers are always alert to the possibility that what they remember having observed may not be what they did observe.

Does the claim conflict with our background information?

• Reports must always be evaluated against our background information – that immense body of justified beliefs that consists of facts we learn from our own direct observations and facts we learn from others.

• This is usually the basis for our acceptance or rejection of claims that we are not in a position to confirm or disprove by direct observation.

Our Treatment of Claims: Process

• We assign them a certin initial plausibility, a rough assessment of how credible a claim seems to us.

• We assess these against our background information and how well it fits with our information.

• If it fits well, we give it a high degree of initial plausibility and lean toward accepting it.

• If it conflicts with our background information, we give it low initial plausibility and lean toward rejecting it unless very strong evidence can be produced on its behalf.

As a critical thinker...• Trust your background information when

considering claims that conflict with that information.

• Keep an open mind and realize that further information may cause you ti give up a claim you had thought was true.

• Broaden your background information – the more likely you are to be able to evaluate any given report effectively.

• Read widely, converse freely, and develop an inquiring attitude – there’s no substitute for broad, general knowledge.

Credibility of a Source

• While it’s true that an interested party can provide true, accurate, useful information, it is almost always a mistake to simply assume that what one learns from such a source is true and accurate.

• The proper course of action is to suspend or reserve judgment about the information received from a source.

SOURCES OF DOUBT

• We can doubt whether the source has real knowledge about the issue in question

• We can doubt the person’s truthfulness, objectivity, or accuracy

• REMEMBER: The state of a person’s knowledge depends on a number of factors, especially including their level of expertise and experience, either direct or indirect, with the subject at hand – not merely surface features.

How do you judge a person’s expertise?

• Education and experience

• Accomplishments

• Reputation

• Position people hold

Considerations• Education – not limited to formal education (the

possession of degrees from established institutions)

• Experience – both the kind and amount – is important if relevant to the issue at hand

• Accomplishments – important if relevant to the issue at hand

• Reputation – must be seen in context: importance attached to somebody’s reputation depends on the people among whom the person has that reputation.

About Expertise: REMEMBER!

• Expertise can be bought.

• Experts sometimes disagree, especially when the issue is complicated and many different interests are at stake.

• What qualifies a person in one area does not necessarily or automatically qualify this person in another area.

Credibility and News Media

Considerations for Credibility of News Media

• News media in the United States (and other countries, including the Philippines) are controlled by fewer and fewer corporations.

• The fewer hands that control the media, the easier it is for the news we get to be “managed” – slanted – by either the owners or by the government itself.

Considerations for Credibility of News Media

• Like the rest of us, people in the news media sometimes make mistakes; they sometimes accept claims with insufficient evidence or without confirming the credibility of a source.

• The media are subject to pressure and sometimes to manipulation from government and other news sources.

• The media, with few exceptions, is driven in part by the necessity to make a profit, and this can bring pressure from advertisers, owners, and managers.

• REMEMBER: the news media is to a great extent a reflection of society at large. If we the public are willing to get by with superficial, sensationalist or manipulated news, then we can rest assured that that’s all the news we’ll get.

Internet

• Two kinds of information sources on the Internet: commercial and institutional sources AND individual and group sites.

• Just as the fact that a claim appears in print or on television doesn’t make it true, so it is for claims you run across online.

• The information you get from a source is only as good as that source.

• REMEMBER: BE ON GUARD.

Advertising

• “Advertising [is] the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.” >>> Stephen Leacock

• Ads are used to sell something – products, candidates, political proposals, tours, signing up for the army

• Announcements for jobs, concerts,

• Advertising firms understand our fears and desires and have the expertise to exploit them.

Kinds of Ads

• PROMISE ADS: Those that offer reasons for buying advertised products – always promise that certain hopes will be satisfied, certain needs met, or certain fears eliminated.

• Those ads that do not rely on reasons– Those that bring out feelings in us

– Those that depict the product being used or endorsed by people we admire or think of ourselves as being

– Those that depict the product being used in situations in which we would like to find ourselves

Considerations for Advertising

• Ads contain claims made by interested parties.

• Claims of advertisers are notorious for not only being vague, but also for being ambiguous, misleading, exaggerated, and sometimes just plain false.

• An advertisement never justifies purchasing something. Advertisements are written to sell something. They are not designed to be informative except insofar as it will help sales.

Considerations for Advertising

• Advertising assaults us at every turn, attempting to sell us good, services, beliefs, and attitudes.

• Because substantial talent and resources are employed in this effort, we need to ask ourselves constantly whether the products in question will really make the differences in our lives that their advertising claims or hints they will make.

• Advertisers are more concerned with selling you something than with improving your life. They are concerned with improving their own lives.

EXERCISES

Persuasion Through Rhetoric: Common Devices and Techniques

Chapter 4

Rhetoric• Rhetoric is the study of persuasive writing.• It denotes a broad category of linguistic

techniques people use when their primary objective is to influence beliefs and attitudes and behavior.

• Differences in rhetorical force:• Rob Reiner: “a perennial political activist

millionaire” or “an untiring advocate of social reofrm willing to spend his considerable fortune for just causes”?

• Juanita “still owes over $1,000 on her credit card” or “owe only a little over $1,000 on her credit card”?

Critical Thinking and Rhetoric

• We must be able to distinguish the argument (if any) contained in what someone says or writes from the rhetoric.

• We must be able to distinguish the LOGICAL force of a set of remarks from their PSYCHOLOGICAL force.

• Rhetoric is often mixed in with argument. Recognize rhetoric and don’t add points because of it.

• Rhetoric is used primarily to give a statement a positive or negative slant regarding a subject (SLANTERS).

RHETORICAL DEVICES

Euphemism and Dysphemism• Euphemism: a neutral or positive expression

instead of one that carries negative associations.• Plays an important role in affecting our attitudes.• “Second hand” or “used” become “pre-owned”

or “pre-loved”• “rebels” or “guerillas” >>> “freedom fighters”• “tax hike” or “tax increase” become “revenue

enhancement”• Dysphemisms are used to produce a negative

effect on a listener’s or reader’s attitude towards something, or tone down the positive associations. (“freedom fighter” – positive; “terrorist” – negative)

Rhetorical Analogy

• Likening one thing to another thing in order to convey a negative or positive feeling about it

• Sometimes used as a substitute for arguments.

• “Hillary’s eyes are twinkly like stars.” (not from the book)

• “Hillary’s eyes are somewhat bulgy, like a Chihuahua’s.”

• “You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery.”

Rhetorical Definition

• Use emotively charged language to express or elicit an attitude about something.

• “Abortion is the murder of an unborn child.”

• This had already been discussed in Chapter 2.

Stereotypes

• A stereotype is a thought or image about a group of people based on little or no evidence.

• Women are emotional

• Men are insensitive

• Lesbians are man haters

• Gay men are effeminate

• Communist

• Jew

• Catholic

• Racial stereotypes

Working on Semantic Ambiguity

• Semantic ambiguity can be eliminated by substituting an unambiguous word or phrase.

• The average pirce of a house in Monterey is $995,000.

• Calhoun always lines up on the right side.

• Jessica is cold.

• I know a little Italian.

• Aunt amy does not use glasses.

INNUENDO

• “Ladies and gentlemen, I am proof that there is at least one candidate in this race who does not have a drinking problem.”

• Innuendo: a form of suggestion (padaplis, parinig, patama, may pinapalabas)

• The use of innuendo enables us to insinuate something deprecatory about something or someone without actually saying it.

LOADED QUESTION

• “What time is it?”

• A loaded question is less innocent. It is technically a form of innuendo, because it permits us to insinuate the assumption that underlies a question without coming right out and stating that assumption.

• “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

WEASELERS

DOWNPLAYERS

Horse Laugh/Ridicule/Sarcasm

Hyperbole

Proof Surrogates

Persuasive Rhetoric in Photographs and Other Images

Reference

• Chapters 3 and 4 of Critical Thinking by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker