Fluent Essays

“Has Justice Been Served: The Ad Hominem Fallacy in Action” Paper Assignment - Philosophy 1370 Spring 2021 - First Eight Weeks - Online ! Dr. Stewart & Ms. Thibodeaux The Center for Philosophical Studies at Lamar University - - - - - - (four pages) Before we get to the technicalities of this term’s paper assignment, some review of a handful of items is in order. Go back and review my first (1 of 2) set of Notes on Chapters 1 and 2 from my Elements of Knowledge, paying special attention to the subjects of deduction and induction. In the paper assignment, following, you will see that we’re dealing with a fictional criminal murder trial, one in which we are acting as defense counsel. Here’s the point: in criminal procedure, for the prosecution to win, or “prevail,” then in theory at least the prosecution must aim at deductive certainty. No doubts, no “if’s”; no probabilities. This is realized by having all twelve jurors vote “guilty.” No exceptions. 100\%. If even one juror votes “not guilty” and will not change this vote, the prosecution will fail to prevail. And, by the way, “innocent” means you didn’t do it, but “not guilty”means the prosecution cannot prove that you did. And “proof,” in this instance, means 100\% certainty. And you can easily see why, especially in murder trials, we must have, for a guilty verdict, 100\% certainty securely in place. Depending on which state you live in, the resulting verdict may deal in capital punishment or life imprisonment. Grim finalities. But now, the defense counsel (in this case, us), will be perfectly happy in dealing with inductive probability. In fact, the function of any defense counsel, in a criminal proceeding, is to introduce doubt into the juror’s minds. If such doubt cannot be erased by the prosecution, the defense will prevail. So here is the place to contrast criminal procedure with “civil” procedure (lawsuits), thus: criminal procedure, for a guilty verdict, must deal in certainty. But to get a guilty verdict in a civil case, only a majority of the jury + one is needed. 1 (2/4) Now, take another look at the first set (1of 2) of my Notes over Chapters 3 and 4 from Elements of Knowledge, paying special attention to the section on Peirce’s “beans” illustrations of Deduction, Induction, and Abduction. Especially when it is pointed out that, in these illustrations, the content of each is exactly the same as the other two. The difference between them lies in the form or design or structure of each. What’s the point? Well, in criminal trials there is an aspect known as “discovery,” wherein, in theory at least, we are secure in thinking that prosecution and defense alike work from exactly the same evidence, or content. It is by the differences in their reasoning processes, deduction vs. induction, the forms by with which they shape or mold the evidence at hand, that they arrive at such different conclusions. One side, certainty; the othe10 June 2020 Stewart Notes, 01 of 02 c. 2020 Chapters 1 & 2 from Elements of Knowledge; Pragmatism, Logic, and Inquiry Philosophy 1370: 01 & 02 - Online! First Summer Session 2020 - - - - - In what follows, you will notice previously unmentioned items from “Preliminary Ideas and Conceptions.” This, given the highly original nature of our unique, on-line course, is the best way to proceed, I think, as this promotes continuity, as opposed to fragmentation. - - - - - Here we take up Pragmatism, America’s only native philosophical doctrine, as invented and espoused by Charles Sander Peirce (1839 - 1914). As I put it on page 01 of Elements, it is “. . .a method, synonymous with the experimental method of the sciences, for acquiring and developing human knowledge.” That method is known otherwise as the “Problem - Hypothesis - Test” method: problems are identified, hypothetical solutions are proposed through guesswork, erroneous solutions are eliminated with certainty; those solutions who survive testing are what we take to be “facts.” Objective facts. Those persistent realities upon which our subjective opinions have no bearing. I should add, immediately, that this method is not limited to the experimental sciences, but is in fact the method for progress in human knowledge, universally. For example, I have used and relied upon pragmatism constantly when I have been (off and on) a classical concert pianist, since childhood: one has to, experimentally, and for but one example, practice out wrong notes. Eliminate the errors. I also profited from Pragmatism when I was in the farming and ranching business, and elsewhere. For another example, consider for a moment the subject of religion. Whether you personally have a religious conviction or not, it’s easy to understand that a person’s religious beliefs won’t be the same at age 88 as they were when you were 18. Even here, in religion, there is evolution in knowledge; the elimination of errors. I use the term “evolution” deliberately, for there is a stunning analogy, a stunning comparative similarity, between what Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) had to say in his 1859 masterpiece On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection and Peirce’s position on human knowledge, Pragmatism. Goes like this. Darwin, by the way, was not an atheist: the evidence blatantly contradicts this opinion, which 1 gained the rank of a very powerful subjective consensus, still with us, yet, today. Consensus? Just because a group of people all get together and agree on something, doesn’t make it “so.” What Darwin came to describe as “survival of the fittest” meant/means but one thing, and one thing only: reproductive success. Darwin was far too early, chronologically, to have had any knowledge of what we understand as genetics, chromosomes, genes, DNA, etc. But he had the insight that, whatever the mechanisms of parental traits being passed along to their offspring, if th16 June 2020 Stewart Notes, 01 of 02 c. 2020 Chapters 3 & 4 from Elements of Knowledge; Pragmatism, Logic, and Inquiry Philosophy 1370: 01 & 02 - Online! First Summer Session 2020 - - - - - Our’s is a course on “knowledge,” so, sooner or later, the subject of “reasoning” has to be taken up. In these two chapters, we’ll do this from three standpoints: 01) form vs. content, 02) deductive reasoning in its oldest and most venerable expression, namely categorical syllogisms, and 03) a group of mistakes or “fallacies” associated with content problems with “relevance.” Form vs. Content Remember Peirce’s “beans” illustrations of the three forms of reasoning? Here they are, again. . . Deduction Rule: All the beans from this bag are white. Case: These beans are from this bag. Result: These beans are white. Induction Case: These beans are from this bag. Result: These beans are white. Rule: All the beans from this bag are white. Hypothesis (aka Abduction or Discovery!) Rule: All the beans from this bag are white. Result: These beans are white. Case: These beans are from this bag. 1 Now, again, the contents of all three are exactly the same, right down to the punctuation. The three very different results, namely, certainly with deduction, probability with induction, and new ideas with abduction, come about because their formal designs, or, the order in which these statements are exhibited, differ in each case. But now, focus on the first illustration: Deduction Rule: All the beans from this bag are white. Case: These beans are from this bag. Result: These beans are white. Read it like this: All the beans in this bag are white. Now you ask me to scoop out a handful of beans. And you know, with absolute certainty, even before my hand reaches the bag, that the beans I’ll remove from the bag absolutely must be white. 100\% certainty is, literally, at hand. Now consider again (see “Notes” on chapters1 & 2) this example of deductive reasoning, found at p. 83 in Elements of Knowledge: All human beings as mammals (evidence, or “premiss”) All mammals are warm blooded (evidence, or “premiss”) - - - - - - Thus, all human beings are warm blooded (conclusion) We term this a “categorical syllogism” because 01) it deals with three groups, or “categories,” those being human beings, mammals, and warm-blooded organisms, 02) “syllogism” is the term used by the fellow who thought all this up, originally, namely, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.) And, there’s an ominous importance to such syllogisms, especially in our day and age, still: such 10 June 2020 Stewart Notes, 02 of 02 c. 2020 Chapters 1 & 2 from Elements of Knowledge; Pragmatism, Logic, and Inquiry Philosophy 1370: 01 & 02 - Online! First Summer Session 2020 - - - - - Here are some definitions and their applications that are important. Be sure to Google items given with a triple asterisk (“***”). Contradiction: the holding of completely incompatible views, simultaneously. Thinking that the lights in a room can be both on and off at the same moment. Believing that one can be both alive and dead, at the same moment. The notion that got us back into Iraq, the second time, was that Saddam Hussein possessed “weapon of mass destruction.” This notion contradicts the fact that no such weapons have ever been found. Diseases: The humoral theory claimed that illnesses could be cured by bleeding people. George Washington (yes, that George Washington) died from being bled three times, one afternoon, “vigorously.” Every application of this nonsense was a failure, all the way from Greek antiquity right into the 19th century. The miasmatic theory claimed death from cholera (London, 19th century) was due to the foul smelling air that prevailed throughout London, due to the disease. Again, every case was a failure. The infectious or “germ” theory, devised by Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895), finally established the idea that disease comes from infection. The humoral and miasmatic theories were, at last, discarded. Two types of certainty, common sense, instinct, and consensus. For certainty: logical certainty (as in 2 + 2 = 4), and practical certainty (such as that the sun will “rise” tomorrow). For common sense: everyday common sense (like do not make certain hand gestures towards a policeman), and what Peirce called the “accumulated wisdom” of our species, brought to its present state of development by natural selection. Instinct: inborn or innate, as in our drive to survive; acquired as in having learned something so thoroughly that when called upon, such knowledge reacts automatically. Consensus: agreement by all that I am presently writing these notes, “objective consensus”, vs. the general agreement in the early 20th century that women were too emotionally unstable to be allowed to vote, “subjective consensus.” Made into law, this appeared for a while to have been an objective consensus. 1 Community of Investigators: C.S. Peirce’s phrase for what we would call “the experts.” Regardless of the field of inquiry, to be a member of this Community, you must 01) understand the questions in the field, 02) have the Will to Learn (his capitalizations; very important, and 03) have one’s ego under control. Cases abound where when this last requirement is not met, disaster ensues. The cases of David Koresh***, the Rev. Jim Jones***, and Charles Keating*** bring this fact into stark relief. * * * * * 217 June 2020 Stewart Notes, 02 of 02 c. 2020 Chapters 3 & 4 from Elements of Knowledge; Pragmatism, Logic, and Inquiry Philosophy 1370: 01 & 02 - Online! First Summer Session 2020 Now, then, Euler’s diagrams and categorical syllogisms. Here, again, is the syllogism of interest: All human beings are mammals (evidence, or “premiss”) All mammals are warm blooded (evidence, or “premiss”) - - - - - - Thus, all human beings are warm blooded (conclusion) - - - - - - [Notice here that I’ve corrected something from yesterday: we want the first premiss to read as it is, here, not “All human beings as mammals,” as was the case, yesterday. And, additionally, you will see “premiss” rendered in my Elements of Knowledge as “premise.” Story? Well, “premise” is where one lives; “premiss” is evidence in a deductive argument. Why? Well, I figured that if Vanderbilt University Press, who invited me to write Elements,, and who paid for everything associated with production of the book (rare, in the big leagues of scholarly publishing) wanted it that way, I wasn’t gonna complain, too much !!] - - - - - - Now, back to it. Google “Euler Diagrams and Syllogistic Arguments - Image Results.” Scroll around and you should see an image, a diagram, composed of concentric circles. So now, let us create an Euler diagram to illustrate the syllogism given above. We’ll need three circles: a smallest one, to 1 represent “All human beings,” a second circle, somewhat larger, representing all “mammals,” with the first, smallest circle contained within the second, and finally a third circle, somewhat larger still, representing those animals who are warm blooded. Largest circle for the warm blooded, somewhat smaller circle, enclosed within the largest, for the mammals, and, finally, the smallest circle of the three, representing the human beings, enclosed within the one for the mammals. Bear in mind that birds, who are quite warm blooded, are irrelevant to this exercise. Think of drawing a circle, on paper, around a coin, say, a quarter. Then, within this, draw a circle of a nickel. And finally, within the circle resulting from the nickel, draw one of a dime. And again, mark the largest for the warm blooded, the medium-sized one for the mammals, and the smallest of the three for the human beings. Now here’s the crucial part: please notice that the relation “smallest to medium” cleanly portrays our first premiss, above; the relation “medium to largest” likewise renders our second premiss, above; the conclusion, above, is what results. Now, when you see that interlock, human beings to mammals, mammals to warm blooded, you will know that the argument in question is valid. If you do not see that interlock between the three circles, you will know that the argument in question is invalid, which is the case with the example from p. 84 in Elements of Knowledge. So, with its false premiss and its invalid form, this example is rendere