It's So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday

Your grades are now posted. HARVE A GR8 SUMNER!

Intellectual Humility

I think there’s an important connection between intellectual honesty and humility. A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we've gotten pretty good at this so far. But this doesn’t guarantee that we’ll care about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal. We should care about good evidence. We should care about evidence and arguments because they get us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we are presented with decent evidence for some claim, but still stubbornly disagree with this claim for no strong reason, we are just being irrational. Worse, we’re effectively saying that the truth doesn’t matter to us.

Instead of resisting, we should be open-minded. We should be willing to challenge ourselves--seriously challenge ourselves--and allow new evidence change our current beliefs if it warrants it. We should be open to the possibility that we’ve currently gotten something wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:




Here are the first two paragraphs of an interesting article on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. “Absolutely not,” he said. “No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct.”
I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It’s clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man’s mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. Remember, in many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Class Canceled (4/24)

I am sick again, so our class is canceled for today (Tuesday, April 24th). Sorry for the late notice.

Homework #3 is still due at the beginning of class on Thursday April 26th.

Possible Paper Articles

Here are some links to a variety of articles you could use for your paper on explaining and evaluating an article's argument. I strongly recommend using one of these articles, since many (the first 8 in particular) contain bad arguments:

1. Down With Facebook!: it's soooo lame
2. Is Facebook Making Us Lonely? generational I'M-SPECIAL-ism
3. Do Fish Feel Pain?: "it's a tricky issue, so I'll go with my gut"
4. In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: are some people just not meant for college?
5. Study Says Social Conservatives Are Dumb: but that doesn't mean they're wrong
6. A New Argument Against Gay Marriage: hetero marriage is unique & indispensable
7. Ben Stein's Confession for the Holidays: taking sides on the war on christmas
8. Get Over Ferris Bueller: it's an overrated movie
   
   
9. You Don't Deserve Your Salary: no one does
10. The Financial Crisis Killed Libertarianism: if it wasn't dead to begin with
11. How'd Economists Get It So Wrong?: Krugman says the least wrong was Keynes
12. An Open Letter to Krugman: get to know your field
13. Consider the Lobster: David Foster Wallace ponders animal ethics
14. Are Dolphins People?: an ocean full of sea-people
15. The Dark Art of Interrogation: Bowden says torture is necessary
16. The Idle Life is Worth Living: in praise of laziness
17. Should I Become a Professional Philosopher?: maybe not (update)
18. Blackburn Defends Philosophy: it beats being employed

Wished Pots Never Boil

Here is a hodgepodge of links on some psychological impediments we're discussing recently:

• If you're a fan of The Secret, you should beware that it's basic message is wishful thinking run amok.
• Courtroom judges have pretty serious biases: they're more lenient earlier in the day and right after a break. Scary!!!!
• Teachers have biases, too: we're self-serving and play favorites.
• Why don't we give more aid to those in need? Psychological impediments are at least partly to blame.
• Why do we believe medical myths (like "vitamin C cures the common cold," or "you should drink 8 glasses of water a day")? Psychological impediments, of course!
• Wikipedia has a great list of common misconceptions.
  

The Importance of Being Stochastic

Statistical reasoning is incredibly important. The vast majority of advancements in human knowledge (all sciences, social sciences, medicine, engineering...) is the result of using some kind of math. If I had to recommend one other course that could improve your ability to learn in general, it'd be Statistics.

Anyway, here is a bunch of links:

• Most of us are pretty bad at statistical reasoning.
• Here's a review of a decent book (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives) on our tendency to misinterpret randomness as if it's an intentional pattern.
• Controversial claim alert! This ability to see patterns where there are none may explain why so many of us believe in god (see section 5 in particular).
• It also may explain why we think small schools do a better job at educating students.  They probably don't.
• What was that infinite monkey typewriter thing we were talking about in class?
• What's up with that recent recommendation that routine screenings for breast cancer should wait until your 50s rather than 40s? Math helps explain it.

Direct Experience

Here are two videos on stuff we're talking about in class this week. First, watch this:



Next, watch this:



Finally, here's an article on this issue. Still trust your direct experience?

3/22 Class Canceled

I'm sick, so Thursday's class is canceled.

Our last two group presentations--groups #5 and #6--were scheduled for Thursday. They should now be prepared to present in class on Tuesday, March 27th.

Midterm

The midterm will be held at the beginning of class on Tuesday, March 20th. It's worth 15% of your overall grade, and will cover everything we've done in class so far:

• definitions of 'logic,' 'reasoning,' and 'argument'
• evaluating arguments (Chapter 6)
• types of arguments:
  -deductive (aim for certainty, are valid/invalid and sound/unsound) (Chapter 8)
  -inductive (generalizing from examples, are evaluated based how large and representative the examples in the premises are) (Chapter 7)
  -args about cause/effect (correlation vs. causation) (Chapter 7)
  -args by analogy (evaluated in terms of how similar the things compared are, and how relevant the similarities are to the conclusion being drawn) (Chapter 7)
  -abductive (inferences to the best explanation, evaluated in terms of coherence with background theories, simplicity, predictive power, falsifiability, etc.) (Chapter 12)
• the 11 fallacies covered in class so far (Chapter 5)

Get to studying!

Let's Be Diplomatic: Straw Person

Here's some stuff on the straw man fallacy:

• Politicians love to distort their opponents' positions. Even Obama does it.
• Politicians aren't alone: we do it, too. Often we distort arguments for claims we disagree with without even realizing it. This is because we have trouble coming up with good reasons supporting a conclusion that we think is false, so we have a tendency to make up bad reasons and attribute them to our opponents.
• Hire your own professional straw man!
• Here's the Critical Thinker's video explanation of the straw figure fallacy:
  
  
• I recommend the Critical Thinker's podcast.
  

Also, speaking of red herrings, here's a cute cat picture:

Wait, we weren't just speaking of red her--Oh. I see what you did there.

Clever.

Group Presentations: 9:25 a.m. Class

Here are the assigned groups for the group presentations on fallacies for the 9:25 a.m. class, along with your topics and the tentative date of each presentation (those dates may be pushed back):

1. Ad Hominem & Appeal to Force (February 28th): Dale, Jeff, Kenniqua, Yasmine, Zach
2. Appeal to Pity & Popular Appeal (February 28th): Brenda, Jon, José, Sean
3. Appeal to Ignorance & Begging the Question (March 1st): Courtney, Frank, Kevin, Steve W.
4. Straw Man & Red Herring (March 1st): Chaz, Donnie, Giselle, Jason, Samantha
5. Appeal to Authority & False Dilemma (March 20th): Daniel, Jasmaine, Joey, John, Maggie
6. Slippery Slope & The Naturalistic Fallacy (March 20th): Akin, Beth, Brittany, Heather, Stephen C.

If you haven't been assigned to a group yet, let me know as soon as possible.  Below are more details about the presentation.

During our section on fallacies, groups of 4-5 students will present short lessons on two specific fallacies that their members have researched on their own.

Groups are free to choose how to present their topic to the rest of the class. Be creative! Think about puppets, posters, cartoons, songs, skits, handouts, whatever. Part of your grade will be based on how creative your presentation is. Remember, though, that you are expected to teach these fallacies to the rest of the class. Although they will have read about your fallacies in our textbook, the rest of class will probably not be as familiar with the material you are presenting as your group is. Here are some helpful suggestions of things to include in your presentation:

• DEFINITION: A formal definition of each fallacy
• A slow, clear explanation in plain English of what those definitions mean
• EXAMPLES: Lots of specific examples of arguments that commit each fallacy
• Explanations of how it is that these example arguments commit the fallacy
• WHY BAD?: An explanation of why each fallacy is a mistake in reasoning

I also recommend incorporating class participation of some form into your presentation. At the end of each presentation, the group will answer questions from the rest of the class.

The presentation is worth 150 points (15% of your overall grade). Except in unusual circumstances, each group member shall receive the same grade. There will not be any time set aside in class for groups to research and prepare for their presentation, so you should meet outside class to work on this presentation.

An Argument's Support

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises provide us with enough information for us to figure out the conclusion from them. In other words, the premises, if they were true, would logically show us that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures are such that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Arguments (Valid)
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows will be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, are you able to figure out from the premises that the conclusion is also true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths gives you a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Arguments (Invalid)
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – the premises don’t give you enough information. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting dogs take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we did as group work in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mamammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

P1- true
P2- true
support- valid
overall- sound

2) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
support- valid (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall- unsound (bad first premise)

3) All males in this class are humans.
All females in this class are humans.
All males in this class are females.

P1- true
P2- true
support- invalid (the premises only tell us that males and females both belong to the humans group; we don't know enough about the relationship between males and females from this)
overall- unsound (bad support)

4) No humans are amphibians.
All frogs are amphibians.
No frogs are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
support-  valid (the premises say that frogs belong to a group that humans can't belong to, so it follows that no frogs are humans)
overall- sound

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
support- invalid  (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- unsound (bad support)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
support- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) Oprah Winfrey is a person.
Some people ate tacos yesterday.
Oprah Winfrey ate tacos yesterday.

P1- true
P2- true (you might not have directly seen anyone eat tacos, but you have a lot of indirect evidence... with all the Taco Bells, Don Pablos, etc., surely lots of people ate tacos yesterday)
support- invalid (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the  people who didn't)
overall- unsound (bad support)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
support- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
support- valid (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false
support- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
support- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)

12) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall. 

P1- true
P2- true!
support- invalid (the premises state a strong statistical generalization over a large population, and the conclusion claims that this generalization holds for a much smaller portion of that population; even though it's likely that most students in here are, in fact, shorter than 7 feet tall, it nevertheless could be true that the humans in here are a statistical anomaly)
overall- unsound (bad support)

13) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
support- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
support- invalid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)

15) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now. 

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
support- valid 
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

16) If there is no God, then life is meaningless.
Life isn't meaningless.
There is a God.

P1- questionable (that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
support- valid (the same structure as argument #15)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

That Beyoncé Video WAS Great...

Why doesn't Kanye give a toast to the tools?

Extra Credit: Understanding a Long Argument

As mentioned in class, your next extra credit assignment is to read the following column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times:

• Is Our Economy Healing?

Figure out Krugman's argument: what is his main point? What are his reasons supporting this main point? Summarize Krugman's argument in a clear premise/conclusion format. Hand in your formal premise/conclusion version of Krugman's article at the beginning of class on Tuesday, January 31st.

Homework: Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on this blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://2012rowanlogic.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; landis@rowan.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Class Expectations

Logic can be a difficult subject to master. I expect each student to put in a good deal of effort on a variety of fronts.

Read the Textbook. The textbook is, in my opinion, well written and quite helpful. While I do not assign a lot of reading, what I do assign is often dense and full of many insights. This means that you may not fully understand what you read the first time you read it. Do not despair; this is common. Logic is a branch of philosophy, and philosophical writings in general are best understood upon multiple readings. You should develop the habit of reading the assigned pages a few times, including both before and after our class discussion of the relevant material.

Attend Class. While the book is informative, often time the assigned reading is only a launching point, and the key skills or concepts we’re learning during a given section goes beyond the book. If you cannot attend class on a certain day, that’s fine (and outside excused absences, you need not tell me why—frankly, I don’t care why you’re not there). But you should not make a habit of missing classes.

Participate in Class. I like to describe our classroom as a judgment-free zone. I’m not concerned with students looking perfect or seeming smart in class. In fact, effective learning involves discussing precisely the things we don’t fully understand yet. Learning is a process that involves a lot of failing: getting things wrong, figuring out where we went wrong, and trying again. A lot of class time will involve this type of (helpful) failing. This may go against how many of your classes are run. Good. I think many of the assumptions underlying our current education institution aren’t conducive to effective learning.

Class is one of the most important times to engage in helpful discussions. If something confuses you, let me know! Chances are, it confuses a lot of students. Sometimes, I think I’ve understood something I read, only to discover upon discussing it that I haven’t really understood it. Getting feedback from a group of smart people who’ve read the same thing as you is invaluable to learning. I understand that some students are shy (I was quite shy myself in college), but try not to be timid simply out of fear of looking silly or stupid.

Practice. In addition to guided discussions, class time will involve a lot of informal group work on logic problems. There will also be lots of optional extra credit assignments. These are chances to practice. We are mostly developing skills in this class, skills that cannot be picked up in five minutes. Skills take prolonged training and effort, like learning to play the piano or hitting a 90-mph fastball. Again, be OK with failing! Just try to fail better each time you practice.

Because of this, I try to measure students based on the progress they make throughout the course. A student who struggles early in the semester is not doomed to a low grade. Early struggles are merely a warning sign that more or a different kind of effort is required. On the other end of the spectrum, for a small percentage of students, getting a good grade in this class will be relatively easy. For such students, I encourage you to challenge yourself. Don’t settle for merely learning the most basic skills we’re studying. Try to develop the more advanced skills touched on throughout the course. Read the articles linked to on the course blog! Talk to me outside class! Commit yourself to taking full advantage of this class.

Care About Learning. This should be your primary goal of taking this class—not getting a good grade, or socializing, or impressing me, or whatever. While I understand that these other things are important (I care a lot about the social value of college, for instance), these should not supersede your devotion to learning.

Course Details

The Logic of Everyday Reasoning
Rowan University
Philosophy 09110
  Spring 2012
Section 01: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 8:00 – 9:15 a.m. in Savitz Hall, Room 217
Section 04: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 9:25 – 10:40 a.m. in Rowan Hall, Room 102

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: landis@rowan.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://2012rowanlogic.blogspot.com
Office Hours: by appointment

Required Text
THiNK: Critical Thinking and Logic Skills for Everyday Life, 2nd edition, by Judith Boss
We are presented with arguments in support of all sorts of claims all the time, on topics as serious as abortion or the death penalty and as trivial as who the Phillies best player is or whether Conan is funnier than Leno. How can we tell good arguments from bad ones?

This course focuses on understanding and evaluating arguments. We’ll first learn how to identify the components and structures of arguments. We’ll then learn how to pick apart the bad reasoning found in some arguments by going over logical fallacies, which are the different ways an argument can go wrong. We’ll also discuss the limitations of our own reasoning abilities and the natural biases that throw us off.

Armed with these evaluative tools, we’ll then explore our arguments for what we believe, and revise or strengthen them based on proper reasoning. The course’s main goal is to develop a respect for arguments as an important, if not the most important, tool of inquiry and decision-making. Examining the logical evidence in support of a claim or decision is a crucial component of figuring out the truth and gaining a deep understanding of complex issues.

Assignments
Each assignment is created carefully, and designed to both measure and improve upon specific skills that students are expected to develop throughout the semester. I try to explicitly point out the educational importance of each assignment (both below and when I assign it), but if an assignment’s value is ever unclear, let me know! I value student feedback. Sometimes complacency makes me continue using an assignment that isn’t very helpful, or sometimes I haven’t explained an assignment clarly enough.

Midterm and Final Exams: Exams are a chance to demonstrate your understanding of a wide variety of topics and skills that we’ll study throughout the semester. To this end, there will be a variety of question types on the exams. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (75 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will also last about 75 minutes, and be held during finals week.

Quizzes: Unlike the exams, quizzes will not be cumulative. Quiz #1 will test you on everything covered during the first 4 weeks of class, and quiz #2 will test you on the material we cover after the midterm. Quizzes will last 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of the period on the scheduled day.

Short Paper: There will be a short paper (400-800 words) on understanding and evaluating an argument from a newspaper or magazine article. Due toward the end of the semester, this assignment provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate whether you have developed two of the most primary skills we’re learning this semester: the ability to understand an argument, and the ability to evaluate an argument’s logical quality.

Group Presentation: This will be a group project presented in front of the class in the middle of the semester. Each group of 3-5 students will research two fallacies and present a 10- to 15-minute oral presentation on them to the rest of the class. Groups should focus on teaching these fallacies effectively. To this end, the main criteria groups shall be graded on are their understanding of the fallacies and their ability to effectively communicate their understanding to the rest of class.

Homework: Although I usually assign a lot of optional extra credit assignments throughout the semester, there will only be three graded homework assignments. These homework assignments will be similar to the various extra credit and in-class group work assignments we do. The graded homeworks, however, will usually come at the end of a particular section, after you have had a chance to try a variety of similar logical assignments in and out of class. The expectation, then, is not that you master every skill or concept as soon as it is introduced. Rather, you should expect to struggle on the informal and extra assignments, using them as important practice for improvement. Only after a lot of practice and effort do I expect you to perform well, and only then shall I grade your performance.

Fun Thursdays: There will be three in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Thursdays during the semester. These will be a chance to more casually discuss some issues more loosely related to the class, yet more closely connected to important practical concerns of our everyday lives.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for your attendance grade. In addition, informal group work can impact your grade. I value your attendance, and I expect you to show up each day. I also realize, though, that we sometimes need added motivation to attend each day, and I use this grade as a small carrot to motivate you.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Midterm 150 points
Final 250 points
Quizzes (2) 75 points each (150 points total)
Group Presentation 150 points
Homework 90 points total
Short Paper 100 points
Fun Tuesdays 60 points total
Attendance/Participation 50 points

Grades
A = 934-1000 total points
A- = 900-933 total points
B+ = 867-899 total points
B = 834-866 total points
B- = 800-833 total points
C+ = 767-799 total points
C = 734-766 total points
C- = 700-733 total points
D+ = 667-699 total points
D = 634-666 total points
D- = 600-633 total points
F = below 600 total points

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class.

Excused Absences: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences. Excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury (with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test can result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Course Schedule

*This schedule is tentative and will probably change a lot*

January 17—19
Tuesday: Introduction to class | (no reading)
Thursday: Critical Thinking & Understanding Arguments| read pages 165-174

January 24—26
Tuesday: Understanding Arguments: Argument Workshop| read pages 174-184
Thursday: Evaluating Arguments | read pages 185-191

January 31—February 2
Tuesday: Deductive Args: Valid & Sound | read pages 237-247
Thursday: Deductive Args: Evaluating Validity | read pages 247-261; Homework #1 due

February 7—9
Tuesday: Inductive Arguments | read pages 200-213
Thursday: QUIZ #1; Inductive Args: Analogies & Causal Args | read pages 214-227

February 14—16
Tuesday: Inductive Args wrap-up
Thursday: Scientific Reasoning (Abductive Args) | read pages
366-383 | FUN THURSDAY #1: Proof

February 21—23
Tuesday: Scientific Arguments: Evaluation (murder mystery) | read pages 384-394
Thursday: Fallacies: Equivocation, Division, Composition | read pages 131-136

February 28—March 1
Tuesday: Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Force, Pity, Popular Appeal | pgs. 137-144; Presentations #1 & #2
Thursday: Fallacies: Ignorance, Circular, Straw Man, Red Herring | pgs. 144-150; Presentations #3 & #4; Homework #2 due

March 6—8
Tuesday: Review for Midterm Exam | (no assignment)
Thursday: MIDTERM EXAM

March 13—15: Spring Break (no class!) (woo?)


March 20—22
Tuesday: Fallacies: Authority, Dilemma, Slippery, & Naturalistic | pgs. 150-159; Presentations #5 & #6
Thursday: Cognitive Biases: Perception, Memory, Hearsay | read pages 95-102

March 27—29
Tuesday: Cognitive Biases: Confirmation Bias, Statistical Reasoning | read pages 102-113
Thursday: Cognitive Biases: I’M-SPECIAL-ism | read pages 113-117

April 3—5
Tuesday: Cognitive Biases: Social Biases | read pgs. 118-123
Thursday: Cognitive Biases: wrap-up | no reading | FUN THURSDAY #2: Counteracting Biases

April 10—12
Tuesday: QUIZ #2; Intellectual Honesty intro | read pages 1-12
Thursday: Intellectual Honesty: Charity | read pages 13-19

April 17—19
Tuesday: Intellectual Honesty: Humility, Open-Mindedness | pgs. 20-29 | FUN THURSDAY #3: Life Plan
Thursday: PAPER due; Advertising & News | read pages 309-319, 323-330

April 24—26
Tuesday: Mass Media: News, Critical Consumers | read pages 338-352
Thursday: Mass Media wrap-up; review for Final Exam | read pages 357-359 | Homework #3 due

May 1st
8:00-10:00 | Final Exam (8:00 class)
10:15-12:15 | Final Exam (9:25 class)