Week 4 Chapter 4

Reading 4 Summarized
Beliefs and Claims – Summary Notes (4.1)
Topic: Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments
1. Introduction
- The course focuses on analyzing and evaluating arguments.
- Key concepts: Beliefs and Claims.
- Justification and acceptability of claims are essential in evaluating premises.
- A structured way to express beliefs aids decision-making.
2. Beliefs
- We all hold countless beliefs, expressed in different ways (e.g., "I believe X", "X is true").
- Beliefs do not require verbal expression; they can be implicit in actions.
- Many beliefs exist without conscious thought (e.g., numbers, natural events).
- Quality of beliefs matters—affects success in business, life, and decision-making.
- Critical thinking is needed to assess if beliefs are reasonable.

- Definition of Belief
- To believe X means being disposed to think X is true.
- Beliefs always relate to claims.
3. Claims
- Definition: A claim is a statement of fact attempting to describe reality.
- Examples of claims:
- "Canada is in North America." (True claim)
- "It’s usually hot in Canada in February." (False claim)
- A claim can be true or false but must be something that could be true or false.
- Not claims:
- Questions (e.g., "Is water blue?")
- Commands (e.g., "Get out of my way!")
- Exclamations (e.g., "Yay!")
- Embedded Claims
- A claim can contain another claim without asserting it.
Example: "Dominic thinks Montreal is the prettiest city in Canada."
- The speaker does not assert that Montreal is the prettiest city—only that Dominic thinks so.
- Key in argument evaluation: Identify which claims are being asserted.
4. Evaluating Claims
- Evaluating claims is essential in business, decision-making, and everyday life.
- Mistakes in claims can have consequences:
- False beliefs about a company’s future (e.g., BlackBerry in 2010).
- Myths (e.g., "cutting hair makes it grow faster").
- Key question: Are we justified in believing a claim?
5. Justification & Acceptability of Claims
- Acceptability = Reasonable to believe.
- Truth vs. Justification:
- Truth is ideal, but we cannot always verify absolute truth.
- Justification is practical—it guides decision-making.
- Examples of justified vs. unjustified beliefs:
- Believing in noon lunch breaks at a new job (reasonable, but could be false).
- Predicting Germany’s 7-1 win in 2014 (correct but unjustified).
 - Skeptical Scenarios:
- Absolute certainty is impossible (e.g., "Did I dream parking my car?").
- Justification is more practical than chasing absolute truth.
- Audience & Acceptability
- Who is the audience?
- Experts accept specialized claims more easily.
- Skeptical audiences require stronger arguments.
- Common ground is key in persuasion.
6. Burden of Proof
- Instead of proving a claim, shifting the burden of proof can be useful.
- Example: Convincing a boss to start a student promotion
- Instead of proving future success, provide past successful examples.
- Now the boss must disprove the claim.
7. Degrees of Accuracy
- Not all claims are simply true or false—some are approximate.
- **Example: Speedometer Readings

Basic Sources of Justification- Summary Notes (BSJs) (4.1)

Summary
- A basic justification (BSJ) means a premise is reasonable in a given context, not that it’s beyond
doubt.
- BSJs establish common ground or shift the burden of proof in arguments.
BSJ1: Definitions & Logic
- Some claims are true due to definitions (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried").
- Some claims are logical truths (e.g., "Ling is either an accountant or not").
- Definitions & logic provide a strong foundation but aren’t sufficient for most complex claims.
BSJ2: Your Senses
- Direct observation (seeing, hearing, feeling) justifies many beliefs.
- Limitations:
- Personal factors: Fatigue, intoxication, poor eyesight.
- Environmental factors: Darkness, fog, distance.
- Conflicting evidence: Disagreement with reliable sources.
- Always verify sensory-based claims if they contradict known facts or reliable sources.
BSJ3: Eyewitness Testimony
- Generally reliable but prone to errors due to perception, memory, or deception.
- Factors affecting reliability:
- Personal limitations (e.g., poor eyesight, stress).
- External conditions (e.g., darkness, noise).
- Vested interest: Witness benefits from lying or omitting details.
- Eyewitness testimony should be corroborated with additional evidence.
- Eyewitness Testimony in Court (Dr. John Turtle Interview)
- Eyewitness errors account for ~70% of wrongful convictions.
- Estimator variables (e.g., lighting, stress, distance) are uncontrollable factors affecting
memory.
- System variables (e.g., lineup procedures, questioning techniques) can be controlled to
improve accuracy.
BSJ4: Common Sense
- An everyday understanding of how the world works, shaped by:
 1. Elementary physics (e.g., objects fall, fire burns).
2. Simple design knowledge (e.g., gas pedal is on the right).
3. Folk psychology (e.g., people get upset if insulted).
- Limitations:
- Cultural differences can make common sense unreliable.
- Intuitive knowledge may not always be scientifically accurate.
- Business decisions shouldn’t rely solely on folk psychology (e.g., loyalty vs. monetary
incentives).
BSJ5: Expert Testimony
- Experts provide deeper knowledge in specific fields.
- Reliable experts:
- Have advanced study/experience (e.g., PhD, years in the field).
- Are recognized by peers and have a track record of accuracy.
- Limitations:
- Expertise is often narrow (e.g., a heart surgeon isn’t an expert in nutrition).
- Experts may disagree, but consensus can highlight areas of reliability.
- Beware of biases (e.g., industry-funded experts pushing an agenda).
Key Takeaways
- BSJs provide reasonable justification, not absolute certainty.
- Cross-checking information strengthens justification.
- Awareness of biases (personal, environmental, vested interest) improves decision-making.
- Common sense & expert testimony are useful but should be critically evaluated.

Lecture 4 Notes
Arguments as Lines of Reasoning
“One or more claims in which some of those claims are offered as reasons in support of another”
- Two things for argument: premise and conclusion
Reason → conclusion/decision
(Both of these are claims)

Two Step to Understanding Arguments

As critical thicker, we can approach arguments others have already created in two distinct steps and ask
ourselves:

1. Analysis (structure) Blueprint

- What claims are being made?
- What role does each claim play?
- conclusions, sub-conclusions, principals, different claims
- How do the claims fit together?
- Logic part
2. Evaluation (content) Materials
- How strong is each premise?
- What strength to they provide, concrete, framework, etc
- How strong is the connection between premise(s) and conclusion(s)?
- Is it lined up properly, supported well, secure
- Should I accept the argument?
- Is it problematic, is the argument/structure problematic
Analysis: The Claims in Arguments
Two central parts: premise(s) and conclusion(s)
- Both are CLAIMS
- But what is a claim?
- How do we know where one claim ends and another begins?

Claims are a statement that can be true or false (matter of fact)

- Can be false and still be a claim; false claims are still claims
- Categories of claims; Statements that are given that can be true or false
- Descriptions of the world
- You can test claims to determine weather they are true or false
Examples:
- “American Apparel went bankrupt”
- “I’m in Toronto”
- “Lying is wrong”
- “This triangle has 4 sides” > the definition of a triangle defines that it has 3 sides.
- “Getting into law school is hard” > description of the world

Not Claims:
- “What time is it?”
- “Are you serious?”
- “I now pronounce you husband and wife?”
- “Go home!”
- “Yum!”
- “Ouch!”
*Question marks and exclamation marks can never be in a claim*
*Neither true or false*

Embedded vs. Asserted Claims

Asserted claim is a statement claim
- You actually said the claim
- “You will either pass your memo assignment or fail it?
- “If I don’t study, I will fail”
Embedded claim is a claim within a claim
- Whether the person who stated the claim actually said it
- “Gerome say the memo is due today”
- “Ariel believes what Nancy said is true”

You will often be asked to “Number the Asserted Claims”

For example,
“Getting to TRSM by 8am is very difficult. I have to take the subway and a bus, so I often end up
arriving to class already stressed out”
- This is 3 claims, the period and coma in this case let us know there are 3 separate claims
- The conclusion is the last sentence because the other claims lead up to that

Number the Asserted Claims

A. 2 claims
B. 3 claims
C. 2 claims
 D. 4 claims
E. 1 claims
F. 2 claims
G. 1 claims

What Roles do Claims Play?

Premises and Conclusion
- Premises are claims offered in support of a conclusion
- May or may not be acceptable;
- Not sure if it is a premise or conclusion?
- Arguer’s intention is what matters in determining that a claim is a premise
- The principles of Fidelity and Charity can help here

Why Premises Matters

- Premises are the Foundations of arguments
- Without good premises and argument is pretty much useless

Claims and Beliefs

- To believe a claim is to accept…
- A reason for action;
- As an accurate description of some component of the world

Acceptable Claims
- Claims are acceptable if it is reasonable to believe them
- What we’re really after, of course, is truth
- But that’s not the most helpful way to think about it
- Why?

Precision
- Technically, claims can only
- “With no traffic it will take 4 hours to drive to Windsor”
- Claims can only be either try or false
- But some claims-thought false- are close enough to the truth to be acceptable in certain contexts

Certainty
- “Truth” is a big word and invites us to think we need to be absolutely certain
- But can we ever be absolutely certain?
- Do we have to be?

What Makes Claims Acceptable

- One great way to justify a claim: Make an argument!
- Problem?
- The premises of every argument are themselves claims. How to justify them?
- Make an argument!
- Problem?
- The premises of every argument are themselves claims. How to justify them?

- Make an argument!
- Problem?
 - The premises of every argument are themselves claims. How to justify them?

Basic Sources of Justification

- We can be justified in believing some claims without giving an argument for them
- This does not mean it’s impossible to give an argument for them
- It also does not mean that we can’t be wrong

BSJ 1:
Definition and Logical Truths
- Some claims are true by definition
- Ex. “The bachelor is unmarried”
- I.e according to a certain law, you can or can’t do this
- Some claims are true by logical necessity
- I am taller than everyone in the room

BSJ 2
Your Senses
- Rule of thumb regarding your own senses?
- Believe UNLESS…what? Proven against
- Factors inspiring doubt?
- Personal factors
- Environmental factors
- Conflicting evidence

To “doubt” does not mean to conclude your own eyes and experiences wrong

Pareidolia
The imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist

BSJ 3
Eyewitness Testimony
- Generally, it is reasonable to take other people’s word about what they’ve seen and experiences
- UNLESS…
- Why might you doubt them?
1. They could be mistaken because of…
- The reasons discussed above
- They might not be objective
2. If there’s reason to doubt their honesty
- When might we doubt their honesty
● If they have lied in the past, body language etc…

BSJ 4
Common Sense
- Our own shared understanding of how the world works
Not things we generally disagree about
- Religion, politics, conspiracy theories etc
Common sense is not used for complex areas like economics, statistics, finance etc.

One element of common sense: Folk Psychology

 - The body of knowledge that allows us to attribute to other people moods, beliefs, desires, intentions,
memories and so on.

BSJ 5
Expert Testimony
- But who counts as an expert?
- Someone whose training and/or experience make them more knowledgeable and make their
judgment more reliable
- Note: Expertise is specific to a field

BSJ 6
Scientific Studies
- Scientific studies are the way that our knowledge of the world progresses
- They are how we learn about things common sense can’t handle
- Science sometimes confirms and sometimes corrects common sense

The Internet
- Critical thinking requires asking: is this part of the internet a reliable source for this information?

Schema for expressing belief

- I believe X
- My justification is Y
- I am aware that Z- - I think that Z is [...] likely
- I am [...] confident in my belief

Example 1
Shaw Jackson, Chief Scientific Officer
- “I believe the risk of transmission is low.”
- “My justification is 2 high-quality scientific studies.”
- “I am aware the studies may have not been done as reported - I think this is unlikely.”
- “I am fairly confident in my belief.”

Example 2
Ishani Sinanan, VP Marketing
- “Ishani believes customers will be scared off.”
- “Her justification is common sense (folk psychology).”
- “She is aware that customers may not care about their patients or about their reputation
- she thinks this is highly unlikely.”
- “Ishani is very confident.”

Example 3
Andre Serrano, General Counsel
- “Andre believes the legal risk is low.”
- “His justification is his knowledge of case law in this area.”
- “He is aware that a judge may think the case is not sufficiently like previous cases in Canadian law -
he thinks this is somewhat likely.”
- “He is not confident.”
In class notes ik but i need ti dumb them down for myself i’ll deelte them after or i can make a new doc
okok
Two things for argument: premise and conclusion