《翻译与思辩》参考资料：Critical Thinking 9th edition（Brooke Noel Moore Richard Parker）

RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS The premise of this argument (assuming it is true) raises the probability that the conclusion is true; thus it supports the conclusion. The more support the premises of an argument provide for a conclusion, the stronger the argument is said to be. We shall return to this point in the next chapter RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS As we said earlier, it isn't always easy to recognize an argument as such. Your understanding of what an argument is will be your best guide in recognizing them, but there are some helpful tips in what follows The Two Parts of an Argument As we said, an argument, whether deductive or inductive, has two parts, and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true. The car dinal rule of argument identification is, therefore, elementary. You need at least two claims, and the word"therefore"or an equivalent must stand, either explicitly or implicitly, before one of them. "He said and she said and then I said and he goes and I am like, etc, etc. "is not an argument, or not usually one; the support/demonstration relationship is lacking. "This happened and that happened and that other thing happened, "might be an argument, but only if it really means"This happened and that happened; therefore, that other thing happened. " For example, "The murder happened in the sitting room, and Colonel Mustard was not in the sitting room at the time therefore, Colonel Mustard did not commit the murder"is an argument Unfortunately, often the word"therefore"is left unstated, as in"Miller beer tastes great; we should get some. "Also, unfortunately, a premise or even the conclusion can be left unstated. You will get much practice later identify ing arguments, so we won't belabor things here. The all-important point is An argument consists of two parts, one of which (the premise or premises) demonstrates or supports the other part (the conclusion). If you are using a yellow highlighter to mark sentences in this book, you should have already highlighted a sentence to this effect. The Language of Arguments What are other words and phrases that work like"therefore"to indicate that a conclusion is about to be expressed? They include It follows that This shows that Thus Consequently Accordingly My conclusion is

Confi rming Pages The premise of this argument (assuming it is true) raises the probability that the conclusion is true; thus it supports the conclusion. The more support the premises of an argument provide for a conclusion, the stronger the argument is said to be. We shall return to this point in the next chapter. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS As we said earlier, it isn’t always easy to recognize an argument as such. Your understanding of what an argument is will be your best guide in recognizing them, but there are some helpful tips in what follows. The Two Parts of an Argument As we said, an argument, whether deductive or inductive, has two parts, and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true. The car￾dinal rule of argument identification is, therefore, elementary. You need at least two claims, and the word “therefore” or an equivalent must stand, either explicitly or implicitly, before one of them. “He said and she said and then I said and he goes and I am like, etc., etc.” is not an argument, or not usually one; the support/demonstration relationship is lacking. “This happened and that happened and that other thing happened,” might be an argument, but only if it really means “This happened and that happened; therefore, that other thing happened.” For example, “The murder happened in the sitting room, and Colonel Mustard was not in the sitting room at the time; therefore, Colonel Mustard did not commit the murder” is an argument. Unfortunately, often the word “therefore” is left unstated, as in “Miller beer tastes great; we should get some.” Also, unfortunately, a premise or even the conclusion can be left unstated. You will get much practice later identify￾ing arguments, so we won’t belabor things here. The all-important point is: An argument consists of two parts, one of which (the premise or premises) demonstrates or supports the other part (the conclusion). If you are using a yellow highlighter to mark sentences in this book, you should have already highlighted a sentence to this effect. The Language of Arguments What are other words and phrases that work like “therefore” to indicate that a conclusion is about to be expressed? They include ■ It follows that . . . ■ This shows that . . . ■ Thus . . . ■ Hence . . . ■ Consequently . . . ■ Accordingly . . . ■ So . . . ■ My conclusion is . . . RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS 15 moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 15 6/17/08 10:31:36 AM

Unfortunately, some of these phi ases have uses other than as con clusion indicators but one can ually lows them is the conclusion of an In addition to conclusion- indicating words are premise indicators. words that often indi cate that a premise is about to be stated: Because In view of ■This l ■ Given For example, the premise of"We d A critical thinker will shouldn't open a tanning salon sometimes think twice because people in Butte City already get more sun than they want"is the about a sign when the phrase that follows the word"because context warrants it Again, many arguments don't contain indicator words; you just have to pay attention to whether a passage is an attempt to support or demonstrate something. We provide several exercises at the end of this chapter to help you learn to identify arguments OTHER TERMS AND CONCEPTS You have probably gotten the idea by now that a lot of the vocabulary we use in this book comes directly from ordinary English. People have opinions, views, thoughts, beliefs, convictions, and ideas; for our purposes, these are all the same. People may also express these opinions and so forth in state ments, judgments, assertions, or-to use our preferred word-claims. "State ment, ""judgment, ""assertion, "and"claim"all mean the same thing as we use them here. A few other concepts crop up from time to time in critical thinking discussions. We'll briefly describe some of the more important ones in what follows Truth As simple as it may seem when we think of it casually, the concept of truth has a long and contentious history. Through the years, many competing theo- ries have been offered to account for its real nature, but fortunately for us we can understand what is necessary for our discussion without getting too deeply into those controversies. Indeed about all we need to understand here is that a legitimate claim-that is, one that makes sense--is either true or false in the normal, commonsense way. (See the box"Legitimate Claims, "p9) Truth and falsity are properties of claims, and, generally speaking, a claim has

Confi rming Pages 16 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS Unfortunately, some of these phr￾ases have uses other than as con￾clusion indicators, but one can usually assume that what fol￾lows them is the conclusion of an argument. In addition to conclusion￾indicating words are premise indicators, words that often indi￾cate that a premise is about to be stated: ■ Since . . . ■ For . . . ■ Because . . . ■ In view of . . . ■ This is implied by . . . ■ Given . . . For example, the premise of “We shouldn’t open a tanning salon because people in Butte City already get more sun than they want” is the phrase that follows the word “because.” Again, many arguments don’t contain indicator words; you just have to pay attention to whether a passage is an attempt to support or demonstrate something. We provide several exercises at the end of this chapter to help you learn to identify arguments. OTHER TERMS AND CONCEPTS You have probably gotten the idea by now that a lot of the vocabulary we use in this book comes directly from ordinary English. People have opinions, views, thoughts , beliefs, convictions, and ideas; for our purposes, these are all the same. People may also express these opinions and so forth in state￾ments, judgments , assertions , or—to use our preferred word— claims. “State￾ment,” “judgment,” “assertion,” and “claim” all mean the same thing as we use them here. A few other concepts crop up from time to time in critical thinking discussions. We’ll briefly describe some of the more important ones in what follows. Truth As simple as it may seem when we think of it casually, the concept of truth has a long and contentious history. Through the years, many competing theo￾ries have been offered to account for its real nature, but fortunately for us, we can understand what is necessary for our discussion without getting too deeply into those controversies. Indeed, about all we need to understand here is that a legitimate claim—that is, one that makes sense—is either true or false in the normal, commonsense way. (See the box “ Legitimate Claims ,” p. 9.) Truth and falsity are properties of claims, and, generally speaking, a claim has ■ A critical thinker will sometimes think twice about a sign when the context warrants it. moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 16 6/17/08 10:31:37 AM

whichever property it has, regardless of what we think about it. More on this a little later en There are any number of ways of asserting a claim's truth In normal con- tion, we'd take each of the following as making the same assertion: There is a book on the table It is true that there is a book on the table It is a fact that there is a book on the table I agree that there is a book on the table Knowledge The concept of knowledge is another that philosophers have contested at a deep, theoretical level despite a general agreement that, in everyday life,we understand well enough what we mean when we say we know something Ordinarily, you are entitled to say you know that the claim "There is a book on the table"is true, provided that(1)you believe there is a book on the table (2) you have justification for this belief in the form of an argument beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a book on the table, and (3 you have no reason to suspect that you are mistaken, such as that you haven't slept for several nights or have recently taken a large dose of some hallucinogenic drug There are those who are complete skeptics regarding knowledge; they say it is impossible to know anything. But one wonders how they know that Presumably, theyd have to say they re just guessing. Ideally, we would always make claims to knowledge in accordance with the criteria in the previous para graph. We also recommend as a motto the famous ck of the nineteenth- century mathematician W. K Clifford: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Value Judgments One of your authors returned from a concert by Diego Torres, a guitarist from Spain. "It was fantastic, "he told his friends, "It was the best thing I've seen all year. "Each of these remarks is a value judgment, a term for a claim that expresses an evaluation of something. "It was fantastic"and"It was the best concert of the year"both express a positive evaluation of the event. "LSU has a great football program"claims a favorable evaluation of that program. "We should open a tanning salon in Butte City"is a favorable ( although mistaken evaluation of our starting such a business in Butte City. "Jon Stewart would make a better president than any of the present candidates"states a positive speaking, value judgments are the claims we use to say that something is good or bad in some way, or better or worse There are different varieties of value judgments because we evaluate things on different kinds of scales. One scale we use is the ugly-beautiful scale. "That actress (or painting or horse or song or new baby) is beautiful" places a value on the person or object indicated; in this case, an aesthetic value. "Gazpacho is the best of all cold soups"is a culinary value judgment about a type of cold tomato soup. " This is a bad time to buy a house"is a practical value judgment Value judgments are very important and very useful in matters both great and small. We are constantly comparing one thing to another, and we

Confi rming Pages whichever property it has, regardless of what we think about it. More on this a little later. There are any number of ways of asserting a claim’s truth. In normal con￾versation, we’d take each of the following as making the same assertion: There is a book on the table. It is true that there is a book on the table. It is a fact that there is a book on the table. I agree that there is a book on the table. Knowledge The concept of knowledge is another that philosophers have contested at a deep, theoretical level despite a general agreement that, in everyday life, we understand well enough what we mean when we say we know something. Ordinarily, you are entitled to say you know that the claim “There is a book on the table” is true, provided that (1) you believe there is a book on the table, (2) you have justification for this belief in the form of an argument beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a book on the table, and (3) you have no reason to suspect that you are mistaken, such as that you haven’t slept for several nights or have recently taken a large dose of some hallucinogenic drug. There are those who are complete skeptics regarding knowledge; they say it is impossible to know anything. But one wonders how they know that. Presumably, they’d have to say they’re just guessing. Ideally, we would always make claims to knowledge in accordance with the criteria in the previous para￾graph. We also recommend as a motto the famous remark of the nineteenth￾century mathematician W. K. Clifford: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Value Judgments One of your authors returned from a concert by Diego Torres, a guitarist from Spain. “It was fantastic,” he told his friends; “It was the best thing I’ve seen all year.” Each of these remarks is a value judgment, a term for a claim that expresses an evaluation of something. “It was fantastic” and “It was the best concert of the year” both express a positive evaluation of the event. “LSU has a great football program” claims a favorable evaluation of that program. “We should open a tanning salon in Butte City” is a favorable (although mistaken!) evaluation of our starting such a business in Butte City. “Jon Stewart would make a better president than any of the present candidates” states a positive evaluation of Stewart relative to the real presidential candidates. Generally speaking, value judgments are the claims we use to say that something is good or bad in some way, or better or worse. There are different varieties of value judgments because we evaluate things on different kinds of scales. One scale we use is the ugly–beautiful scale. “That actress (or painting or horse or song or new baby) is beautiful” places a value on the person or object indicated; in this case, an aesthetic value. “Gazpacho is the best of all cold soups” is a culinary value judgment about a type of cold tomato soup. “This is a bad time to buy a house” is a practical value judgment. Value judgments are very important and very useful in matters both great and small. We are constantly comparing one thing to another, and we OTHER TERMS AND CONCEPTS 17 moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 17 6/17/08 10:31:38 AM

are interested in what is valuable and what is not; value judgments are what we use to do this. Let's say you're thinking about going to see the latest bruce Willis movie, Die Hard #27. And let's say that a friend with whom you often to the m :lls you, "Ive seen it and it's "Ive seen it, and you shouldnt bother; it stinks. "This would be useful infor mation and might well determine whether you go to see the film or stay home and watch Seinfeld reruns. This example is trivial, of course, but the useful ness of value judgments is critical in other cases-the relative merits of heart surgeons and hospitals, for instance Among our most important value judgments are those that assign moral or ethical values to objects and actions. "He is an honest man"is a moral value judgment. So are "Thou shalt not steal"(from the old Testament com- mandments)and"Don't be evil"(Googles motto). The commandment assigns a negative moral value to stealing; the motto does the same for doing evil things in general. In these examples, the values expressed may seem obvious, but in real life it can be difficult to determine exactly what kind of value is ths pressed in a particular value judgment. Chapter 12 has some exercises on nis topic that will probably make you think a bit For now, we need to deal with only one common misconception regard- ing value judgments. Many beginning critical thinking students make the mis- take of thinking that people are free to accept whatever value judgment they please and that all value judgments are equally plausible. These students are thus not inclined to subject any value judgment to critical examination, decid- as good as another. In many cases, this rely person a opinions and that one is the hook. Because one doesn t have the will or the skills to challenge or defend a value judgment, one can take the easy way out and just say that value judg ments can't be challenged or defended because theyre just unsubstantiated opinions anyway. But there is a serious mistake here. The mistake is in conflating all kinds of value judgments at all levels of seriousness. Lets look at some examples to see what this means If you claim that Sierra Nevada Pale Ale tastes better than Bud Lite, and your friend claims exactly the opposite, we just let it go. That is, we don't claim that either of you is wrong. That's because, in matters of taste, we gen- erally don't challenge a persons evaluation. How something tastes to another person is just how it tastes to that person, and that's all right with the rest of us. If Parker claims that Paris Hilton is atractive, and Moore says that she's not, we let both have their opinions. Somewhat different tastes and somewhat different experiences can lead us to different evaluations in these two cases and we don't have generally accepted methods for settling differences like these. One way to put this is that the logic of"tastes better"and"is attrac tive"is such that we can apply these labels more or less as we please. We say more or less"because there are limits, even in cases like these. a person who took a swig of castor oil and claimed it tasted great is one we'd worry about maybe he doesnt know how the rest of us use the phrase"tastes great. "Simi- larly, if someone says that Sandra Bullock or Brad Pitt is ugly, we'd wonder if he or she was talking about the right person or understood how the rest of us use the word"ugly Now, in many matters, we do have generally accepted methods of settling an issue. If two people disagree about, say, whether Paris Hilton is over five

Confi rming Pages 18 CHAPTER 1 CRITICAL THINKING BASICS are interested in what is valuable and what is not; value judgments are what we use to do this. Let’s say you’re thinking about going to see the latest Bruce Willis movie, Die Hard #27. And let’s say that a friend with whom you often go to the movies tells you, “I’ve seen it and it’s great,” or perhaps she says, “I’ve seen it, and you shouldn’t bother; it stinks.” This would be useful infor￾mation and might well determine whether you go to see the film or stay home and watch Seinfeld reruns. This example is trivial, of course, but the useful￾ness of value judgments is critical in other cases—the relative merits of heart surgeons and hospitals, for instance. Among our most important value judgments are those that assign moral or ethical values to objects and actions. “He is an honest man” is a moral value judgment. So are “Thou shalt not steal” (from the Old Testament com￾mandments) and “Don’t be evil” (Google’s motto). The commandment assigns a negative moral value to stealing; the motto does the same for doing evil things in general. In these examples, the values expressed may seem obvious, but in real life it can be difficult to determine exactly what kind of value is expressed in a particular value judgment. Chapter 12 has some exercises on this topic that will probably make you think a bit. For now, we need to deal with only one common misconception regard￾ing value judgments. Many beginning critical thinking students make the mis￾take of thinking that people are free to accept whatever value judgment they please and that all value judgments are equally plausible. These students are thus not inclined to subject any value judgment to critical examination, decid￾ing instead that such judgments are merely personal opinions and that one is as good as another. In many cases, this is simply a cop-out, a way of getting off the hook. Because one doesn’t have the will or the skills to challenge or defend a value judgment, one can take the easy way out and just say that value judg￾ments can’t be challenged or defended because they’re just unsubstantiated opinions anyway. But there is a serious mistake here. The mistake is in conflating all kinds of value judgments at all levels of seriousness. Let’s look at some examples to see what this means. If you claim that Sierra Nevada Pale Ale tastes better than Bud Lite, and your friend claims exactly the opposite, we just let it go. That is, we don’t claim that either of you is wrong. That’s because, in matters of taste, we gen￾erally don’t challenge a person’s evaluation. How something tastes to another person is just how it tastes to that person, and that’s all right with the rest of us. If Parker claims that Paris Hilton is atractive, and Moore says that she’s not, we let both have their opinions. Somewhat different tastes and somewhat different experiences can lead us to different evaluations in these two cases, and we don’t have generally accepted methods for settling differences like these. One way to put this is that the logic of “tastes better” and “is attrac￾tive” is such that we can apply these labels more or less as we please. We say “more or less” because there are limits, even in cases like these. A person who took a swig of castor oil and claimed it tasted great is one we’d worry about— maybe he doesn’t know how the rest of us use the phrase “tastes great.” Simi￾larly, if someone says that Sandra Bullock or Brad Pitt is ugly, we’d wonder if he or she was talking about the right person or understood how the rest of us use the word “ugly.” Now, in many matters, we do have generally accepted methods of settling an issue. If two people disagree about, say, whether Paris Hilton is over five moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 18 6/17/08 10:31:39 AM

EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS: LOGICAL WINDOW DRESSING feet four inches tall, one of them is wrong. And there are commonly accepted ways of determining just which one it is. We simply measure Paris Hilton (Although, practically speaking, this might not be easy, were not concerned with the practical difficulties here-we know that measuring her would settle the issue and that's what counts. J are applied but not in how other claims about the world are applied. But it is a mistake to jump to this conclusion. Consider a more serious example By some fluke, you find yourself a witness to this scene: Three teenage boys sneak into a corral in a city park where lives a twenty-one-year-old donkey, a favorite of local children. The boys attempt to ride the donkey, but the animal doesn't cooperate. Annoyed, the boys pick up tree limbs and begin to hit him As the donkey weakens, the boys intensify their beating until he can no longer stand up. They then find a piece of rope and use it to suspend the donkey from a tree so that it strangles to death. Now, ask yourself: Is it natural to think that what these boys did was wrong? If you could have stopped the beating simply by yelling at them, with no danger to yourself, would you have done it? Of course it is, and of course you would. A person who truly believed that any evaluation of the boys behavior was as good as any other is someone we'd consider very peculiar indeed-and possibly defective in some way. The point here is that cases like these are very different from the"this beer tastes great"and"Paris Hilton is hot (or not) examples In the latter, one is welcome to whatever opinion one has; in the former, this isnt so To sum up, when it is a matter of taste, even though an educated, better informed taster may have more discriminating taste, we are each allowed to make whatever judgments we like, and disagreements don't count for much When Moore says, "Miller tastes great, "and Parker says, "No, it doesn't, "the expressions do not produce a real contradiction Where serious moral judgments are concerned, however, the situation is different. The two claims "The abortions that Roe v. Wade allows show that it is not morally acceptable"and"The abortions that Roe v. Wade allows do not show that it is morally unacceptable"speak to real and important moral differences. There is much to be said in the debate between two positions like these and much to be gained from such debate. When two people are talking casually about the taste of beer, critical thinking neednt play much of a role in the conversation. When the subject is a serious moral issue, critical thinking is crucial EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS: LOGICAL WINDOW DRESSING Another difficult aspect of thinking critically about claims and arguments is the need to identify and weed out extraneous considerations. Moms opinions are bound to carry extra weight just because she is Mom. They may even carry more weight than the opinions of experts in the subject. It is a fact of life that we are influenced in our thinking by considerations that, logically, are beside the point; a speakers relationship to us is just one example There is, for another example, our friend and former colleague Professor B who spoke with a fine English accent and wore woolens and tweed and smoked "This actually happened at Kelsey Creek Park in Bellevue, Washington, in April 1992

Confi rming Pages feet four inches tall, one of them is wrong. And there are commonly accepted ways of determining just which one it is. We simply measure Paris Hilton. (Although, practically speaking, this might not be easy, we’re not concerned with the practical difficulties here—we know that measuring her would settle the issue, and that’s what counts.) It may appear at this point that we allow leeway in how value judgments are applied but not in how other claims about the world are applied. But it is a mistake to jump to this conclusion. Consider a more serious example. By some fluke, you find yourself a witness to this scene: Three teenage boys sneak into a corral in a city park where lives a twenty-one-year-old donkey, a favorite of local children. The boys attempt to ride the donkey, but the animal doesn’t cooperate. Annoyed, the boys pick up tree limbs and begin to hit him. As the donkey weakens, the boys intensify their beating until he can no longer stand up. They then find a piece of rope and use it to suspend the donkey from a tree so that it strangles to death. * Now, ask yourself: Is it natural to think that what these boys did was wrong? If you could have stopped the beating simply by yelling at them, with no danger to yourself, would you have done it? Of course it is, and of course you would. A person who truly believed that any evaluation of the boys’ behavior was as good as any other is someone we’d consider very peculiar indeed—and possibly defective in some way. The point here is that cases like these are very different from the “this beer tastes great” and “Paris Hilton is hot (or not)” examples. In the latter, one is welcome to whatever opinion one has; in the former, this isn’t so. To sum up, when it is a matter of taste, even though an educated, better￾informed taster may have more discriminating taste, we are each allowed to make whatever judgments we like, and disagreements don’t count for much. When Moore says, “Miller tastes great,” and Parker says, “No, it doesn’t,” the expressions do not produce a real contradiction. Where serious moral judgments are concerned, however, the situation is different. The two claims “The abortions that Roe v. Wade allows show that it is not morally acceptable” and “The abortions that Roe v. Wade allows do not show that it is morally unacceptable” speak to real and important moral differences. There is much to be said in the debate between two positions like these and much to be gained from such debate. When two people are talking casually about the taste of beer, critical thinking needn’t play much of a role in the conversation. When the subject is a serious moral issue, critical thinking is crucial. EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS: LOGICAL WINDOW DRESSING Another difficult aspect of thinking critically about claims and arguments is the need to identify and weed out extraneous considerations. Mom’s opinions are bound to carry extra weight just because she is Mom. They may even carry more weight than the opinions of experts in the subject. It is a fact of life that we are influenced in our thinking by considerations that, logically, are beside the point; a speaker’s relationship to us is just one example. There is, for another example, our friend and former colleague Professor B., who spoke with a fine English accent and wore woolens and tweed and smoked * This actually happened at Kelsey Creek Park in Bellevue, Washington, in April 1992. EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS: LOGICAL WINDOW DRESSING 19 moo86677_ch01_001-040.indd 19 6/17/08 10:31:39 AM