PHI 2101: Critical Thinking
Spring 2003
CL1-308 Tues/Thurs 10:00-11:15
Instructor and Contact Information:
Dr. Nancy Stanlick
CNH 411-I/407-823-2273 or 407-823-5459
e-mail: stanlick@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Office Hours: Tues, Thurs:
9:30-9:55, 1:30-2:30; Wed: 10:30-12:00 & by appointment
Texts:
John Chaffee, Thinking Critically, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003).
Antony Flew, How to Think Straight (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998).
Go to the message board through this link
Course Requirements/Course Description and Objective:
3 Examinations = 45% (15% each, or 150 points per exam)
Make up examinations are unpleasant for everyone, but if you miss one
for a good, legitimate, and verifiable reason, you may make it up within 3
class meeting days of its initial administration.
Short Papers = 20% (200 points)
You may DROP the lowest grade on one of these papers. In addition, if you are absent on a day on
which a short paper is due, you may turn it in during the NEXT class meeting
day, but it will be reduced by 20%. No
short paper is accepted more than 1 class meeting day late. Short papers will be assigned throughout the
term.
In-class assignments/quizzes = 25% (250 points)
There are no pre-set due dates for these assignments. You may DROP THE LOWEST grade on ONE of
these assignments. Due dates will be
announced in class or on the on-line syllabus, or both. If you are absent on a day on which an in-class
assignment is required, you can drop that grade. But all the others will count whether you are in class to take
them or not.
Attendance, Participation = 10% (100 points)
Attendance will be taken from time to time, and the days on which
attendance are taken are days that attendance counts. If attendance isn’t taken, then that day doesn’t count against
you as an absence if you are not there.
It’s the luck of the draw on this one.
1-3 absences are not counted in the attendance grade. 4-5 absences will reduce your attendance
grade by 50%; 6 or more and you lose
the entire 10%.
Critical Thinking is a 2000-level course in philosophy centered on aspects of practical and critical reading, reasoning, and writing. It requires your REGULAR attendance and active participation. If you have taken PHI 2100 (Formal Logic I) there are aspects of this course that you will find similar to that one, but the primary focus is not, like formal logic, with symbolic logic and deductive reasoning (although symbol systems and deductive arguments are part of the course). Some of the points of focus in this course are analogical reasoning, comparative reasoning, induction (probability), and the application of critical reasoning strategies to practical and theoretical problems. Throughout the course, you will develop the ability to analyze critically the arguments of others and carefully construct well-reasoned arguments of your own on a variety of topics.
It is truly the case that attendance counts. If you don’t intend to attend regularly and you act on that intention, your grade will reflect that fact. You can keep track of your grades in this course by considering the following. Your grade is based on 1000 points. Each examination is worth 15% of your final grade. You can determine the net value of any exam by multiplying the percentage grade you receive by 1.5 to yield a point total out of a possible 150 points. So, for example, if you receive an 80 on the first examination, multiply that number by 1.5 to yield the total points you earned out of a possible 150 points. Assignments and quizzes are collectively worth 25% of your grade, or 250 points. To determine your assignment/quiz grade, determine the average of all of your assignment and quiz grades and multiply that number by 2.5 to yield the total points you have earned out of 250.
Grading Scale and Policies
|
A |
95-100% |
C |
74-76.x% |
|
A- |
90-94.x% |
C- |
70-73.x% |
|
B+ |
87-89.x% |
D+ |
67-69.x% |
|
B |
84-86.x% |
D |
64-66.x% |
|
B- |
80-83.x% |
D- |
60-63.x% |
|
C+ |
77-79.x% |
F |
0-59.x% |
- Plagiarism or cheating of any kind on an examination, paper, or any assignment of any kind for this course will result at least in an “F” for that assignment (and may, depending on the severity of the case, lead to an “F” for the entire course) and may be subject to appropriate referral to the Office of Student Conduct for further action. See the UCF Golden Rule for further information.
- Assignments done outside of class must also be your own work. There is nothing wrong with seeking the assistance of others (in fact, helping each other to study for examinations is highly recommended), but simply obtaining answers or information from another person and turning them in as your own is certainly unacceptable.
- I will assume for this course that you will adhere to the academic creed of the University and will maintain the highest standards of academic integrity (academic integrity is, in fact, is one of the sub-topics of this course). In other words, don’t cheat by giving answers to others or by taking them from anyone else.
Schedule
1/7: Introductory information, course requirements, and general introduction to argumentation.
1/9: Basic parts of an argument; Relevance, Strength, and Truth Requirements
Flew, Chapter 1
1/14: Argumentation
Added 1/15/03-Keep in mind that arguments can go wrong not only in inferences, but also in the statements that comprise them. Ask yourself when you analyze an argument whether the information provided in support of the conclusion is relevant to the conclusion, whether there is enough information, and whether the information provided satisfies the requirement of truth. In essence, arguments can commit fallacies of relevance or strength, or the premises (or conclusion) may be subject to the charge of “questionable claim/statement” for a variety of reasons.
1/16: Argumentation Continued.
Chaffee, chapter 10, pp. 449-478; Argument/Statement Analysis. Emma Goldman on “Preparedness.” See http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Essays/preparedness.html
Analysis of Goldman’s argument moved to January 23.
1/21: Argumentation Continued.
CLASS WAS CANCELLED.
For 1/23, read chapter 10 (Chaffee) from pp. 449-478. This should have already been done for 1/21.
1/23: Analyzing Issues
Chaffee, chapter 1, pp. 4, 30-49. This is basic information on evaluating arguments. It will be useful in doing assignment 1. Remember that assignment 1 is due one week from today. Analysis of Emma Goldman’s argument today. See also Chaffee, ch. 10 (449-478) and Chaffee, chapter 5 on the distinction between knowledge and belief and evaluating beliefs. Chapter 5 is background, general information.
Some major topics in Chaffee’s chapter 10:
- Recognizing arguments – watching for premise and conclusion indicators
- The distinction between validity and invalidity (see esp. pp. 464-466
- Deductive Argumentation – argument forms such as MP, MT, DS, (add HS)
Some elements of Flew’s text relevant to Chaffee’s ch. 10 and ch. 5:
- Affirming the Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent, section 2.8
- Argument forms, sections 2.4-2.8
- Denying the Antecedent, Denying the Consequent, sections 2.8, 2.14-2.16, 2.21 and 2.23
- Knowledge, sections 2.12-2.13, 8.7-8.9, 8.26
- Conditional Propositions, 2.5-2.7
Assignments/Dates: Assignment 1 (Due in class on Jan. 30, 2003): Go to either of the following links. The first is an argument on legislating morality (reference to abortion) and the second is about a requirement that the public be informed of pharmacist’s mistakes.
Choose one of these arguments to
analyze. It doesn’t matter which one you wish to do. Do the following:
- Print
the article.
- Identify
3 statements in the argument that are statements of fact and 3 statements
of belief or opinion. Do this by
underlining statements of fact and either highlighting or circling the
statements of belief or opinion.
- State
specifically what is the main/major conclusion of the argument.
- Identify
basic premises, intermediate conclusion(s) and main conclusion and
construct a diagram of the argument.
- Briefly
evaluate the quality of the inferences.
Focus your attention generally on relevance, strength and truth.
You should be able to do all this in 2 pages. The first page will be the copy of the article in which you identify statements of fact/knowledge and belief/opinion. The second page will be your structure diagram (similar to that which is done in class on 1/23). A brief statement of your position regarding the quality of the inferences will appear along the side of the diagram.
1/28: More argument analysis from contemporary or textual sources.
Continuation of content of 1/23.
See this link on structure diagram construction.
See this link for additional information on constructing argument diagrams related to the assignment due on 1/30.
See this link for a complete argument diagram and inference analysis.
Continuation of argument analyses from 1/23 in class.
There is a quiz today.
The answers to quiz 1 are here.
1/30: Argument Analysis
also chapter 5 of Chaffee, pp. 193-248 – Perception and Knowledge.
Argument analysis short paper assignment 1 is
due today.
2/4: Review for Exam 1.
Return quiz 1 and assignment 1. See this link for information on structure/quality of the “legislating morality” argument. http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~stanlick/ctasgn1diagrams.doc
Review for exam 1. Chapter contents of exam=chapters 1, 5, and 10 of Chaffee. Relevant sections of Flew’s text (see Jan. 23 information, above) and below. Some major concepts for consideration for exam 1: Argument Structure Diagrams, definitions/descriptions of basic premises, intermediate conclusions, main conclusion, inference, fallacy, questionable premise, irrelevant reason, hasty conclusion. Distinction between knowledge and opinion/belief. Definitions of terms.
General format/contents: Structure Diagram construction of short argument(s). Basic argument/inference analysis using 3 criteria of cogent reasoning. Objective or short essay questions on elements of argumentation. Terminology. Relationships between concepts.
Sections of Flew’s How to Think Straight:
Knowing, 8.7-8.9, 1.57-1.58, 2.12-2.13, 8.26
Contexts of Discovery and Justification: 8.25
Deduction: 1.10-1.16, 1.19, 1.38-1.39, 5.26
Fallacies: 1.49-1.54
Reasons: 4.4-4.8
Necessary and Contingent Truth, 3.4-3.6
2/6: Exam 1.
Exam 1 moved to 2/6 due to class cancellation
on 1/21.
Format of Test 1: Section I, 20 points, 10 multiple choice
questions.
Section II, 30 points, 6 short answer identification/essay questions.
Section III, 20 points, argument diagram identification of parts/structure.
Section IV, 10 points, 10 identification of argument structure.
Section V, 20 points, Construction of 2 short argument diagrams.
Some major elements of test 1:
Diagram construction - ability to determine which statements are BPs, ICs, MCs
and appropriate placement in the diagram.
Identification of MP, HS, DS, MT as well as invalid deductive argument forms
such as affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent.
Identifying parts of a structure diagram - identifying BP, IC, MC, structure
diagram types (such as convergent, divergent, etc.)
The distinction between denying and refuting a claim, necessary and contingent
truth, the three criteria of cogent reasoning and their priority ordering,
explanation of the three criteria, difference between soundness and validity,
distinction between facts and beliefs/opinions. Fallacy types, esp.
irrelevant reason and hasty conclusion.
2/11: Critical Reasoning
Exam 1 will be returned today.
Chaffee, ch. 11, pp. 504-569. Argument structure diagrams continued and ch. 11 of Chaffee’s Thinking Critically.
Fallacious Reasoning
See also Flew, chapters 4, 6 and 7, “Motives and Grounds,” “Figuring” and “A Chapter of Errors”
2/13: Critical Reasoning Continued
Chaffee, continue chapter 11 on fallacious reasoning – Notes on fallacies and examples.
Continue Flew, chapters 4, 6 and 7
A copy of test 1 is available through this link. Answers
and discussion were done in class on 2/11. Answers
to test 1 at this
link.
There will be a quiz today on fallacious arguments covered on 2/11.
2/18: Critical Reasoning Continued; fallacies
Continue Chaffee, chapter 11 and Flew, chapters 4, 6 and 7
Your quiz on Thursday (2/20) will be relevant to the following
concepts:
The problem of induction, false dilemma, and inclusive and exclusive disjunction
2/20: Constructing Arguments.
Chaffee, chapter 2, pp. 63-66 (Independent Thinking), and 66-80 (Different Perspectives).
Chaffee, chapter 10, pp. 479-502. Evaluating Sources and Constructing Arguments.
There will be a quiz today on fallacious arguments (quiz 3).
Answers to quiz 2 are here (quiz from 2/13).
Short paper assignment 2 is here.
Continue 2/20: Fallacies continued. See updated and expanded link here. Begin “evaluating sources and constructing arguments”
2/25: Fallacies from chapter 11 continued.
Short Paper Assignment 2 is due today. Link with instructions appears above for
2/20.
Answers to quiz 3.
2/27: Fallacies continued, and
- Begin Chaffee, ch. 6, pp. 249-309 on denotation, connotation, syntactic and pragmatic meaning.
- See Flew, ch. 5, “Minding Our Language,”
There will be a quiz today (quiz 4 not posted online).
3-4: Chaffee, Chapter 6, continued pp. 249-309.
- Improving Vague Language, pp. 270-273 of chapter 6, Chaffee.
- Jargon, slang, and euphemisms, pp. 278-286 of chapter 6, Chaffee.
- Emotive language, pp. 287-291 of chapter 6, Chaffee.
The links below are to external sites for practice with
informal fallacy identification and elaboration on explanations of the
occurrences of fallacies.
Link to McGraw Hill Website relevant to informal fallacies, logic tutor page.
External link to “Critical Thinking
Across the Curriculum Project”
An online article illustrating the use of informal fallacies in arguments for war (thanks to Danny who sent the e-mail with this URL).
Short Paper Assignment 3 is due today (but you
can have ‘til Thursday (3/6) if you need the
extra time). Click
here for link with instructions.
3/6: Addition (watch for links): Language and Meaning, Equivalence – immediate inferences
External site for transformation of statements, inferences in Traditional Logic
See
McGraw-Hill, logic
tutor page. – Traditional Logic
There
will be a quiz today on informal fallacies and meaning and language.
3/11: Review for Exam 2: Overview and Review. Continue language, meaning, and inferences. The topic for today is a continuation of immediate inferences in TRADITIONAL LOGIC. See the review link, above, for further information.
3/13: Exam 2
Contents of Exam 2:
Chaffee chapters 11 and 6, Flew chapters 4, 6, 7 and 5, and immediate
inferences.
3/18-3/20: SPRING
BREAK
3/25: Continue
immediate inferences and statement transformations. In class only.
Traditional Logic continued and begin Sentence Logic
See Logic Tutor Page
– Sentence Logic – sections 7.1c, 7.2 and 7.5
3/27: Continue
immediate inferences in TL, SL
There will be a quiz today. Attendance based credit.
4/1: Go to this link for additional problems on immediate inference and truth tables in SL.
A quiz will be
given today (April 1) – QUIZ 7. This may
be the last scheduled or unscheduled quiz of the semester. Use the link for the answers to quiz 3
(posted after the quiz on April 1).
Begin for 4/1: Reporting, Judging and Inferring, Chaffee, chapter 9, pp. 404-425.
- See also Flew, Chapter 2, “If/Then and All/None”
- Section 2.8 – MP, MT, and corresponding fallacies
- Sections 2.9-2.13 – Logical and Practical Possibility
- Sections 2.17-2.21 – Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
- Begin Research and Evidence, Chaffee, chs. 2 and 3, pp. 81-84 and 128-131 (evaluating Internet information) – this section is the topic of the 5th and last assignment of the semester). Your final short paper assignment will be based on this information
- Begin “Making Moral Judgments” in chapter 9 of Chaffee – ethical theories and moral judgments, pp. 425-440.
Short Paper Assignment 4 is due today. In-class only.
4/3: Continue moral judgments and moral/ethical theories. See pp. 425-440 of Chaffee.
See the following links for background on major moral theories.
General Information on Ethical Theories and info on evaluating moral theories/making moral judgments.
Notes and questions based on the text, pp. 425-440.
For information about
application of traditional and sentence logic to the LSAT, GRE, etc., go to this link for problems and examples.
4/8: Continue “moral judgments” and ethical theories.
See also the “Mind Manager” Website and software to be demonstrated in class.
The last assignment for the semester is at this link. It is due on April 10, but if you would like
to have until the 15th to turn it in, that is OK. The basis of the assignment is the sections
of Chaffee’s Thinking Critically on
Internet resources and research. See
pp. 81-84 and 128-131.
4/10: Complete “moral judgments” and ethical theories.
Mind Maps and analyzing concepts such as “religion,” “masculine/feminine,” “moral responsibility,” and “American,” -- Chaffee chapter 7, pp. 311-355
Begin “Perceiving” in Chaffee, ch. 4, pp. 173-181. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and commentary. Analysis of Patriotism, pp. 182-191.
Short Paper Assignment 5 is due today.
4/15: Appearance and Reality. Concepts continued.
Short Paper Assignment 5 must be turned in no
later than today for credit.
Links to information on the Allegory of the Cave (1), (2), (3)
4/17: Review for Final Exam and appearance and reality continued.. Final exam review will be posted here on or before 4/22/03.
Grade
Calculation Instructions.
4/24: Final Exam during exam week - - Thursday April 24, 10:00-12:50 – actual time=10:00-11:30