Welcome to Critical Thinking
Until recently, I believed that groundhogs don't climb trees. It turns out that my belief was false: groundhogs do, in fact, climb trees. On what basis did I change my mind? Well, on what basis do any of us change our minds? On what basis should any of us change our minds? Do we have reasons for believing what we believe? If not, shouldn't we? What kind? Should we ground our beliefs in scientific evidence? And how do we sort out solid scientific evidence from pseudoscientific conjectures? How do others (notably politicians, pundits and marketing execs) seek to manipulate our beliefs and behavior for their own benefit? Critical thinking empowers students to recognize fallacious reasoning, manipulative rhetoric, and other dubious defenses of faulty beliefs. It encourages students to explore various methods of justification, explanation and argumentation in order to understand why we believe what we believe.
In this course, we consider reasoning - how we seek to influence other people's beliefs, and how our beliefs are influenced by others. We search for a good basis upon which to change our beliefs, and we analyze how those in the marketing and political worlds seek to manipulate us into buying their product or voting for their candidate. McDaniel Plan: TA
About
This course fulfills:
- Old Curriculum: BLAR Humanities
- New Curriculum: Textual Analysis
- Phil Major: required for all majors
This is a class about reasoning. We seek to understand both how people should reason, as well as how people actually do reason.
Because of the nature of this topic, we do not have a great deal of 'content' to consider. There are no study sheets, lists of terms to memorize, few formulae, and fewer still the kinds of things one can put on a note card. Instead, we consider the skills one takes a lifetime to develop: skills of persuasion and rhetoric, argumentation and authority, evidence and deduction.
The course is structured not around what I want to talk about (although I'm sure there will be a lot of that), but rather it is structured about what you, as the students, find and bring to me. Each week, you will be scouring the library, Internet, and anything else you can get your hands on for examples of forms of persuasion: both argumentative and non-argumentative. This will be the content of our course. The topics discussed will be yours for the choosing.
For the middle 1/3rd of the course, we'll be playing a complex role-playing games called 'The Threshold of Democracy: Athens in 403BC'. During that section of the course, you will run the classes entirely: from determining what will be discussed on a particular day to how the class will actually run. See the section called 'The Games' below for more detail.
Syllabus
Phil 1102 Section 1
Academic 301
W 6-9PM
Dates and Times
W 6-9PM,
Academic 301
Description
Until recently, I believed that groundhogs don't climb trees. It turns out that my belief was false: groundhogs do, in fact, climb trees. On what basis did I change my mind? Well, on what basis do any of us change our minds? On what basis should any of us change our minds? Do we have reasons for believing what we believe? If not, shouldn't we? What kind? Should we ground our beliefs in scientific evidence? And how do we sort out solid scientific evidence from pseudoscientific conjectures? How do others (notably politicians, pundits and marketing execs) seek to manipulate our beliefs and behavior for their own benefit? Critical thinking empowers students to recognize fallacious reasoning, manipulative rhetoric, and other dubious defenses of faulty beliefs. It encourages students to explore various methods of justification, explanation and argumentation in order to understand why we believe what we believe.
In this course, we consider reasoning - how we seek to influence other people's beliefs, and how our beliefs are influenced by others. We search for a good basis upon which to change our beliefs, and we analyze how those in the marketing and political worlds seek to manipulate us into buying their product or voting for their candidate. McDaniel Plan: TA
Structure
My approach to this class may be a little different than you have experienced in other classes. I believe that engaging with primary source material is at the heart of developing as a philosophy student. But these sources need not be a traditional textbook.
That means that the class will rarely be structured around the textbooks BUT that doesn't mean that the discussion is not informed by the text. In fact, the opposite is true.
The texts are your 'handbooks' for what goes on in the course. They will guide you in crafting your own arguments and interpreting the arguments of others. They are included to be used as resources for you when dealing with complicated topics.
The Games: Athens in 403BC
During 2nd half of the term, we will be playing a complicated academic game. You will make up the Athenian 'Assembly' responsible for constituting the new government of Athens after the fall of the 30 tyrants in 403 BCE. The game will be run entirely by you. I will act only as 'game master' and will intervene only when it is essential to protect the game. Which laws are brought before the assembly, which resolutions are passed, which votes are taken - it's all up to you.
A number of former students who have been through the Athens game have volunteered to help with strategy. I'll introduce you when the roles are distributed in the 4th week.
Honor Code
As members of the McDaniel college community, I expect that we are all committed to upholding and abiding by our honor system. That means that I will do everything I can to make possibly ambiguous assignments clear and that you are obligated to report any violations. I require that all written work be submitted with the signed honor pledge "I have neither given or received unauthorized aid on this piece of work, nor have I knowingly tolerated any violation of the Honor Code". I will not grade any assignment without such a signature.
Finally, when in doubt, ask. There will be cases, if not in this class, then in others, where the line between citation and plagiarism is vague. And there will be cases in which the line between helping a friend and doing their work will be crossed. Your best bet in finding the line is to ask me. If you ask before hand, you have nothing to worry about. If you wait until after, it might be too late.
As I mentioned before, following the practices of good writing (never quote from a secondary source, never use imagery you have seen before, or an example that has been used by someone else) will keep your writing away from any suggestion of plagiarism.
Objectives
- To develop the ability to analyze bad reasoning, produce instances of good reasoning, and recognize the difference.
- To become critical consumers and producers of knowledge.
- To develop analytic skills, both in the analysis of text, verbal presentations and written work.
- To develop a broader understanding of some of the basic assumptions at work in the on-going public dialog, including how we manipulate using and are manipulated by non-argumentative forms of persuasion.
- And most importantly: to question everything.
Materials
Access to the Inquiry website (http://inquiry.mcdaniel.edu/). See the registration label attached.
The Art of Rhetoric (Penguin Classics)
Hugh Lawson-Tancred (Editor). Penguin Classics 1992, Paperback, 304 pages, $13.95
A Rulebook for Arguments
Anthony Weston. Hackett Pub Co Inc 2000, Paperback, 90 pages, $6.95
Threshold of Democracy: Athens in 403 B
Mark C. Carnes. Longman Publishing Group 2005, Paperback, 118 pages, $23.00
Plato
Plato. Hackett Publishing Company 1992, Paperback, 320 pages, $9.95
Optional
Bradley, Peter (ongoing) Inquiry: Critical Thinking Hardcopy of the Inquiry website, available in the bookstore.
Requirements
The college believes that "liberally educated men and women think and act critically, creatively and humanely." I expect nothing less. Whether it be in the classroom, in written assignments, and in your preparation for class, I expect you to think and act critically, creatively and humanely.
Late Work: I don't accept it. If you have some pressing engagement and simply cannot produce your work on time, you can tell me that before the date it is due, and we'll discuss an extension. Otherwise, turn your work in on time.
Attendance: Given the active nature of the course, regular attendance is mandatory. Attendance and participation are a major part of your overall grade (10-15%) and every absence counts. If you must miss a class, please inform me before the class begins so I can restructure the session if necessary. A quick email is sufficient. If you miss more three times, it will begin impact your grade significantly.
The Game: The game is a huge part of this class. If you know that you will be unable to attend more than 1 game session, you should probably think about switching sections.
Classroom conduct: No cellphones! (or text messaging, pagers, blackberry, PDAs, etc. Using technology foreign to Ancient Athens (or 19th century London) is clearly a mark of insanity - and those who are insane should be ostracized or thrown out of the royal society.
The readings on the calendar below should be completed before the class begins. This is vital. As you will discover, how you perform in the debates is directly related to how much you read. If you want to get your agenda passed, you'd better be prepared.
Information Technology: I do use blackboard occasionally. There is a copy of this syllabus available, and I will be updating assignments over the course of the semester. I post lecture notes and other documents on my faculty website at http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/pbradley/. Just follow the menu to 'Courses->Current'. In case of conflict or confusion regarding due dates or scheduled readings between the website and this document, the website always takes precedence.
Special Accommodation: If you are in need of special accommodation, please see me at least 48 hours before the event for which you would need accommodation. I can be very flexible if approached in a timely manner. Making changes after the fact is difficult if not impossible.
Final Disclaimer: Assignments and Exams are subject to change, according to the flow of the course.
Assignments
Lab Book / Blogs: Over the course of the term, you will compile a 'lab book' on Critical Thinking. This will ultimately provide you with your research for your final paper. A new entry in the lab book is due each week.
How you maintain your lab book is up to you - but I have to be able to track your additions. I have found blogs to be a very effective way of tracking your progress through the semester. If you do not have one already, you can sign up for one at http://www.blogger.com/. Please let me know the URL.
Finally, this semester we are going to begin a process of peer-reviewing lab book work. Each week, you should bring with you (either electronically on a laptop / PDA, or in hard copy) the item you with to share AS WELL AS a 1-page summary and critique. These will be swapped with one of you peers, and the contents reviewed. The content of the review will be simple: what is the main point of the original source? What is the main point of your peers' critique? Do those two match? etc.
Presentation: Everyone will present at least once in each game. This means speaking for sometime in front of the general assembly. You can speak either extemporaneously or from prepared remarks. But either way, you'll be turning in a paper on which your presentation will be based.
Papers: There will be three short (3-5 pages) papers related to your presentations in the Games. When you present in the game, you will turn in an accompanying paper. There are also longer papers at the end of each game.
There will also be an end-of-term paper. This will be a longer, original paper on a topic of your choice. I reserve the right to be involved in the process of refining topics.
One last note on academic honesty. It is good academic practice to quote only from primary sources. It is also good practice to use clear, original examples to illustrate your point. If you follow both of these rules, many of the so-called 'borderline' plagiarism cases will never arise.
Exams: There will be a small exam on 'Unit 1', which is the logical portion of the course. This will come in week 4.
There will also be a final. The final, while cumulative, will be designed to allow you to showcase your philosophic talents, rather than your ability to memorize facts.
All papers are evaluated with respect to clarity, precision and sophistication of the argument / thesis presented. Oral presentations are evaluated with respect to many of the same criteria, but for the most part can be tailored to exposition, rather than criticism or analysis.
| Assignment | Value |
| Unit 1 exam | 10% |
| Paper 1 & Presentation | 10% |
| Paper 2 (Athens Final / trial of Socrates?) | 10% |
| Athens Participation | 5% |
| Final Paper | 25% |
| Lab Book | 15% |
| Final | 15% |
| Attendance and Participation | 10% |
Assignments are subject to change according to the flow of the class. In particular, I may replace a paper with a midterm, or a paper with a presentation, or vice versa. Ratios will, however, remain more or less the same: a majority of your grade depends on your final exam and final paper.
Research The final paper should be an argumentative essay on a topic of your choosing. This can be political, social, or even philosophical. But either way, you will need real, academic sources to present and critique. We now have the Philosopher's Index, so if you are interested in doing a paper on a philosophic topic (say, arguments over determinism v. free will, or the stability of personal identity over time), you should get familiar with the index sooner rather than later.
Tentative Calendar
| Week 1: Introduction |
| Aug 27 | READ (in class): C.S. Peirce, 'The Fixation of Belief'.
Sign up for the Inquiry site.
|
No Lab |
| Week 2: Basic argumentation & reasoning |
| Sept 3 |
READ: Dewey, How We Think Ch 2. (To be provided).
INQUIRY: An Invitation to Critical Thinking: arguments and statements
(start) INQUIRY: Inference Tickets and Some Basic Valid Argument Forms |
Lab 1: Introdution / howler |
| Week 3: Formalizing Arguments / Simple Logic |
| Sept 10 |
READ: Descartes selections from Methods (To be provided)
Bacon selections from Novum Organon (To be provided)
Richardson, Elenchus (http://www.ditext.com/robinson/dia2.html)
Finish INQUIRY: Inference Tickets and Some Basic Valid Argument Forms
|
Lab 2: induction / deduction |
| Week 4: Unit 1 wrap-up / Turn towards Athens |
| Sept 17 |
Unit 1 Exam
INQUIRY: Ordinary Language: Rhetoric: Precision in Language & Introduction to Rhetoric
READ: Plato Republic 1-3,
Discussion of Books 1-3 of Republic (Come with written answers to discussion questions on pg 34-35 of Athens game book)
|
Unit 1 Exam / Lab 3: Abuse of language |
| Week 5: Athens / Pathos |
| Sept 24 |
Introduction to Athens: Distributions of roles, elections of leaders, 1st factional meetings
READ: All of Athens Booklet except 'Documents', Ober's essay on war, esp.
READ: Aristotle, Bk II S1-11
INQUIRY: Ordinary Language: Rhetoric: Pathos
Introduction to Athens:
Assembly 1: Reconciliation Agreement
|
Lab 4: Appeal to Character |
| Friday, 26th. Presidential Debate 1 - 9PM |
| Week 6: Athens / Ethos |
| Oct 1 |
READ: Aristotle, Bk II S12-17
INQUIRY: Ordinary Language: Rhetoric: Ethos
Assembly 2
Assembly 3
|
Lab 5: Appeal to Emotion |
| Oct 2. Vice Presidential Debate 1 - 9PM |
| Oct 7. Presidential Debate 2 - 9PM |
| Week 7: Athens / Others |
| Oct 8 |
INQUIRY: Ordinary Language: Rhetoric: Analogies -> Dirty tricks & fallacies
READ:Aristotle Bk II: S 18-26
READ: Plato Republic 4&5
Assembly 4 [Ostracism vote]
Assembly 5
|
Lab 6: Enthymemes and Analogies |
| Midterm Oct 15. Presidential Debate 3 - 9PM |
| Week 8: Debate |
| Oct 15 |
(finish) INQUIRY: Ordinary Language (if haven't already)
READ Plato Republic Books 5-10 (complete by next wednesday)
|
Lab 7 |
| Week 9: Final Assemblies. |
| Oct 22 |
Assembly 6
Assembly 7 (Every member of assembly should have presented paper by now)
READ: Any of the Republic you haven't (you'll need it for the trial and paper.
|
Lab 8 |
| Week 10: Trial / Causal Reasoning |
| Oct 29 |
Final General Assembly [READ: Aristotle Bk I?]
Athens Post-Mortem
INQUIRY: Causation
INQUIRY: Invitation to Scientific reasoning -> Understanding Scientific Reasoning
nbsp; |
Paper on Republic due.
Lab 9: Causal Reasoning |
| Week 11: Scientific Reasoning: Observation |
| Nov 5 |
READ: Gould, Ch 1-2
INQUIRY: Observation
|
Self-Observation Study / Lab 10: Observation |
| Week 12: Scientific Reasoning: Experimentation |
| Nov 12 |
READ: Gould Ch 3-4
INQUIRY: Intervening to study variables |
Lab 11: Experimentation |
| Week 13: Thanksgiving |
| Nov 19 |
Thanksgiving |
|
| Week 14: Scientific Reasoning: Ethics in experimentation / Mechanisms & Modeling |
| Nov 26 |
READ: Gould Ch 5-6
INQUIRY: Ethical issues in experimentation.
INQUIRY: Mechanism |
Lab 12: Scientific Reasoning |
| Week 15: Mysteries, Paradoxes and Barriers to Inference |
| Dec 3 |
READ: Gould 7 & Epilogue
INQUIRY: Mysteries, Paradoxes and Barriers to Inference / Paper 2
|
Lab 13: Paper Due |
Lab Book
Over the course of the term, you will become an expert on some topic of interest that is currently contentious in our society. A sample list is easy to generate: gay marriage, our foreign policy, the war on terror, the so-called 'culture wars', separation of church and state, animal rights & animal activism, euthanasia, the role of protesters in democracy, etc. A good topic will be one that has a great deal of coverage. Remember, you're not necessarily looking for good arguments. I'll be asking you to find fallacies quite regularity, so it might be easier to choose an area rife with fallacies (like, say, the creationist's attacks on evolution).
On the other hand, this lab book will ultimately lead to a paper, which you will present and defend at the end of the term. Your topic should be complex enough to not only hold your interest for a term, but also to allow for a sophisticated, nuanced thesis for which you can argue.
Note: unless otherwise noted, we're looking for arguments, not reports of arguments. This means that you're limited to primary sources: texts where the author is making a case and standing behind it. Outside of the editorial page, journalists are reporting on other people's arguments, not making their own.
- Lab 1: Introduction
Find a howler (an argument so bad that it makes you laugh) and bring it to the class to share. Write up a 1 summary and critique explaning why this argument is so terribly bad. Make sure you bring both the example and your commentary to class.
Come with ideas on of topics or arguments that you will research over the course of the term. At the end of the term, you will have a full 10-15 page paper on this topic, so make sure it is a topic that you can find a number of different arguments on both sides to work from. It doesn't have to be something about which you have a firm opinion -in fact, that may prove to be a disadvantage. And it need not be political. Choose something about which you believe you ultimately will be able to argue.
- Lab 2: Argumentation, Statements and Inference
Make a decision about your topic. Use that decision to guide your search for:
1 example each of deductive and inductive reasoning (for a total of 2). Fallacies are fine. Again, write up an analysis of both arguments and bring them (1 page total, NOT 2 1-page papers).
- Lab 3: Persuasion and Language
Find an example of abuse of language: equivocations, over general language, straw men and Orwellian language are all acceptable. Critique it. Post it, and your critique on your blog.
- Lab 4: Introduction to Athens / Pathos
Read through the 'Reacting' booklet. Come to class with ideas on what strategy you should pursue, and how you will pursue it.
Find an example of an appeal to emotion. Categorize according to Aristotle's taxonomy, and analyze the way in which the author is trying to motivate the reader to action. Write it up.
- Lab 5: Ordinary Language: Ethos
Find an example of an appeal to character. Analyze according to the Aristotlean tradition: how is the author / speaker attempting to gain our trust?
- Lab 6: Ordinary Language: Enythmemes and Analogies
Find an example of an enthymeme or argument from analogy. Write it up.
- Lab 7: Positioning
THE DEBATES: Analyze your favorite example of reasoning from the presidential debates (if there are any). If not, point out how and where (specifically) the candidates have made appeals to emotion or character.
- Lab 8: Final Assemblies
Positioning: write up your position on the current issue in the assembly, including why yours is distinguished from the others.
- Lab 10: Causal Reasoning
Find and example of causal reasoning: either an appeal to causation as a premise in another argument, or an argument regarding the cause of a phenomenon.
- Lab 11: Variations of Scientific Reasoning
Participate in the observation study. Write up your analysis of the legitimacy of that study. What conclusions, if any, can be drawn from this dataset? How might the study be improved?
- Lab 12: Scientific reasoning
Find an example of an experiment reported in the literature. Analyze the experimental design: what variables are being tested, which are controlled? Can you think of any other confounding variables for which they did not control?
Write your thesis statement - as well as a brief sketch of your argument and the arguments you will criticize.
- Week 13: Thanksgiving. Start writing!
Thanksgiving.
- Lab 13: Fallacies [of Scientific Reasoning and others]
Review your first draft: Remember: you'll need to have your own 'positive' argument as well as three arguments that you will criticize.
Have all these arguments written our in 'outline' form for me to review. Be charitable!
- Week 14: Mysteries, Paradoxes and Barriers to Inference
Clean up and organize your lab book / print out your blog and get ready to turn it in!
|
Dr. Peter Bradley