Relief Fund" turned up nothing.
2. The Internet
Re-read the discussion about advertising. Now ask yourself what reason you have to
believe something you read on the Internet. Next time you're ready, mouth agape, to
swallow what's up there on the screen, imagine Zoe saying to you, "No, really, you
believed that?" Don't check your brain at the door when you go online.
EXERCISES for Section C 95
E-mail regarding W. 's IQ gets F
You may have seen the forwarded and reforwarded e-mail by now. "President
Bush Has Lowest IQ of all Presidents of past 50 years." The note, claiming to
summarize a report compiled by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Penn., shows
that George W. Bush is the possessor of an intelligence quotient of a pitiful 91, the
lowest such rating of any man to hold the position of U.S. President in the past 70
years. According to the e-mail, the Lovenstein Institute rated the presidents based
on scholarly achievements, speaking ability, and "several other factors."
Believable, right? Not so fast, retort urban legend-debunking
Websitessnopes2.com and urbanlegends.about.com. Though no doubt many political lefties will find the study both credible and satisfying (the Dems outscore
their GOP counterparts by an average of 39.5 points), there's one minor problem:
the Lovenstein Institute doesn't even appear to exist. The barebones site at
http://lovenstein.org offers a copy of the "study" and not much else, save for a lone photo of an iceberg. That didn't stop at least six newspapers, including the
Russian Pravda and the U.K.'s Guardian, from reporting the story as actual fact.
The Alibi (Albuquerque), November 15, 2001
Now ask yourself why you should believe this article.
And speaking of the Internet, avoid those sites that sell you essays—if you
want your instructor to assume that you can and want to reason well, that you're
knowledgeable about what you write, and that you're not lying. "Plagiarism," after
all, is just a fancy name for "lying."
Exercises for Section C
1. Fill in the blanks: A and his (or her!) are soon
2. What difference is there between how we evaluate an advertisement and how we
evaluate any other (implicit) argument?
3. Find an advertisement from some magazine or newspaper and evaluate the claims in it.
4. Identify a website whose claims you believe, and explain why you consider it to be a
reliable source. (Don't use a personal website of friends or family—or yourself.)
5. a. Print out a page of a website devoted to UFOs.
b. Evaluate it: Are any sentences too vague to be claims? Are the claims plausible?
Contradictory? Is there an argument? Is the argument good?
c. Trade with a classmate to comment on each other's evaluation.
Exercises 6-8 are real advertisements. Evaluate them in terms of the criteria in this chapter.
6. Maxell media—offers 100 years of archival life! Delivers quality you can trust!
(MacMall catalogue, 2003)
7. Pet Healer Pet Healer with psychic abilities to communicate with pets that have left
96 CHAPTER 5 Is That True?
this earthly plane. Contact 292-xxxx. Suggested donation: $25-$ 100.
( Crosswinds Weekly, Albuquerque)
8. $250,000 is what you can make per year playing CRAPS
Finally: a two-part video and book written by a top Las Vegas
gaming expert that is easy to follow. In fact it's
CRAP$ MADE EASY
You do not need a large bankroll to get started.
Order toll free 1-800-xxx-xxxx and receive
• 1 hour instructional video • Regulation dice and playing chips
• 150 page book with graphs charts, and inside tips
• Pocket-sized game card for quick reference . . . $59.95 . . .
• Felt layout for home play
9. Evaluate the website of McWhortle Enterprises at <www.McWhortle.com>.
D. Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises
1. Arguing backwards
Someone gives an argument that sounds pretty reasonable, the conclusion of which
we're pretty sure is true. So we think it must be a good argument with true premises.
Dick had to break up a fight between Puff and Spot, and then he had to
take Puff home.
Dick is allergic to cats.
So Dick has been sneezing like crazy.
Suzy saw Dick sneezing, and she saw the fight. So she reckons that Dick is allergic
to cats. But she's wrong: Dick is allergic to the weeds at the house where Puff lives.
Suzy is arguing from the truth of the conclusion back to the truth of the premises.
That's backwards.
It's easy to think that when someone gives reasons to believe a claim is true,
and the claim is true, and the reasons sound O.K., it must be that those reasons are
true. But they needn't be; the argument may be defective. An argument is supposed
to convince us that its conclusion is true, not that its premises are true.
Arguing backwards It's a mistake to reason that because we have a strong
or valid argument with a true conclusion, its premises must be true.
When can we go from the conclusion to the premises? When the conclusion is
false and the argument is valid, we know that one of the premises is false.
SECTION D Common Mistakes 97
2. Confusing possibility with plausibility
The Green Party's just a front to take votes away from the Democrats. The
Republican party puts a lot of cash into the Green's coffers. And the
Republicans are behind Ralph Nader, bankrolling his Presidential campaign.
That's why he ran even though he knew he had no chance to win.
It all sounds so good and it would explain a lot. But don't confuse possibility
with plausibility. Yes, sometimes there are conspiracies, like when the U.S. soldiers
and military tried to cover up their My Lai massacre in Vietnam. But an interesting
explanation is at most a good reason to investigate whether its claims are true.
We need evidence, not just a theory, before we should believe. And for conspiracies,
reckoning what Ben Franklin said, we can be pretty sure evidence will eventually
come out: "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
3. Bad appeals to authority
When we accept a claim because of who said it, we call that an appeal to authority.
But as in some of the examples we've already seen, folks often accept claims from
people who aren't authorities on the subject or who have a motive to mislead. That's
a bad appeal to authority.
We often treat our friends as authorities. We accept their claims because they
sound like they know what they're talking about, or because we'd be embarrassed
not to. "How can you not believe Senator Domenici about the good intentions of the
oil companies? All of us think he's right." Sometimes it's the conviction that if
everyone else believes it or does it, it must be true or right, as when Harry's buddies
said to him Friday night, "Come on, have a drink. Everyone's doing it."
Bad appeal to common belief It's usually a mistake to accept a claim as true
solely because a lot of other people believe it.
If we have further evidence, an appeal to common belief can be good. For
example, when Harry went to Japan he reasoned that since everyone there was
driving on the left-hand side, he should, too.
4. Mistaking the person for the claim
We can sometimes accept a claim because of who said it. But it's always a mistake
to reject a claim as false because of who said it.
Mistaking the person for the claim It's a mistake to reject a claim
solely because of who said it.
98 CHAPTER 5 Is That True?
George Orwell and his colleagues detested the British minister in charge of
foreign affairs, Lord Halifax. But Orwell agreed with Halifax that atrocities
were being committed by foreign governments. In exasperation he said to his
colleagues, "They happened even though Lord Halifax said they happened."
5. Mistaking the person for the argument
Suppose Dr. E gives an argument in class that a critical thinking course should be
required of every college freshman. His students are not convinced. So he makes
the same argument tap-dancing on his desk while juggling beanbags, between each
claim whistling "How much is that doggy in the window?" Is the argument any
better? Suppose someone in class just found out that Dr. E lost his temper and threw
Puff back over the hedge to his neighbor's yard. Is the argument any worse?
We have standards for whether an argument is good or bad. It may be more
memorable if Dr. E stands on his head; you may be repulsed by him if you know
he threw Puff over a hedge. But the argument is good or bad—independently of how
Dr. E or anyone presents it and independently of their credentials.
To refute an argument is to show it is bad. Just as we don't reject a claim
because of who said it, we don't refute an argument because of who said it.
Mistaking the person {or group) for the argument It's a mistake to reject
an argument solely because of who said it.
Maria: I went to Professor Zzzyzzx's talk about writing last night. He said
that the best way to start on a novel is to make an outline of the plot.
Lee: Are you kidding? He can't even speak English.
Lee makes an (implicit) argument: "Don't believe what Professor Zzzyzzx says
about writing a novel because he can't speak English well." To make that argument
strong you'd need the implausible premise "(Almost) any argument that someone
who doesn't speak English gives about writing a novel is bad."
We can also mistake a group for an argument:
Dick: This proposed work corps program for the unemployed is a great idea.
Tom: Are you kidding? Wasn't that on the Green Party platform?
Mistaking the group for the argument is a favorite ploy of demagogues. It's an
important tool in establishing stereotypes and prejudice.
Often we think we can refute an argument by showing that the person who
made it doesn't believe one of the premises or even the conclusion itself.
Harry: We should stop logging old-growth forests. There are very few of
EXERCISES for Section D 99
them left in the U.S. They are important watersheds and preserve
wildlife. And once cut, we cannot recreate them.
Tom: You say we should stop logging old-growth forests? Who are you
kidding? Didn't you just build a log cabin on the mountain?
Tom's rejection of Harry's argument is understandable: It seems Harry's actions
betray the conclusion he's arguing for. But whether they do or not (perhaps the logs
came from the land Harry's family cleared in a new-growth forest), Tom has not
answered Harry's argument. Tom is not justified in ignoring an argument because of
Harry's actions.
If Harry were to respond to Tom by saying that the logs for his home weren't
cut from an old-growth forest, he's been suckered. Tom got him to change the
subject, and they will be deliberating an entirely different claim than he intended.
It's a phony refutation.
Phony refutation It's not a real refutation of an argument to point out that
the person who made the argument has done or said something that shows he
or she does not believe one of the premises or the conclusion of the argument.
We have a desire for consistency in actions and words. We don't trust
hypocrites. But when you spot a contradiction between actions and words, at most
you can lay a charge of hypocrisy or irrationality. Sincerity of the speaker is not one
of the criteria for an argument to be good, and insisting on that is just mistaking the
person for the argument. Besides, the contradiction is often only apparent, not real.
Whether a claim is true or false is not determined by who said it.
Whether an argument is good or bad is not determined by who said it.
First, realize that it is necessary for an intelligent person to reflect on the words
that are spoken, not the person who says them. If the words are true, he will
accept them whether he who says them is known as a truth teller or a liar.
One can extract gold from a clump of dirt, a beautiful narcissus comes from
an ordinary bulb, medication from the venom of a snake.
Abd-el-Kader, Algerian Muslim statesman, 1858
Exercises for Section D
1. What do we mean when we say that someone is arguing backwards?
2. a. What is an appeal to authority?
b. Give an example of a bad appeal to authority you heard recently.
3. When are we justified in rejecting a claim because of who said it?
100 CHAPTER 5 Is That True?
4. Give an example of a bad appeal to common belief you heard recently.
5. Why should you never mistake the person for the argument?
6. Hypocrisy is bad. So why shouldn't we reject anything that smacks of hypocrisy?
7. What does it mean to say that a person has made a phony refutation?
8. Print out a conspiracy theory presented on the Web. Explain why you do or do not
believe it is true.
good and bad reasons for accepting or rejecting claims. You can see Dr. E's comments, too.
Doctor Ball said that for me to lose weight I need to get more exercise, but he's
so obese. So I'm not going to listen to him.
This person is mistaking the person for the claim. Looks like a phony
refutation to me.
you're right that it's mistaking the person for the claim. 'But it's not a
phony refutation, because we don't know of any argument that 'Dr. "Baft said.
Lucy said I shouldn't go see Doctor Williams because he's had problems with
malpractice suits in the past. But Lucy also believes in herbs and natural
healing, so she's not going to like any doctors.
Looks O.K. to me. The speaker is just questioning the authority of Lucy and
deciding not to accept her claim.
(Perhaps. But it might be a case of mistaking the person for the argument.
It isn't clear whether the speaker is suspending judgment on a claim or is
rejecting Lucy's argument.
Zoe: Everyone should exercise. It's good for you. It keeps you in shape,
gives you more energy, and keeps away depression.
Dick: Are you kidding? I've never seen you exercise.
Phony refutation. Rjghtl
For Exercises 9-20 answer the following:
a. What, if any, classifications of this section does this fit?
b. Is it a bad argument?
9. Suzy: I played doubles on my team for four years. It is definitely a more intense game
than playing singles.
&
nbsp; Zoe: Yesterday on the news Michael Chang said that doubles in tennis is much easier
because there are two people covering almost the same playing area.
Suzy: I guess he must be right then.
10. Mom: You shouldn't stay out so late. It's dangerous, so I want you home early.
Son: But none of my friends have curfews and they stay out as long as they want.
EXERCISES for Section D 101
11. Manuel: Barbara said divorce'11 hurt her kids' emotions.
Maria: But she goes out with her boyfriend every night leaving the kids and her
husband at home. She won't divorce, but she's already hurt her kids.
So it doesn't matter if she gets divorced or not.
12. Zoe: You should be more sensitive to the comments you make around people.
Dick: Of course you'd think that—you're a woman.
13. Zoe: The author of this book said that bad people always make wrong decisions.
You need to have virtue to make good use of critical thinking.
Suzy: What does he know about virtue?
14. Zoe: That program to build a new homeless shelter is a great idea. We need to help
get poor people off the streets so they can eventually fend for themselves.
Suzy: How could you say that? You don't even give money to the homeless who beg
on street corners.
15. Zoe: That new law against panhandling is terrible. People have a right to ask for
money so long as they aren't really bothering anyone.
Tom: Sure. And I suppose you believe everything else the ACLU says.
16. Prof. Zzzyzzx: Mine doctor told me cigarettes I should be giving up. He said bad lungs
they will give me and my skin wrinkle and my blood pressure to increase. But I do
not listen to his talk because he is always smoking like the chimney.
17. Zoe: Don't throw that candy wrapper out of the window. That's terrible. It makes a
mess someone else will have to clean up.
Dick: What are you talking about? Everyone does it. Do you want to reform the whole
world?
18. Tom: What do you think about requiring kids at school to wear uniforms?
Lee: My mom said it was great, so I'm behind it.
19. Manuel: We should tax cigarettes much more heavily.
Maria: I can't believe you said that. Don't you smoke two packs a day?
20. Maria: What do you think about the new book on financial independence?
Lee: It must be good; it's on the New York Times Best Seller list.