Detailed example 1

Representing an argument in standard form

Context:

Standard form is a method for argument comprehension and analysis. In standard form, an argument's premises and conclusion(s) are separated from each other and from all other rhetorical devices or language. This allows a reader to quickly understand and assess the logical construction of an argument. Here is a list of rules for representing an argument in standard form (adapted from 'Presenting an Argument in Standard Form' by Jeremy Anderson from DePauw University).

• An argument is presented as a list of numbered steps. Usually premises and conclusions are labelled as such.
• Each step contains only one proposition as a single declarative sentence. (Usually it is either a premise or a conclusion, but sometimes a single proposition may be both the conclusion of one argument and a premise of another. An example of this is premise 4 in the example in Activity 2 below.)
• Premises must come before the conclusions they are supposed to support and, generally, in the order in which they are presented, though this does not always have to be the case.
• Conclusions are signalled, usually by words like 'therefore ...' or 'so ...'.
• Conclusions are marked to indicate which premises are supposed to support them in brackets.
• Arguments must be referenced and cited properly.

Activity 1:

Students can attempt to put the following paragraph into standard form:

'The biological world is a highly complex and interdependent system. It is highly unlikely that such a system would have come about (and would continue to hang together) from the purely random motions of particles. It would be much less surprising if it were the result of conscious design from a superintelligent creator. Therefore, the biological world was deliberately created and therefore, God exists.' (Andrew Bailey)

Here is a possible solution:

P(remise)1: The biological world is a highly complex and interdependent system.

P2: It is highly unlikely that such a system would have come about (and would continue to hang together) from the purely random motions of particles.

P3: It would be much less surprising if it were the result of conscious design from a superintelligent creator.

C(onclusion)1: Therefore, the biological world was deliberately created (by 1, 2, 3).

C2: So, God exists (by 3, 4, Andrew Bailey).

Activity 2:

Students convert a passage from a Platonic dialogue and reconstruct it using standard form.

One example is the Cyclical or Reincarnation argument from Plato's Phaedo 70c–72e. In this argument Plato has Socrates construct an argument for reincarnation. Students set out the argument showing the premises and conclusion, for example:

P1: All things come to be from their opposite states; for example, something that comes to be 'larger' must necessarily have been 'smaller' before (70e–71a).

P2: Between every pair of opposite states there are two opposite processes; for example, between the pair 'smaller' and 'larger' there are the processes 'increase' and 'decrease' (71b).

P3: If the two opposite processes did not balance each other out, everything would eventually be in the same state; for example, if increase did not balance out decrease, everything would keep becoming smaller and smaller (72b).

P4: Since 'being alive' and 'being dead' are opposite states, and 'dying' and 'coming-to-life' are the two opposite processes between these states, coming-to-life must balance out dying (71c–e).

C: Therefore, everything that dies must come back to life again (72a) (by 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plato).

Another example could be The Argument from Recollection (Phaedo 72e–78b). For more details on the standard form arguments in Plato see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website entry for the 'Phaedo'.

 

Detailed example 2

Confirmation and other cognitive bias

Context:

Confirmation bias is committing the logical fallacy of only looking for evidence to confirm one's existing hypothesis or argument, rather than looking for contradictory evidence or the existence of any evidence that falsifies one's hypothesis. (One distinct but related bias is termed the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect, whereby fewer knowledgeable thinkers typically rate themselves more highly in competence than those who are more knowledgeable.)

Activity 1:

Visit the Social Psychology Network website page 'The Famous Four Card Task' where the following problem is set: 'If there is a vowel on one side, then an even number will be on the other side.'

Ask students which two cards they need to turn over to test this rule. Most people will select either A or 4. However, this selection only serves to prove the rule. The correct answer is either A or 7 as this combination will truly test the rule. This short demonstration reflects our tendency to engage in confirmation bias. It can also be used to talk about logic as an example of denying the consequent.

Activity 2:

Using an epistemological issue such as Fake News, identify whether confirmation or other cognitive bias is present in commentary on the nature of the news and the sources of the accusations. Students then write a dialogue coaching someone using cognitive biases in relation to the issue.

Extension:

After these exercises and activities, students can try to identify confirmation bias in a selected text. For example, they could identify and examine an argument from Socrates and test whether or not he is committing the confirmation bias fallacy. A good, if controversial, example is Socrates' conclusion that all knowledge is simply remembering which can be found in the Meno around 85e–86c. Further discussion about Plato's aim in this dialogue would be warranted.