LOGIC #6 --- MEANING VS. FEELINGS
Two people may agree on the MEANING of a word and yet have different FEELINGS about that word. These differing feelings lead the two to make different arguments and reach different conclusions about the same word. For example - suppose someone mentions the word "travel." We could all easily understand the MEANING of the word "travel" -- it means "to go from one place to another."
However -- discussions get much more complicated than this, because we would all have different FEELINGS about the word "travel." For example:
* Maudie grew up in a military family, and had to move often. She wishes she could have stayed in one place.
* Agnes, on the other hand, has never been anywhere outside her own county ever since she was born. She wishes she had the time and the money to do some traveling.
* Stevie likes to impress his friends with his travels. He thinks about where to go next that would be different, a place his friends haven't been.
* Ryan has four children, all in serious need of high-chair training -- hahaha! When he hears travel, he thinks about all the trouble involved in taking all those kids along.
* Bubbagump works for a business that sends him all over the country regularly. He is tired of always sleeping alone in a motel bed, and always eating away from home. He wants to be home with his wife and children.
All five of these people agree on the basic meaning of "travel," but they do NOT all FEEL the same about traveling. When they hear the word "travel," if they are not disciplined thinkers, their minds may be dominated by their FEELINGS about travel, rather than being occupied with the meaning of the word.
Now -- what does all this have to do with critical thinking? When a critical thinker is arguing with someone about something, he looks below the surface of the argument to see if he and the other person have the same FEELINGS about the subject. As a matter of fact, if you will recall the first post and that list of characteristics of a critical thinker -- he seeks to separate EMOTIONAL thinking from LOGICAL thinking.
If he finds that the other person is basing his arguments on his FEELINGS about the word, rather than on the MEANING of the word, then he attempts to discuss the REASONS for the FEELINGS in order to get beyond any misunderstandings that could hinder further discussion. In many cases he will find out that the arguments are based not on logic but on personal feelings.
The problem with this is that personal feelings are not refutable! While one may be able to show another that his understanding of the MEANING of a term is erroneous, the other person's FEELINGS about that term will still tend to affect -- and it some cases, distort -- his arguments. There is no point in arguing with another person's FEELINGS.
And if that person insists on treating his own personal feelings as if they are facts and evidence, then there is no way to help that person become a critical thinker, and it becomes extremely difficult to reach that person with the REAL facts and evidence.
Have we seen this dynamic in here?
Next = Implications vs. Inferences
LOGIC #7 --- IMPLICATIONS AND INFERENCES
It is important for the critical thinker to learn to distinguish between IMPLICATIONS and INFERENCES. One who cannot -- or will not -- do this is prone to JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS -- and usually UNWARRANTED ones.
The person who is doing the talking is the one who IMPLIES something when his facial expressions, his tone of voice, his mannerisms, and the words he uses are designed -- deliberately -- to lead others to draw a particular logical conclusion concerning that "something." Assertions that are stated outright are EXPLICIT. Conclusions that the speaker WANTS the listener to come to, but which are NOT stated outright, are IMPLIED.
Any conclusions a LISTENER draws from hearing and observing someone ELSE speak -- THOSE conclusions are known as INFERENCES. The SPEAKER implies -- the LISTENER infers. IOW -- the one who is GIVING the information is the only one who can IMPLY something about that information, and the one who RECEIVES the information is the only one who can INFER something about that information.
However -- and HERE is the most important point in this post -- the implication INTENDED by the speaker and the inference DRAWN by the listener may be two entirely different things! IOW -- the listener may conclude that the speaker MEANT something that the speaker did NOT mean at all!
Since none of us in here can see each other's facial expressions or mannerisms, and since we can't hear each other's tone of voice -- all we have to go on are the words we use. I have noticed that the on-line discussion world does create a problem in this area of implications and inferences. It is difficult enough when we are speaking to each other in person -- but the problem is magnified when we CANNOT see and hear each other.
Since we have no other clues, we are forced to rely solely on word usage . Now -- since we ONLY have the written word to go on, the problem I have already discussed -- different FEELINGS about words -- arises continually! People have a great tendency to READ attitudes and motives into the written words of others -- and those conclusions about others are too often inaccurate.
Thus -- as I mentioned above -- the one who cannot, or will not, distinguish between his own INFERENCES and the other person's IMPLICATIONS is prone to misinterpreting others; he is prone to "jumping to conclusions." Jumping to conclusions is the lazy habit of reaching hasty, ill-thought-out, often irrational, and almost always
erroneous conclusions -- based on far too little evidence .
The critical thinker seeks to avoid jumping to conclusions by learning to accurately distinguish between his own inferences and others' implications. He also has the patience to wait -- or ask -- for more information before reaching his own conclusions.
The best thing to do when you INFER something from someone else's words -- especially if that inference is negative -- is to ASK for clarification. Repeat the argument back to the other person and ask if your restatement is accurate. ASK for more information. Spell it out clearly, and try to get the other person to do the same -- rather than relying on vague "gut reactions" or feelings.
The search for truth requires that we interpret each other's arguments as accurately and clearly as possible, and the ability to separate inferences from implications is one of the strongest tools we can use in that search.
Next = Emotional words and arguments
LOGIC #8 --- EMOTIONAL WORDS AND ARGUMENTS
In logic, there are two definitions for "argument":
1) A line of reasoning, supported by evidence, in which a person is attempting to CONVINCE others of the truth or falsity of something, and/or PERSUADE them to take a certain course of action.
2) A disagreement in which each party is trying to convince the other party that he is wrong about something.
Back in the first post of this series, I stated that one of the characteristics of a "critical thinker" is that he attempts to separate EMOTIONAL thinking from LOGICAL thinking. After five years of observing and taking part in on-line discussions -- most of them "arguments" of both kinds -- I would have to conclude that the inability to distinguish between emotions and logic is the most common fallacy that most "arguers" commit.
I remember a student in one of my logic classes years ago. He was very bright, but he was also very high-strung and emotional; he had a tendency to "fly off the handle" whenever he felt like he was "losing" an argument. Once, when I was making a point forcefully -- with passion -- he blurted out, "AHA! YOU use emotions, too!"
I took that opportunity to clarify my meaning with regard to the use of emotions in a discussion. Of course, we ALL "use" emotions when we discuss -- and ESPECIALLY when we disagree! That is a normal human response. However -- there is a qualitative difference between, on the one hand, arguing with some -- or even a lot of -- emotion in your voice, and, on the other, BASING your argument on nothing MORE than your emotions! There is a difference between making a point with some level of passion in your voice and allowing your emotions to dictate your entire response, or even to hijack your reasoning!
Most RATIONAL arguments will almost inevitably contain some level of emotion; that cannot be avoided, nor need it be avoided completely. But an EMOTIONAL argument is one that is BASED mostly on -- or it APPEALS mostly to -- emotions rather than to logic and facts.
A critical thinker seeks to separate emotional THINKING from logical THINKING. He seeks to base his arguments on logic and facts, NOT on his feelings or emotions. And -- even though he USES emotions in his arguments, he seeks to CONTROL those emotions, so that his MIND, not his FEELINGS, is in control of his thoughts, his words, and -- especially -- his REACTIONS to the arguments of others.
There are many varieties of emotional argument: name-calling; ad-hominem attacks; innuendo; appeals to fear, greed, or a desire to be accepted; appeals to pity; and many more. We will discuss these specific kinds of emotional arguments later on. For now -- it is important to recognize that we need to learn to detect emotional thinking, and to avoid letting it control our own arguments.
Next = How to evaluate an argument
LOGIC #9 --- EVALUATING AN ARGUMENT --- INTRODUCTION
This message introduces a series of posts concerning accurate evaluation of arguments. An "argument" is a line of reasoning by which someone is attempting to CONVINCE others of the truth or falsity of something, and/or PERSUADE them to take a certain course of action. There are three primary elements in every argument -- assertions, evidence, and assumptions.
ASSERTIONS are the positive statements of what a person believes to be true or false. Gary Ezzo, who has been teaching and writing for nearly twenty years, has made hundreds of strong assertions. Everyone in this discussion has made many assertions concerning Ezzo's assertions. That is -- we have made statements concerning what we believe to be true or false about what Ezzo has stated. The next post in this series will explain how to evaluate assertions.
EVIDENCE is what proves, or at the least, supports the assertions as true and valid. Evidence consists primarily of facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions -- all of which work together to demonstrate the validity of the assertions -- or not. I will write several posts concerning how to evaluate the different kinds of evidence.
Without evidence, assertions are nothing more than bare opinion. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but -- and this is crucial to understand -- no one has a right to have his opinion respected or taken seriously. An opinion EARNS respect when it has been shown by supporting evidence to be WORTHY of respect -- not necessarily proven conclusively, but at least supported as valid.
For example-- I have a RIGHT to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the earth is flat. No one can force me to not believe what I really do believe. But -- I do not have the right to insist that anyone else take my opinion seriously or respect it. I must earn that right by showing the evidence that led me to that opinion.
If I cannot, or will not, support my opinion with evidence, others have the perfect right to refute, dismiss, and yes, even ridicule that opinion. And I have no logical or ethical basis for becoming indignant and offended when someone ridicules or dismisses an opinion of mine that has no evidence to support it. This is the nature of debate; this is the process of arriving, if we can, at the truth.
ASSUMPTIONS are the underlying presuppositions-- the "givens" that the person making the argument assumes in advance -- and is, in essence, asking his listeners to assume -- to be true, without the need for corroborating evidence. Two Bible-believing Christians, for example, would share certain assumptions about the Bible, about God, and about several other issues, that they do not have to argue about, even while they do argue about certain other issues.
A Christian and an atheist, however, while surely sharing some assumptions about some things, would find many more areas of disagreement concerning the Bible, God, Jesus, etc. The last post in this series will help you evaluate Ezzo's assumptions -- and your own.
In terms of Ezzo and his claims -- I want everyone to consider these three elements of an argument as you ask yourself some questions:
What are Ezzo's primary assertions? What are the main claims of his that you have problems with -- or that you agree with? Are they demonstrable, or are they beyond provability? Are they merely opinions without the benefit of evidence, or are they supported by solid evidence?
What is the nature of Ezzo's evidence -- in theology, in scripture, in physiology, in medical science, and in all the other areas he touches on? For example -- what is the nature of his "medical evidence" and his "scriptural evidence" in support of his arguments concerning "deman feeding"? Does his evidence support his assertions, or is it merely a prop to expand the argument -- in essence "begging the question"?
What are Ezzo's assumptions? Do you share those assumptions, or do they need to be supported with evidence before you would agree with them? What really underlies his arguments, and does he expect you to agree with that foundation without demonstrating its validity?
Next = Testing Assertions of Fact
LOGIC #10 --- TESTING ASSERTIONS OF FACT
Most statements we hear, read, or make in speaking and writing are ASSERTIONS of fact, opinion, belief, and/or prejudice. In an argument, whether or not an assertion is to be accepted depends partly on which of these categories it falls into. This post is a brief discussion of "facts" and how we can determine the validity and trustworthiness of Ezzo's arguments in relation to the facts.
A *fact* is verifiable -- that is, one can determine its truth by checking legitimate sources of information (sources that are universally accepted among those who themselves are widely acknowledged as authorities in a subject). The truth of a fact will be accepted by all reasonable persons -- as far as it is possible to verify that fact.
If a statement of fact is verified by standard methods of investigation, but is not accepted by a person, then that person is NOT being reasonable -- UNLESS he can provide powerful evidence for his rejection of that fact. In addition, any person who does publicly dispute such facts has a responsibility to support his opposition with evidence, and if he cannot, or will not, provide that evidence, it is perfctly logical to dismiss his opinion as unfounded.
Some easy examples:
* Texas is larger in area than California (verifiable fact).
* A triangle has three sides (true by definition).
* The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998 (verifiable fact).
* Trees are plants (true by definition).
Any person who would not accept the truth of these statements is unreasonable and untrustworthy, and has damaged his credibility to such an extent that any arguments he makes in relation to these topics should be highly suspect. And -- any person who makes a claim that is contradicted by these facts, and who refuses to accept correction concerning such basic truths, proves himself to be untrustworthy.
Next = Evaluating Opinions