|
Critical Thinking |
|
Style and rhetoric (the presentation of an argument) are important in persuasion, they can enhance the chances that an audience will accept, even listen to, an argument. Simply understand that these kinds of "song and dance" behaviors do not make a liar, but they have nothing to do with the soundness of the statement offered.
1. The most that can be true from someone's conclusion is that it is shown to be true in the context of other things you already accept as true. When you attempt to persuade make sure that your evidence is provided and that it is true. Expect evidence that you can accept when hearing other's arguments. If the support is weak, so is the conclusion. Solid evidence does not mean the conclusion is true, but if it is true, it is true because there is support. 2. Even if the evidence is solid, the conclusion must follow from the linkages to the support. The most that can be shown is that the conclusion is probably true, in view of certain other evidence that you already accept as true. A collection of facts by themselves does not make a sound argument. Look for:
Among the first professional educators were the Sophists. Their teachings revolved about the use of words to demonstrate that "meaning" is arbitrary, truth is relative, and nothing absolutely knowable. Plato, and later Aristotle, provided the criticism to their philosophy that led to their extinction in 4th century BC Greece. Plato argued that truth is immutable and real. A higher truth is revealed by reason. Aristotle argued that Plato's higher truth only can be inferred by experience - perception of facts which provide evidence or illustration. Similar kinds of arguments continue in philosophy today, and a course in business management is not likely to illuminate this notion of higher "truth". Our problem is that logic can only establish the truth of a conclusion. For a conclusion to be truthful, its premises or supporting statements must be truthful. A standard or rule to discriminate true from not-true is needed or we fall into the dilemma of the Sophists in which any conclusion as good as another. Critical thinking will rely on reason, but truthfulness will rely on experience. Premises that support a conclusion are offered either as fact or opinion. Facts are observable, based on experience. Opinions may, or not be, based on experience. Because facts can be verified by experience (use of the senses) and are not contradicted by evidence. Facts are truthful statements. Facts can support truthful conclusions. Opinions may lack verification by experience, and there may exist contrary opinions. Opinions can support a sound argument; but, the conclusion is only as true as the truthfulness of the supporting opinions. While we can accept as truthful from another person's arguments those facts and opinions that we also have experienced, how can someone convince us that a premise is a fact or opinion is truthful if we do not accept it as truthful? Sometimes this simply is not possible. People have their own view of how the world operates, and we may not share this view. It is doubtful that an astronomer and astrologist, for example, will agree about the facts of the planets; a Republican and Democrat probably will not agree on the political and economic facts; and, scientists differ on the interpretation of evidence. While it is appropriate to challenge someone's facts or opinions as untruthful, a standard can be accepted to establish the truthfulness of a premise. This formal test is important when you must convince someone else, more skeptical, that your statement is truthful. It is needed to test the truthfulness of others' statements. To establish a truthful fact or opinion, three formal tests are used:
Experience - Our senses connect us to the "real" world and inform us. I "know" something because I have seen it, tasted it, smelled it, touched it, or heard it with my own ears. These are observations, and we want statements made in an argument to correspond to facts that we can observe. But, anyone who has seen the same event as someone else and came away with a different interpretation of the event understands the limitations of personal experience alone. The tendency is to seek confirmation of what we think we know. The quandary is that if we look for proof that we are right, we will probably find something that confirms our experience or someone else that agrees with us. This is the confirmation trap, or one-sided argument fallacy. In science a research project is expected to try to prove the "null hypothesis", that is, seek evidence that a statement is not true. In ordinary conversation or persuasion, the requirement is that "all sides be considered". It is difficult to want to argue against something you want people to accept, but if truthful statements are sought we must consider any contrary evidence. Be assured that if you do not entertain the prospects of a contrary observation, a good opponent in an argument will offer such evidence. If there is contrary evidence, a statement cannot be "true". There is a problem here: We cannot "prove" the truth of a statement. We can offer our evidence that something may be true, but the requirement is to find that it is not true. This contrary evidence may exist, but not be available because it has not been discovered or we are ignorant of its existence. Science has this problem often. The statement: "There is no life on Mars" seems to be truthful, but piece-by-piece there is evidence contrary to this statement. First, scientists though they saw microscopic life forms in a Martian rock. There wasn't. Next, scientists discovered that maybe there's water there. And, water would likely suggest life forms. Scientists can only prove "There is no life on Mars" by disproving it - looking for life there. So, if you believe that "satisfied workers are more productive", the evidence is not that you know of such cases. Do you know anyone who is dissatisfied, but productive? Are there such people? If there are then the proposition is not true. Statistical or probability statements are truthful statements. If the argument is that "60% of workers report higher productivity with higher levels of satisfaction." The statement is a fact because, presumably, others can also find this by observation, and the statement that associates satisfaction with productivity applies to a defined section of the population (60% of workers). If we cannot prove the complete truth of a statement, except by negating it, absolute truth in ordinary arguments is illusive. We tend to accept as truthful those statements that are likely to be true based on experience, but we impose additional standards. Internal consistency - Truthful conclusions are developed from facts that are relevant, significant, and not contradictory. Internal consistency requires that the statements that construct an argument are plausible explanations. For example, the argument that "A firm maximizes profits by increasing its sales efforts and cutting costs across the board" contains inconsistent statements. If a firm increases sales it incurs costs in marketing, sales personnel and the like, therefore it cannot cut costs "across the board". In logic, and statistics, internal consistency is a kind of validation. It tests to see if statements used to draw a conclusion (in statistics, to develop a measure a of a construct, e.g. "intelligence") is representative or similar and actually fits into the context of the whole argument. For example, in statistics trying to measure "intelligence" with measures such as reading, writing, and arithmetic items seems internally consistent, using a person's weight is not internally consistent with these other measures to determine intelligence. This standard is especially important for arguments based on opinion. Since others may not share our opinions, our statements must be internally consistent. The analogy is the standard we might use in a courtroom to determine if a witness is telling the truth. Since we were not at the scene of the crime to verify the facts ourselves, we rely on the evidence of witnesses. If a witnesses statements are consistent, we are more likely to accept the statements as truthful. Consistency with What Else We Know - We know a lot of things to be true that we did not personally experience. For example, I know that of American's 100 largest corporations (measured by revenues) all are diversified corporations. I know this, not because I have examined each firm, but because there is a large body of research by people with expertise in scientific research that has demonstrated this to be true. Presumably, I could test it myself, but I won't because I simply accept it as a fact. If this same body of science later rejects this because of contrary evidence, I'll accept that rejection as fact, too. This requirement brings up two real problems in answering the question "How do I know what I know?" The first problem is the status of science (and other authorities) to establish "truths". Anyone following the debate on cholesterol will understand that science is not always consistent with its facts. (I still don't understand if olive oil is ok or not.) So, why do we place authority on scientists to determine what to believe? The answer is "We don't." We do subscribe to the rigor of methods that science uses to establish what we know, however. I understand that in many areas of knowledge, scientists agree - so these are facts. In other areas, like "Is there water on Mars?", scientists do not agree - so these are opinions. When using science to prove an statement as truthful, it is best to state contrary findings and explain where the science is on the issue now. The second problem with this consistency argument is that it seemingly resists changes in what we know. If accepting as "truth" requires that it be consistent with what is already known, how can we learn new things?" One answer is that science is about adding to what we know, so it is knowledge that is additive and self-perfecting. Maybe a better argument for science is that it is about problem solving. When our current knowledge fails to explain a new observation, a problem is created. The old way of thinking needs to be restructured or new knowledge needs to be created to explain the observation. In the end, what is accepted as fact or knowledge is a competition of ideas about how the world works. And, when science is at its best, the winner in this competition becomes our shared and accepted body of knowledge. This standard is especially important in establishing the truthfulness of opinions. The evidence provided by a witness should not only be internally consistent, it should be coherent with all the other evidence. Evidence that is consistent with, and supportive of, other statements are more likely to be truthful.
Additionally, there are strategies that can be helpful in
trying to understand and reconstruct an argument:
Lastly, evaluate and assess the argument that you have reconstructed. In this we use the Principle of Charitable Interpretation, meaning we give the presenter some slack. Recognize that the presenter likely did not set out to devise a logical structure (although a critical thinker would), so some of what we require will be missing. Supply any missing premises and, if necessary, a conclusion, but do not attribute to the presenter any statements that the person would not accept. The strategy for determining the validity of a reconstructed argument is:
A critique of a presentation can include non-logical elements. For example, we could evaluate the style of presentation, use of dramatic effect, appearance, speaking voice, use of grammar, creativity, comedy or gravity, or shear enjoyment of hearing or reading the presentation. These elements are important. They determine if people pay attention, accept the authority of the presenter, and how people evaluate the interaction. Many, if not most people, focus on these characteristics of a speech or narrative. These elements simply have nothing to do with the soundness of the argument, and in critical thinking that is the objective.
|
| NEXT |  |