Critical Thinking

Our thinking about the requirements of morality is like our thinking in many other domains:
1. (semi-) automatic
2. at least partially learned
3. ...and, most importantly, seemingly fallible (intra- and inter-personal moral disagreement)
Critical thinking might also be called “meta-thinking”, or “thinking about our moral thinking”.

Arguments
● Not a fight or dispute, but a means of exploring the relations between/among ideas.
● More precisely, the relations among propositions, statements, assertions, or claims.
○ Propositions: Statements that can be true or false
■ All Bobcats are Felines; All Felines are Mammals; All Bobcats are Mammals
● An argument is more than simply a collection of propositions, but an arrangement of propositions,
such that you have a collection of premises and you have a conclusion, where the idea is that the
premises support the conclusion.

BOBCAT-MAMMAL
○ PREMISE 1: All bobcats are felines.
○ PREMISE 2: All felines are mammals.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) All bobcats are mammals.
A valid argument.

Deductive Validity
● The “gold standard” of argumentative reasoning is what logicians call deductive validity: an
argument where the conclusion “follows from” the premises, or where the truth of the premises
guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
● Some forms of reasoning, i.e. “non-deductive” arguments, do not have this lofty aspiration, but
are nevertheless such that the premises support the conclusion (but do not guarantee its truth).
The truth of the premises in a non-deductive argument makes the truth of the conclusion
“probable” or “likely”, but not guaranteed.
● There are two important types of non-deductive reasoning: induction and abduction; but only one
for deductive reasoning: deduction.

Validity: The Deductive Argument’s Aspiration

● Whether or not a deductive argument meets this “gold standard” is a matter of its structure, or
“logical form”, and NOT a matter of the truth (or otherwise) of its premises/conclusions.
● A deductive argument that is properly structured, such that its having true premises would
guarantee a true conclusion, is said to be a VALID argument. An argument that fails in this
aspiration is INVALID.
● A deductive argument is VALID iff its logical structure is such that:
○ IF its premises are all true
○ THEN its conclusions MUST be true.
● Validity is not the same as truth - validity is a property of the form or structure of a deductive
argument, while truth is a property of the propositions that compose an argument. An argument
can be valid, even if some of the propositions that make up its premises and conclusion are false.
 We can see this quite dramatically by constructing logically valid arguments with entirely false
premises.
○ All bobcats are caterpillars.
All caterpillars are unicorns.
Therefore, all bobcats are unicorns.
Another valid argument.
● You can make a valid argument with false premises, but a true conclusion.
○ All bobcats are caterpillars.
All caterpillars are felines.
Therefore, all bobcats are felines.
Another valid argument.
● However, you can't make a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion. A valid
argument is logically structured such that, IF the premises are (or were to be) true, THEN the
conclusion MUST (of logical necessity) be true.
● You can make an INVALID argument with true premises and a true conclusion.

BOBCAT-FELINE
○ PREMISE 1: All bobcats are mammals.
○ PREMISE 2: All felines are mammals.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) All bobcats are felines.
An invalid argument.

To see how/why this argument is invalid, you need to abstract away from the actual “content” of
these sentences (which, given their current contents, all happen to be true sentences), and look
instead at their logical form, or structure.

BOBCAT-FELINE (FORM)
○ PREMISE 1: All A’s are C’s.
○ PREMISE 2: All B’s are C’s.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) All A’s are B’s.

To see why “Bobcat-Feline” is an invalid argument, you need to see that it’s form (as set forth
above) is invalid. To see that its form is invalid, you simply need to recognize that there are other
instances of this form, which can have true premises but a FALSE conclusion. For example,
replace “feline” with “canine”...

BOBCAT-CANINE
○ PREMISE 1: All bobcats are mammals.
○ PREMISE 2: All canines are mammals.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) All bobcats are canines.
An invalid argument.

If “Bobcat-Canine” is an invalid argument, so is “Bobcat-Feline”, as they have the same logical

form.
● Note that both premises are true, but the conclusion is false. Thus, it is possible, in this argument
form, to have two true premises and a false conclusion. Arguments of this form - even instances
of the form like “Bobcat-Feline”, which had true premises and a true conclusion - are invalid,
 because their logical structure is such that the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth
of the conclusion.

TEXAS-SAN MARCOS
○ PREMISE 1: If I’m in San Marcos, then I’m in Texas
○ PREMISE 2: I’m in Texas.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) I’m in San Marcos.
An invalid argument.

TEXAS-SAN MARCOS (FORM)

○ PREMISE 1: If P, then Q.
○ PREMISE 2: Q.
○ CONCLUSION: Therefore, P.
Just change P from “I’m in San Marcos” to “I’m in Houston”, and you’ll see how this
argument form is invalid. That is, you’ll see that your utterances of the first two sentences
are true, but your utterance of the conclusion is false.

SAN MARCOS-TEXAS
○ PREMISE 1: If I’m in San Marcos, then I’m in Texas.
○ PREMISE 2: I’m in San Marcos.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) I’m in Texas.
A valid argument, and its logical form is known as “modus ponens”.

SAN MARCOS-TEXAS (FORM)

○ PREMISE 1: If P, then Q.
○ PREMISE 2: P.
○ CONCLUSION: Therefore, Q.

The validity of this logical form (modus ponens) is a bit harder to show. How can one demonstrate
that there is NO POSSIBLE counter-example with true premises and a false conclusion? But, you
can see that the logical form/structure of this argument is valid.
● How does the “seeing” of the validity of the logical form known as modus ponens embodied in
“San Marcos-Texas” compare to the “seeing” of certain ethical/moral truths? Can moral truths like
“All else equal, killing someone is worse than letting them die” have the same status as logical
truths such as “Modus ponens represents a valid argument form”? However it is we “see” or
“perceive” the truth of these sentences, it’s seemingly by intuition, rational perception, or
something of the sort.

TEXAS STATE-COLLEGE STUDENT

○ PREMISE 1:If I’m a student at Texas State, then I’m a college student.
○ PREMISE 2: I’m not a student at Texas State.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) I’m not a college student.
An invalid argument.

TEXAS STATE-COLLEGE STUDENT (FORM)

○ PREMISE 1: If P, then Q.
○ PREMISE 2: Not P (or “~P”).
○ CONCLUSION: Therefore, not Q (or “~Q”).
 Simply replace “Texas State” with, say, “The University of Houston”, and you’ll be able to
see that the logical form of this argument renders it invalid.

NOT A TEXAS STATE STUDENT

○ PREMISE 1: If I’m a student at Texas State, then I’m a college student.
○ PREMISE 2: I’m not a college student.
○ CONCLUSION: (Therefore,) I’m not a student at Texas State.
A valid argument, and its logical form is known as “modus tollens”.

NOT A TEXAS STATE STUDENT (FORM)

○ PREMISE 1: If P, then Q.
○ PREMISE 2: ~Q.
○ CONCLUSION: Therefore, ~P.

More Valid Arguments

● If the moon is made out of blue cheese, then it tastes like chocolate.
The moon is made out of blue cheese.
Therefore, the moon tastes like chocolate.
A case of modus ponens with false premises and a false conclusion.
● If I’m in Austin, then I’m in San Marcos.
I’m not in San Marcos.
Therefore, I’m not in Austin.
A case of modus tollens with false premises, but a true conclusion.

To Summarize…
● Validity is a feature of deductive arguments. It is a matter of the argument’s structure or “logical
form”. An argument is valid if it is logically structured so that if its premises are all true, then its
conclusion must, of logical necessity, be true.
● The “logical form” of an argument is determined by the arrangement of its logical operators.
○ Quantifiers: “All”, “Some”, and “None”
○ Conditionals: “If… then…” or “…if and only if…”
○ Conjunction: “…and…”
○ Disjunction: “…or…”
○ Negation: “not”
● In some sense, the study of deductive validity is the study of permissible vs. impermissible
combinations of these operators.
● Validity is a feature of arguments; Truth is a feature of propositions.

Two Kinds of Non-Deductive Reasoning

● Induction - Generalizing from features of a sample to features of the whole (features of the
“population”), or features of other members of the population (including, which is often the same,
projecting into the future, on the basis of the past).
○ “43% of likely Texas voters surveyed support Donald Trump; therefore…”
○ “9 out of 10 dentists recommend flossing. My uncle is a dentist, so I’d bet that he
recommends…”
○ “The population of Texas has grown every year for several centuries. Therefore, in
2018…”
 ● Abduction - Making inferences towards the best explanation. Science, for example
(Mendel/genes), and detective work, too.

Fallacies: Common Hindrances to Good Critical Thinking

● Affirming the consequent - “If P, then Q; Q; Therefore, P.”
● Denying the antecedent - “If P, then Q; ~P; Therefore, ~Q.”
● Fallacy of Converting the Conditional - “ If P, then Q; Therefore, if Q, then P.”
● Fallacy of Asserting an Alternative - “P or Q; P; Therefore, ~Q.”
● Fallacy of Composition - “Every part of my car is light enough to lift; Therefore, my entire car is
light enough to lift.”
● Begging the Question (or, assuming what you’re trying to prove) - “Paranormal activity is real,
because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.”
● Fallacy of Equivocation (or, inconsistently using terms throughout your arguments; “switching
meanings”) - “Peanut butter is better than nothing; Nothing is better than winning the lottery!;
Therefore, peanut butter is better than winning the lottery.”

Negation vs. Opposition

● Denying or negating a proposition is not the same as asserting its opposite.
○ “If something is not on, it’s… (off)” and “If something is not black, it’s… (not black)”
○ The negation of “I believe God exists” is “I don’t believe God exists”. The opposition to “I
believe God exists” is “I believe God doesn’t exist” (“Theism” vs. “Atheism” vs.
“Non-theism”).
○ “I want Trump to be President” vs. “I don’t want Trump to be President” vs. “I want Trump
to not be President” vs. “I want Hillary to be President”.
● Negation and opposition are equivalent only in cases of binaries or dichotomies, like on/off.

Sloppy Negation: A Common Failure of Logical Expression

● Sloppy negation - being unclear with your negation.
○ Always negate your quantifiers in ways that are clear and accurate.
● “All doors will not open”.
○ Try, “Not all doors will open”, or “Some doors will not open”. “All doors will not open”,
taken literally, is equivalent to “No doors will open”.