How To Do Things With Logic

C. Grant Luckhardt, William Bechtel, Grant Luckhardt

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317785927
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In the past 15 years a host of critical thinking books have appeared that teach students to find flaws in the arguments of others by learning to detect a number of informal fallacies. This book is not in that tradition. The authors of this book believe that while students learn to become vicious critics, they still continue to make the very mistakes they criticize in others. Thus, this book has adopted the approach of teaching the construction of good arguments first and then introducing criticism as a secondary skill. Moreover, the emphasis of the book is not on learning to name fallacies, but on being able to identify weaknesses in an argument so as to be able to construct an effective critique of that argument. The book is accompanied by a workbook featuring a wealth of examples to help students acquire the material.

1

Logic as a Tool

THE USES OF LOGIC

One of the most natural questions that occurs to students beginning a logic course is, “Why should I be logical?” Often this question is accompanied by the feeling that being logical is something that others require of one—they are trying to force you to think in certain ways. A natural reaction is to resist this force, or at least to question it. Unfortunately, when asked in this way, the question “Why should I be logical?” is also often answered as if force, or compulsion, were the real issue: “The reason you must be logical is that….”

This book looks at logic in a quite different way. The fundamental question is not, “Why must I be logical?”, but “What can I achieve by using logic?” The focus is not on forcing you to do anything, but in providing you with some tools for achieving what you already want to do but want to do well. Aristotle, the founder of logic, wrote several books on the topic that were later collected and called The Organon. Organon is the Greek word for tool, and it is the purpose of this book to provide you with these tools. Hence the book’s title.

“Tools for what?” The answer is complex, for logic can be put to many uses. But we can start with an example. Perhaps one day at work you hear that your company is starting a new division to produce a new product. You have a great deal of experience with that product and you also have a number of ideas about how to manufacture it in an efficient way that insures high quality. Moreover, you have been looking for an opportunity for a promotion, and the possibility of becoming the manager of the division that will be responsible for producing the new product is very attractive to you. You feel confident that you have sufficient background and the abilities required to perform well in that position.

How should you go after that position? One strategy would be simply to wait and see if you are chosen. But you realize that good people are often passed over for positions because those making the appointment are not aware of their abilities. You decide you must be assertive. You happen to run into your company president as you are leaving work. Feeling bold, you tell the president you have heard of the expansion plans, that you have experience with the product and ideas about producing it, and so you think you are the person to head up the new division.

The president seems impressed with your self-confidence, but doesn’t offer you the position on the spot. Instead the president tells you the company is actively searching for the right candidate, and requests that you present the reasons to hire you in a memo.

Your boldness has given you an entrance, but now you must make the case—in writing—that the company should hire you. Here is one context in which you can use logic. You need to convince the president that you are the best qualified. That is, you must offer convincing reasons. In logic, we refer to this as making an argument. We call the reasons you put forward the premises of the argument. The claim you are trying to convince someone to believe is referred to as the conclusion. Your conclusion is obvious. You must argue that:

I should be hired as the manager of the new division responsible for the production of the new product.

The question is, what kind of premises will provide the most effective argument for this conclusion? In this book we examine the process of developing such arguments.

Logic alone won’t qualify you for the job you seek. You may not have the abilities to handle the job, or others may perceive flaws in what you think are good ideas about how to manufacture the product. Moreover, the president may find other candidates who are better qualified, or may have already reserved the position for a nephew. Logic cannot help with these matters. What it can do is enable you to present the best possible case for yourself. That is, it can help you present your abilities and your ideas in the memo the president has requested in the most compelling manner. Moreover, this task is an extremely important one. You may be the best candidate for the position. But if you do not present your case effectively, your qualifications and good ideas may count for nothing.

Presenting your case for a goal, such as being promoted, is not the only use of logic. Consider the position the president will be in after receiving your memo. The president will probably have identified other possible candidates, or have received other applications for managing the new division. Assuming a decision has not been made to bestow the position on a nephew, the president must now decide whom to select. The president can analyze the position and what skills will be needed to succeed in it. The president can also analyze the plans different candidates put forward for managing the division. In the process, the president needs to rely on logic. The president must determine what abilities and what plans are most suitable for the position, and then determine who comes closest to satisfying these conditions.

As president, this person may not need to justify the decision regarding who is hired to anyone else. But the president may decide to turn the preparation for the decision over to someone else, perhaps the vice president for manufacturing. Because the new manager will have to report to this vice president, the president asks the vice president to make a recommendation. The president, however, reserves the right to make the final decision. Now the vice president has a need for logic. The vice president must use logic not only to decide whom to recommend, but also to justify the recommendation to the president. In a sense, the vice president is in a position comparable to your own. The vice president does not stand to benefit directly by getting the position, but must rely on logic to ensure the proper person is hired as manager. Moreover, the vice president’s reputation as an executive is partly dependent on the ability to succeed in tasks like these. Only if the vice president is able to use logic effectively and make the case for the recommendations will those in higher positions listen to and accept any advice. And only if these recommendations are heard and accepted will the vice president accomplish the sorts of things as vice president that will justify retaining this position or acquiring another one.

The two uses of logic we have focused on here—coming to a conclusion about what to do, and arguing on behalf of a conclusion so as to convince others—are frequently useful. Because we have started with business life, let us consider some other common circumstances people confront regularly in their business pursuits. Your company may need to buy new equipment, and you are asked to develop a recommendation. You analyze the needs of the company, the strengths and weaknesses of the competing brands, and determine which model your company should buy. Here you use logic to make a decision. But now you must convince your supervisors that you have made the best decision. Sometimes you aren’t asked to make an evaluation, but you identify a problem, consider possible solutions, and arrive at what you think is the best one. The problem might have to do with inefficiency in company management, or failure to market your products as well as they should be. You have arrived at a recommendation, and now you must convince your superiors. Your superiors are only likely to adopt your recommendation and also note your talents if you can argue effectively on behalf of your proposal.

These same skills carry over to our personal lives as well. Consider three common situations. First, you want to go to a movie and, after reviewing what is playing, decide which best suits your interest. You also want your friend to go with you, so now you need to present reasons to convince that person to go. Second, you have been given a traffic ticket that you think is unjust (the stop sign was covered by shrubbery and so was not visible). After considering whether it is worth fighting the ticket, you elect to go to court to contest it. But not wanting to pay a lawyer, you decide to present your case to the judge yourself. You must now argue the case, giving the reasons why the ticket was unjust and you should not be convicted. Third, you go shopping for a new television. You look at various models and select one that has the features you want. The salesperson tells you that the only one the store has is the display model. You still want it, but you feel you shouldn’t have to pay full price. You must now offer an argument to the salesperson, or perhaps to the sales supervisor, explaning why you should pay a lower price. People who can argue effectively in these sorts of circumstances are more likely to achieve their ends than someone whose command of logical argument is weak.

Our civic life is also built on the use of argument. Some societies have been governed exclusively by power. Those who hold power subjugate the others and impose their wishes on the subjects. But such forms of government appear unstable and are, arguably, unjust. We enjoy a different form of government—one in which the power of persuasion is important. Although political persuasion often depends on such other factors as charisma, physical appearance, and even well-modulated speech, in many cases it is the quality of the arguments that carries the day. Thus, to achieve ends that you think are right or just, you need to be able to make arguments. Some of these arguments occur in the great deliberative bodies of government where most of us have only very remote influence. But a great many of the governmental decisions that affect us are made at much lower levels, ones at which the ordinary citizen can have influence. This influence may involve a personal appearance before a city or county council, or it may take the form of a letter to the editor of a local paper. Some people use these occasions just to state their opinions. Whereas this may influence lawmakers, especially if it is apparent that a large number of citizens hold the same opinion, mere statements of opinion are hardly as effective as those with well-developed reasons supporting them. Such arguments (reasons supporting a conclusion) have the potential of influencing others, especially those currently undecided on the issue, to share your opinion.

AN EXAMPLE ARGUMENT

To get more of the flavor of argument, and to introduce some of the important strategies of argument, consider an example of argument used in civic life. The following is an example that might have been written for the opinion page of a local newspaper, or presented as a letter to the person’s representative on the city council, or prepared simply as a project in a class such as the one you are now taking. It is the sort of argument this book will teach you to construct.

Mytown Needs Voluntary Curbside Recycling

Our nation’s landfills are quickly running out of space. We read stories in the newspapers about the impending catastrophe that we face in disposing of garbage. But we also are discovering a solution that works: More and more people are sorting out glass bottles, plastic jugs, and newspaper and preparing these for recycling. These efforts must be encouraged and expanded. What is needed now is a citywide program of voluntary curbside recycling for glass, plastic, and newspaper. There is legislation currently pending in the city council for this program. I argue that because it will not only help solve a civic problem, but will achieve high levels of citizen participation and can be done for very little cost, the program of voluntary curbside recycling ought to be implemented in Mytown. I also examine some of the objections that might be made to my argument and show how these can be answered.

One should always be cautious in advocating new government-sponsored programs. Budgets are tight, and we know of many programs that simply have not worked. But there are circumstances in which it makes sense for the government to implement new programs. Essentially a new program should be undertaken when three conditions are met. First, the program addresses a civic problem. A civic problem is one that affects the safety, public health, and basic welfare of citizens generally. Other problems are properly left to individual initiatives, but it is to deal with problems of this character that we have governments. Second, the program is one with which the citizens will cooperate. It is futile to set up programs that citizens will reject or obstruct; when, on the other hand, programs are designed with which they will cooperate, then civic problems can be solved. Finally, the program is cost efficient. Our government simply does not have much money and so is obliged to insist that new programs require very little new public money. Consequently, in arguing for a new program of curbside recycling, three things must be shown: that it will help solve a civic problem, that citizens will participate in it, and that it can be accomplished for very little cost. If we can establish that it meets each of these requirements, the program should be approved. I show how it satisfies each of these in turn.

First, there can be little doubt that human garbage constitutes a civic problem and recycling can be a significant help in solving that problem. Garbage pick-up and disposal has been a long-standing activity of local governments. The reasons are linked to public health. Leaving the disposal of garbage to individual citizens is likely to lead to improper disposal and the potential for increased transmission of disease. But traditional means of disposing of garbage are now creating public health problems of their own. Burning garbage generates harmful gases that can both generate health problems, such as cancer, and damage the environment. Dumping of garbage in landfills requires the availability of sites in which the garbage won’t end up contaminating the environment by, for example, leaking into the water supply. Good landfill sites are difficult to come by and those now in use are rapidly filling up. The director of our city’s department of waste management estimates that a present rates, our landfill will reach maximum capacity within 4 years. So we face a major civic problem. Recycling of glass, plastics, and newspaper can help significantly in dealing with this problem. A major part of our landfill space is consumed by disposing of these products. So, with them removed, we can extend the useful life of our current landfill by several years.

The second requirement is that citizens be willing to cooperate with the program. If a significant number of people are already participating in recycling, and if surveys indicate that more than half of the citizens would participate voluntarily if they did not have to seek out a recycling center on their own, then we can infer that citizens are willing to cooperate with this program. A number of citizens are already engaging in recycling. They collect bottles, plastic jugs, and newspapers, and transport them to recycling centers on their own. Although the number participating is significant, it still is not large. That, however, is not surprising given the effort it now takes to participate. Citizens must identify a recycling center, which may be several miles from their home, save up the materials for recycling, and then drive them to the site. Their participation reveals a basic willingness of people to do what is necessary to solve the garbage disposal problem. But more revealing for our purposes are the responses of citizens of Mytown to a recent survey. The survey was included with the last city tax bill with an envelope to be mailed in separately and anonymously, and better than 60% of taxpayers responded. That is an extremely high response rate to any survey. Of those responding, 62% indicate they would be willing to participate in a voluntary program of separating glass, plastic, and newspaper, and putting these at the curbside each week for pick-up. Thus, we can reasonably expect a majority of the citizens to participate in this program.

Finally, the program can be accomplished for minimal cost. Costs will be very low if two conditions are satisfied: If there is a market for recycled materials, and collecting and transporting the additional materials will not significantly increase pick-up times. Both of these conditions are met. There is now a sizeable and expanding market for recycled glass, plastic, and newspaper. Manufacturers have discovered that people are quite willing to buy products made of recycled materials. As a result, a number of companies have been created to perform the recycling. They need a constant supply of used glass, plastic, and newspaper, and are willing to pay communities who will contract to supply these to them. Second, there are private companies willing to do the collection of glass, plastic, and newspaper from curbsides. One company, Waste Material Collection Company, will agree to a contract stipulating that if they are able to collect sufficient amounts of the products, they will not charge the city, but settle for whatever they can sell the materials for. Only if collections fall below these levels is there a charge to the city. But given the citizens’ response to the survey, collections should not fall below their minimums. Other contractors may even be willing to split profits from the sale of the recyclable material. There will always be slight overhead costs in supervising these contracts, but the city will save money it now spends on disposing these materials in landfills. Thus, the program can be accomplished for minimal costs, and probably can be carried out for less money than is currently expended on disposing of this material in our landfill.

I have shown that all the conditions for setting up a new city program are met. Opponents of recycling, however, are likely to raise some objections to this argument. They are likely to question both the claim that citizens will participate, and that the program can be carried out at little or no new cost to the city. With respect to the first point, they will argue that surveys indicating that people will participate in recycling are meaningless. They will contend that it is easy for people to say they will participate when in fact they never will. In fact they argue that there is pressure for people to say they will participate, for saying no may make people appear unpatriotic. Moreover, they will point to examples like Thattown, which started a recycling program 8 years ago, but abandoned it for lack of participation. Second, they will argue that opportunities for selling collected glass, plastic, and newspaper are exaggerated. Othercity, for example, started a recycling program, but later had to dispose of the glass and newspaper it collected in its regular landfill because it was unable to find anyone who would take it. In addition, critics will claim that contracts with private recyclers are always more expensive than they seem. Compliance with the contract will have to be monitored to insure that the contractor does not actually collect more material than it says it does.

These criticisms, however, are easily answered. Although many times people may report one thing on surveys and do something else, there are reasons to believe that this survey, if anything, underestimates the response rate. Cities that have conducted such surveys before starting recycling have found that within a few months of the beginning of the program more people participate than indicated they would. Many citizens seem to be inspired by the fact that their neighbors are acting responsibly, and so they join in. The fear of appearing unpatriotic actually seems to have more effect in increasing participation rates once recycling has begun. The example of Thattown is really quite misleading. They started their program 8 years ago, before consciousness about the need for recycling was raised. Moreover, Thattown imposed a mandatory recycling program, which aroused antagonism from the beginning. A voluntary recycling program will not generate the antipathy of the citizens. The criticisms of my analysis of cost are equally unfounded. In the early days of recycling it is true that there was little market for the materials collected. Today, however, there are companies advertising to buy glass, plastic, and newspaper. Moreover, the anticipated problems concerning contracts with private recyclers a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Logic as a Tool
• 2 The Nature of Arguments
• 3 Valid Argument Forms
• 4 The Basic Argumentative Essay: Identifying Your Audience and Developing Your Conclusion
• 5 The Basic Argumentative Essay: Generating a Logical Diagram and Written Prose
• 6 Evaluation Arguments
• 7 Critiques: The Essential Preparation
• 8 Critiques: Types of Objections
• 9 Critiques: Presenting Objections
• 10 Defending Against a Critique
• 11 Authority
• 12 The Logic of Explanation
• 13 Arguing from Analogy
• Subject Index