Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: zz-x2580
OLET 2148 – THINKING
CRITICALLY
MODULE 1 – REASONING AND RHETORIC
Video 1 – What is a Rational Argument?
Introduction
Philosophers define an argument very specifically – an argument consists of premises that are
supposed to give us a reason to believe a conclusion. This argument will contain evidence and
justification for believing a conclusion.
If a premise or a conclusion is not present, a rational argument is not taking place.
Example:
o Premise 1 – The only good reason to restrict freedom of speech is if the speech in question
inflicts unjustified harm on others.
o Premise 2 – Person A’s intended speech will not inflict unjustified harm on others.
o Conclusion – We should not restrict their right to speak.
Purpose of Rational Arguments
Deciding what we should believe – informed decision making.
Shaping the beliefs and actions of other people.
Rational argument commonly takes place in social settings, with people disagreeing with each other
and laying out evidence or justification in support of their conclusions.
We as humans are rational creatures. This means:
o We are capable of recognising and responding to justification and evidence.
o We are able to steer ourselves in light of the rational conclusions that we draw.
However, we must recognise that we are “imperfectly rational” and we make mistakes due to the
various other things that influence our behaviour other than rationality.
Practice Exercise 1
Ways to get people to do things without words or sentences:
Facial expressions
Hand gestures
Body language
Modelling behaviour
lOMoARcPSD|3299384
Structuring the environment
Physical objects
Practice Exercise 2 / 3
Using language to get people to do or believe things without having convinced them:
Boring people into agreeing to something by setting out incredibly detailed written conditions (e.g. Do
you agree to our new terms and conditions listed here? …)
Threatening people
Ordering people
Semi-successful persuasion
Flattering/impressing the audience
In this case, people find themselves in a situation without really wanting to be there.
Practise Exercise 4
There are many cases in which we use rational argument to get people to do or believe things. There are a
number of fields and contexts in which you see people laying out evidence to try to convince an audience to
believe something:
Debating and persuasion
Legal disputes
Medical evidence
Political persuasion
Introduction to Critical Thinking
What is Critical Thinking?
Fundamentally, critical thinking is about making sure you have good reasons for your beliefs.
When you are considering the reasons for believing something and more specifically, you are
distinguishing between good and bad reasons for an argument, you are exercising critical thinking.
Important note: rational people want their beliefs to be true. The only way to be rational is if you
form your beliefs after you have found good reason for them.
What is an Argument
A set of statements that together comprise a reason for a further statement.
Premises that support conclusion (make the conclusion highly likely).
Ampliative Arguments (inductive) Deductive Arguments
The conclusion is not guaranteed.
The truth of the premises makes the conclusion
highly probable, but not guaranteed.
However, ampliative arguments can often be good
arguments.
When the truth of the premises guarantees the
truth of the conclusion.
Just thinking about the information in the premises,
you will be able to deduce the conclusion.
Video 2 – Reasoning vs Mere Rhetoric
Rhetoric
Rhetoric is commonly used to refer to flowery speech. However, in a philosophical context, rhetoric
can be defined as the art of persuasion.
When engaged in rhetoric, you are trying to persuade an audience.
Techniques which can assist in persuasion:
o Confident body language
o Warm tone of voice
o Flattered the audience
o Abusing the opponent
o Staying on message
Often, we can use rhetoric to persuade people without engaging in rational argument. For example,
politicians rarely explain their own policies – they attack the other side’s views on their policy and
stick to the message.
Rational Argument vs Mere Rhetoric
Rational argument is just 1 technique that fits in the broad category of rhetoric.
Mere rhetoric consists of all of the non-rational techniques or methods that you might use in order to
persuade an audience. For example, the list above is mere rhetoric as there is no justification of the
conclusion being presented. However, it is still a method of persuasion and does prove effective.
Therefore:
o The aim of mere rhetoric is to convince the audience of the pre-ordained conclusion that you
have been given.
o The aim of rational argument is to get at the truth. It consists of setting up good reasons for
believing particular conclusions.
Rational Argument vs Explanation
An explanation is an attempt make sense of something.
A type of explanation is a causal explanation – which tells us why a particular event happened.
An argument in contrast, gives us evidence for believing a particular conclusion.
Example:
o Dave fell down the stairs.
An explanation – Dave drank himself to shit and couldn’t walk properly so he fell
down the stairs.
An argument – Dave said he fell down the stairs, Bob saw him fall down the stairs
and Dave is covered in bruises. Thus, we are led to believe that Dave did fall down
the stairs.
Evaluating Arguments
At the most general level, there are 2 different flaws that an argument may possess:
o The argument possesses a false premise.
o The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises of the argument.
Arguments can either be valid or invalid, depending on whether they follow on from true premises.
Statements (which make up premises) can either be true or false.
Practice Questions
Socrates and the Sophists
The Sophists
Travelling salesman of Ancient Greece.
They marketed ideas (not products).
They centred on Athens because there was a new democracy in Athens. This allowed citizens to gain
prestige, power and influence.
The Sophists were today’s marketing consultants – they taught the secrets of how to manipulate
audiences/the populace in order to gain prestige, power and influence.
They provided skills in persuasion, debate and argumentation in exchange for money.
However, they were more for advancement and pleasing – coming to agreement with a preconceived
notion. E.g. if you want to be elected you go to the Sophists and they will aid you in getting there.
Socrates
Socrates was born in the period where Sophists were visiting Athens and selling their knowledge.
Thus, Socrates learnt from the Sophists.
The techniques of argumentation that Socrates learned were honed in a Sophistic workshop.
However, Socrates was more committed to truth than to advancement (as the Sophists were). This is
what diverged his goals from the Sophists.
Socrates expressed his commitment to truth as a cooperative inquiry into matters of common
concern.
Whenever Socrates engages in a discussion with someone, it is always for the sake of mutual
understanding. i.e. Both parties want to get to the truth about a moral or ethical area.
o Side note: he was very well known for his cross examination of evidence during arguments
Arguments back then were like:
o Is it good to collect taxes?
o When should you run away from battle (if you even should)?
Philosophers vs Sophists
Why should we think like philosophers instead of Sophists?
Philosophers are more concerned with attaining the truth. The truth is something that nobody wants
to get wrong.
The Sophists were given an end point and asked to educate people to get there. This could be fake
sometimes. Whereas philosophers could not fake the truth.
Philosophy thus entails questioning, doubting and being uncertain as to where an idea may lead (the
Sophists had a pre-determined end point).
Sophists were selling fake knowledge because if it gets you to the end goal, what more is necessary?
Skills Used by the Sophists
Sophists were very good at making clear distinctions between characteristics different people had and
attributing them as such – e.g. the recently elected king is very confident.
They were highly skilled at using appeals to emotion, shame, desires, etc.
They sold this to people who weren’t duped by the rhetoric. But if they were duped by the rhetoric,
this would be just as fine (this is the audience they would trick – the first one is the one they can
actually educate).
If the Sophists went into a city with a strong consensus on an issue, they would repeat those
commonly held beliefs to generate support. They didn’t really care if the beliefs were true/false or
useful/useless, they just wanted to use these beliefs.
Making the Opponent Uncomfortable
When Socrates was in discussion with someone, he would commonly make them uncomfortable.
Culturally, we accept less of that today, especially in an educational context.
Socrates believed that if the interlocutor felt uncomfortable during a discussion, it was because he
didn’t have good reason to believe their ideas or they weren’t able to hold a strong stance. I.e. they
were already uncomfortable and uncertain in their beliefs.
The job of Socrates was to show them that they did not have grounds for being as certain as they
were about their ideas.
In doing so, Socrates led the interlocutor to re-examine their own beliefs.
Sophists in Today’s Society
Marketing consultants
Politicians
Advertising companies
Car salesmen
Wherever money compromises the role (where a business exists) sophistic thinking will become
present. If the idea is to market the item so it becomes a provider in services, it is sophistry.
What Conditions Create the Space for Philosophical Thinking?
We must start showing people that knowledge is a good thing for its own sake and is a good thing to
share.
Socrates said that if he could teach someone something, he would not want to receive money from
them as the goodness of them having come to learn something is better than any money.
Moral education – if you can convince a person of the truth of being just and how it is a good thing,
they will go and be more just.
We must show everyone that REAL knowledge benefits everyone.
When people show others sincerity and willingness to learn from one another this will begin to
happen.
Socrates, Twitter and AI
Socrates’ commitments to questioning and to intellectual humility are particularly relevant in the information
age. We assume that we know something when we have heard it, read it, googled it, wiki-ed it or YouTubed it.
Example:
Re-tweeting or “liking” something, is a form of affirmation. (Paradoxically, it is an affirmation without any real
commitment.) Socrates would regard re-tweeting and liking as intellectually lazy. He would urge us to be far
more sceptical before forwarding the latest conspiracy theory, and far more circumspect about our likes and
dislikes.
How Socrates Approaches New Information
Socrates was highly open to new information. For him, the status quo was not a settled matter –
radical consciousness was possible and new paradigms were available to be considered.
Old wisdom could be rediscovered, appropriated and grounded through fresh reasoning.
Arguing with Socrates
Every argument must past the Socratic acid test. If the argument does not withstand it, it is a poor argument
and will get nowhere. Does the argument include:
Vague, inconsistent or self-contradictory views
Appeals to prejudice, fear, greed or superstition
Though Socrates challenges people’s thinking, his aim is always cooperative – better understanding of a topic
of common concern in everyone’s interests. “Cooperative inquiry into matters of common concern”.
Socrates and the Internet
Dogmatic AI entities (they are certain they are right) are unlikely to be very good for our (or even their)
future. If artificial intelligence would engage in cooperative inquiry into matters of common concern, we might
all fare better.
On other matters of digital technology, I think Socrates would have mixed views. He would, I am sure, oppose
the use of the internet as an excuse not to understand things. It is a repository of information, but it is not a
substitute for our own memory or experience. Unexamined information is not worth believing.
Quotes
“it is never right to do wrong to anyone, even in return for a wrong” (Crito49c)
“it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong” (Gorgias 469b)
“the unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology 38a)
“I am of little or no account in wisdom”, Apology 23b)
“no one willingly does wrong” (Gorgias 509d)
Dialogic Virtues and Kinds of Arguments
The dialogic virtues are the good character traits that someone who is skilled at dialogue would exhibit when
engaged in rational dialogue – what makes someone admirable when they are taking part in discussion?
1) Careful listening
Avoid giving biased interpretations of what the other person is saying.
Avoid projecting your thoughts into their heads
2) Asking questions
Clarification
Definition
Objections / challenges
These help understand the strengths/weaknesses of the position held
3) Responding to questions
All of the above
Modifying or abandoning your views in light of newer information and evidence
4) Identifying agreement and disagreement
Common ground
Location of the exact point where disagreement occurs
5) Recognising questionable assumptions
False premises
Unjustified evidence
Correlation vs causation for example
6) Recognising contradictions/inconsistencies
Other person needs to step back and re-examine evidence
7) Recognising expertise
Sometimes during discussion, you will realise the person you are discussing with knows a lot
about the subject at hand.
You can learn from that person’s expertise
8) Introduce new evidence
Expands the scope of the debate
Brings new reasons into play
9) Include all participants
Diversity in arguments
10) Managing your emotions
Emotions should not distort our view
Emotions should not create hostility
11) Avoiding manipulative rhetoric and abuse
