Popular Misconceptions Regarding Philosophy

Lecture-4
 Popular Misconceptions Regarding Philosophy

• Misconception: Philosophy is Just a Matter of Opinion

I Opinions & the Misconception
• A. Opinion
• 1. An opinion is a belief.
• 2. To say “it is my opinion that X” is to say “I believe X.”
• 3. An opinion is also typically taken as an unsupported opinion.
• 4. An adequately supported opinion becomes a fact.
• B. The Misconception
• 1. It is assumed that there are no better or worse opinions on philosophical matters.
• 2. So, any position is as good as any other and there is really no point in discussing it.
• 3. Once you have stated your opinion, that is enough and it should be accepted as being
as good as anyone else’s opinion.
• C. The misconception typically involves two assumptions:
• 1. Philosophical positions are simply opinions.
• 2. All opinions are equally good.
 II. Assumptions

• A. Are Philosophical positions simply opinions?

• 1. Philosophy does begin with an opinion-what a person thinks about a particular issue.
• 2. However, the practice of philosophy involves reasoning about and arguing for the position in
question.
• 3. A position backed up with arguments is not simply a matter of opinion-the position is now
supported with evidence.
• 4. Given that logic and reasoning are not simply matters of opinion, these supported positions
cannot be dismissed as being simply matters of opinion.
• 5. If someone wishes to disagree with a supported position, they will need to provide arguments
of their own-otherwise there is no reason to accept their opinion over the supported opinion.
• B. Are All opinions are equally good?
• 1. It is often assumed that since people are “entitled” to their own opinions, then all opinions are
equally good.
• 2. This view seems implausible.
• a. In regards to treating cancer, the opinion of medical doctor is better than that of a 5 year old.
• b. In regards to designing airplanes, the opinion of an aeronautical engineer is better than that of
a 1st year PE major.
 Cont..
• 3. This view is logically self refuting.
• a. If all opinions are equally good, then the opinion that
not all opinions are equally good is as good as the
opinion that all opinions are equally good.
• b. This is a contradiction that arises from the
assumption that all opinions are equally good.
• c. Therefore, the claim that all opinions are equally
good must be rejected.
• 4. This view is often based on the more sophisticated
views of relativism and subjectivism.
 C. Relativism & Subjectivism

• 1. Relativism is the view that truth is relative-typically to a particular culture.

• a. There are specific types of relativism, such as moral relativism-the view
that moral truths are culturally relative and not universal.
• b. Truth varies from culture to culture.
• 2. Subjectivism is the view that truth is completely subjective-it is relative to
the specific individual.
• a. There are specific types of subjectivism, such as moral subjectivism-the
view that moral truths are entirely dependent on individual opinion.
• b. Truth varies from person to person.
• 3. It is often assumed that philosophical issues are all relative or subjective in
nature, so philosophy is a matter of opinion.
• 4. While relativism and subjectivism are defensible positions, to simply
assume they are correct is to beg the question.
• a. Begging the question is a mistake in reasoning in which a person actually
assumes what they need to prove.
 D. Plato’s Reply to Relativism (Theatetus)
• 1. Plato agrees that some things are relative.
• a. for example, a wind that seems chilly to one might seem pleasant to another.
• 2. Plato argues that relativism is self-refuting.
• a. Protagoras, a sophist, claims that all opinions are true.
• b. This includes the opinions of his opponents who believe he is wrong.
• c. So, his belief is false if those who disagree with him have true beliefs.
• 3. Protagoras charged for his teachings and justified this by claiming he was
teaching people what they needed to know.
• a. But once he claims that his teachings are better than those of others, he has
abandoned his relativism.
• E. Conclusion
• 1. It cannot simply be assumed that philosophy is just a matter of opinion.
• 2. It should also not be assumed that every philosophical issue is objective in
nature-some things might be relative or subjective.
 Misconception: Philosophy is Useless
• I. Useful or Useless?
• A. Useless
• 1. It is often assumed that philosophy is useless.
• 2. It is often believed that philosophers simply split hairs and debate endlessly
about meaningless problems.
• 3. These charges do have some merit-philosophers, like all academics, often
get lost in their ivory towers and become needlessly isolated from the world.
• B. “Useful”
• 1. Often this misconception rests on how people define “useful.”
• 2. People who have this misconception often define usefulness in a very
narrow and very concrete way.
• a. Often in terms of directly making money, or baking bread, or killing people.
• 3. Even under these narrow and concrete definitions, philosophy is still useful.
• 4. There are broader definitions of “useful” that seem quite plausible.
• 5. Under the limited definitions of “useful” most of the sciences would not be
useful either.
 Argument Basics

• I Argument Concepts
• A. Defined
• 1. An argument is a set of claims, one of which is supposed to be supported by
the others.
• 2. Conclusion: The claim that is supposed to be supported by the premises.
• a. An argument has one and only one conclusion.
• 3. Premise: A claim given as evidence or a reason for accepting the conclusion.
• a. An argument can have many premises.
• 4. Inductive Argument: An argument in which the premises are intended to
provide some degree of support but less than complete support for the
conclusion.
• 5. Deductive argument: An argument in which the premises are intended to
provide complete support for the conclusion.
• 6. Fallacy: An argument in which the premises fail to provide adequate support
for the conclusion.
B. General Assessment of Arguments: Reasoning
• 1. Do the premises logically support the conclusion?
• 2. If the argument is deductive, is it valid or invalid?
• a. A valid argument is such that if the premises were true then the conclusion must be true.
• b. An invalid argument is such that all the premises could be true and the conclusion false at
the same time.
• c. Validity is tested by formal means, such as truth tables, Venn diagrams and proofs.
• d. A full discussion of deductive arguments is beyond the scope of this class.
• 3. If the argument is inductive, is it strong or weak?
• a. A strong argument is such that if the premises were true, then the conclusion is likely to be
true.
• b. A weak argument is such that if the premises were true, then the conclusion is not likely to
be true.
• c. Inductive arguments are assessed primarily in terms of standards specific to the argument
in question.
• C. General Assessment of Arguments Are the premises true?
• 1. Are the premises true or at least plausible?
• 2. Testing premises for plausibility:
• a. The premise is consistent with your own observations.
• b. The premise is consistent with your background knowledge and experience.
• c. The premise is consistent with credible sources, such as experts, standard references and
text books.
 Some Useful Valid Deductive Arguments
• I Introduction to Deductive Arguments
• A. Defined/Uses
• 1. An argument in which the premises are intended to provide
complete support for the conclusion.
• 2. The premises are offered as evidence that the conclusion must
be true.
• 3. The conclusion is not supposed to go beyond the premises.
• 4. Deductive arguments are often used as a “logical frame” to
present points established in other
• (typically inductive) arguments.
• a. Example: After arguing that extremist art is harmful, one might
build an argument using that claim and the claim “if extremist art
is harmful, it must should be censored” as premises.
 Some Useful General Inductive Arguments

• I Introduction to Inductive Arguments

• A. Defined
• 1. An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises are intended to provide
some degree of support, but less than complete support, for the conclusion.
• 2. The premises are offered as evidence that the conclusion is likely to be true.
• 3. The conclusion goes beyond the evidence presented in the premises-this is the
inductive leap.
• B. Assessment
• 1. They are assessed in terms of how strongly the premises support the conclusion.
• 2. They are also assessed by standards specific to the type of argument.
• 3. The standards are also used in assessing your own arguments when creating them.
• C. Strong and Weak Arguments
• 1. Strong argument: An argument such that if the premises are true, then the
conclusion is likely to be true.
• 2. Weak argument: an argument such that even if the premises are true, the conclusion
is not likely to be true.
 II Analogical Argument

• A. Introduction
• 1. Defined: An argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a
certain respect because they are alike in other respects.
• 2. Analogies are often used in cases in which X is understood and Y is not, to
conclude something about Y.
• a. These are typically called explanatory comparisons/analogies.
• b. Example:
• 1. Email is like mail sent to a post office box.
• 2. Just as mail is delivered to the PO box and you go to pick it up, email is delivered
to your email in box and your software “goes” and picks it up.
• 3. Often used as an argument in cases in which X is accepted/seen as plausible and
Y is not, to get the audience to accept Y or see it as plausible.
• a. Example:
• 1. If a person has the blood cut off to her brain for too long, she’ll suffer brain
damage.
• 2. The education system is like the “brain” of society and money is the blood of this
brain.
• 3. So, cutting off money to the education system will damage society.
 B. Strict Form
• 1. Premise 1: X has properties P,Q, and R.
• 2. Premise 2: Y has properties P,Q, and R.
• 3. Premise 3: X has property Z as well.
• 4. Conclusion: Y has property Z.
• C. Assessment-The strength of the analogy depends on
• 1. The number of properties X and Y have in common.
• a. The more the better.
• 2. The relevance of the shared properties to property Z.
• a. The more relevant, the stronger the argument.
• b. Property P is relevant to property Z if the presence or absence of P affects the likelihood that Z
will be present.

• 3. Whether X and Y have relevant dissimilarities as well as similarities.

• a. The more dissimilarities and the more relevant they are, the weaker the argument.
• D. Example
• 1. Argument
• a. Attacking your next-door neighbors, killing them and taking their property is immoral.
• b. War involves going into a neighboring country, killing people and taking their property.
• c. So, war is immoral.
 2. Assessment

• a. War and violent theft share many properties:

• 1. Intrusion.
• 2. Violence.
• 3. Killing.
• 4. Taking the property of others.
• b. War and violent theft share relevant properties.

• 1. Violence and taking of property are relevant to moral assessment.

• c. War and violent theft have some relevant dissimilarities.
• 1. War often takes place between mutual antagonists, unlike the case of violent theft.
• a. Analogy to boxing.

• 2. In some wars, one side is not fighting to take property.

• a. The Allies in WWII were fighting to liberate the conquered nations and defeat the axis
powers, not to take property or kill people
 III Argument from/by Example

• A. Introduction
• 1. Defined: An argument in which a claim is supported by providing examples.
• 2. The strength of the support depends on the quality of the examples.
• B. Form
• 1. Premise 1: Example 1 is an example that supports claim P.
• 2. Premise 2: Example 2 is an example that supports claim P.
• 3. Premise x: Example x is an example that supports claim P.
• 4. Conclusion: Claim P is true.

• C. Standards
• 1. The more examples, the stronger the argument.
• 2. The examples must be relevant.
• a. The more relevant the examples, the stronger the argument.
• 3. The examples must be specific and clearly identified.
• 4. Counter-examples must be considered.
• a. Counter-example: an example that counts against the claim.
• b. The more counter-examples and the more relevant they are the weaker the argument.
 D. Examples

• 1. Example #1
• a. Premise 1: The painting Oath of the Horatii shows three brothers ready to take action, while the women
are painted as passive observers.
• b. Premise 2: In action films, such as typical Westerns, women are cast as victims that must be protected and
saved by men.
• c. Conclusion: Art reinforces gender stereotypes.

• 2. Assessment of Example #1
• a. More examples should be used.
• b. The examples are relevant.
• c. Specific Westerns should be named and described.
• d. There are counter-examples, especially in modern films and TV.

• 2. Example #2
• a. Premise 1: The Egyptians believed in an afterlife as shown by their funeral preparations.
• b. Premise 2: Plato’s writings indicate that the ancient Greeks believed in an afterlife.
• c. Premise 3: The Chinese practice of ancestor worship indicates they believed in an afterlife.
• d. Conclusion: People of ancient cultures believed in an afterlife.
• b. Premise 2: However, the study by Loeb and Wombat shows that violent art has little, if any
psychological effect on people.
• c. Conclusion: Hence, there is no need to censor violent art to protect people from harm.

• 2. Assessment of Example 1
• a. The source needs to be properly identified (applying many of the other standards requires this
identification).
• b. There is a great deal of disagreement among the experts within the field of psychology,
especially over the matter of the effects of violent art.

• 3. Example 2
• a. Premise 1: According to medical science, there is no life after death.
• b. Premise 2: Since medical science is well established, it is clear there is no life after death.

• 4. Assessment of Example 2
• a. More information is needed about medical science, such as the exact source of the claim.