Critical Reasoning Skills for

Evaluating Disputes in

Cyberethics

.

To accomplish these objectives, we

_ examine the structure of a logical argument and show how arguments are used in

resolving disputes affecting ethical aspects of cybertechnology;

_ evaluate the strength of arguments by distinguishing between arguments that are

valid and invalid, sound and unsound, inductive and fallacious;

_ identify some common logical fallacies that occur in everyday reasoning and show

how they apply to arguments affecting cyberethics issues.

GETTING STARTED

For example, we saw how a typical cyberethics issue could be systematically approached from

the vantage point of a standard ethical theory, such as utilitarianism, deontology, etc. At

some point, however, we may also need to defendgive a reason for whywe selected one

particular ethical theory over another. Additionally, we may sometimes need to convince

others about which ethical theory is best for analyzing cyberethics issues in general.

In the following scenario, where you are conflicted about whether or not to download

a software application from the Internet, a friend tries to convince you why you should

take one course of action rather than another.

Defining Two Key Terms in Critical Reasoning: Claims and Arguments

Claims The basic starting point of an argument is the claim. A claim is just what it sounds like an idea that someone is trying to convince someone else is true.

Critical reasoning is a branch of informal logic. It aims at assisting us in evaluating the

strength of argum statements or assertions, comprise a form of reasoning called a logical argument or

For our purposes, an argument, which contains at least two claims, can be defined as a

reasoning form, or structure, that attempts to establish the truth of one claim (called a

conclusion) based on the assumed truth of the evidence in other claims (called premises)

provided to support the conclusion. Thus, an argument is a form of reasoning that has two

important characteristics or features in that it

i. includes at least two claims (but can include an indefinite number of claims);

ii. aims at establishing a conclusion (i.e., the truth of one claim) based on evidence

provided by one or more other claims, called premises.

We will see that whereas arguments are either valid or invalid, the claims that

comprise them are either true or false. First, however, we examine an important role that

arguments can play when someone is trying to support or defend a position that may be in

some dispute.

The Role of Arguments in Defending Claims

The Basic Structure of an Argument

We noted that an argument consists of two or more claims, one of which is

called the conclusion; the others are called the premises. The standard form for representing an argument is to list the premises first and then state the conclusion. The

following structure represents an arguments standard form:

PREMISE 1

PREMISE 2 (optional)

PREMISE 3 (optional)

c 3.2 CONSTRUCTING AN ARGUMENT

world, and not merely assumed true as in the case of the test for validity.

SOUND ARGUMENTS

Think of re true and then ask whether the conclusion would logically follow from them

Think of some situations in which arguments are used by those in powerful positions,

as well as by ordinary persons. Lawyers, for example, use arguments to try to persuade

So far, we have considered only the structure of this argument. That is, we have

described its two basic componentsits premises and conclusionand we have represented

it in standard logical form. Now we ask: Is the reasoning used in the argument

strong? Are there rules that will enable us to determine this? To answer these questions,

we first need to understand the difference between valid and invalid arguments.

VALID ARGUMENTS

A valid argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time. True or False. Explain your answer.

The argument meets all of the criteria for validity: if all three of the premises in

this argument are assumed true, then the conclusion (My roommate is smarter than

me.) must be true. In other words, no counterexample to this arguments reasoning

form is possible. However, the arguments validity alone is not sufficient to establish

that the argument succeeds in the final analysis (as we will see in the following

sections). It only shows that when all of the premises are assumed true, the conclusion

would also be true.

This argument, like all valid arguments, is valid by virtue of its logical form; an

arguments logical form, not its content, determines its validity and invalidity

To say that an argument is valid does not necessarily mean that its premises are true

in the actual world. An argument can be valid in terms of its logical form and yet still be

unsound. One more step is required for an argument to qualify as a sound argument. To

be sound, all of the premises (included in the valid argument) must be true in the real

An argument will be sound if (a) the

argument is valid and (b) all of the premises are actually true (and not merely assumed to

be true). even when an argument is unsound, or even when it is invalid, it does not

necessarily follow that the arguments conclusion is false. Rather, we can only infer that

the evidence given, that is, the particular premises used to support the arguments

conclusion, is not adequate because (when used alone) the premises fail to meet certain

logical requirements. As you might suspect, sound arguments are not very common, and often they are

about matters that are either trivial or uncontroversial

INVALID ARGUMENTS

Overall argument strength, as opposed to an arguments strength of reasoning,

takes into account the actual truth condition of the arguments premises. We saw that an

arguments strength of reasoning is concerned only with the hypothetical or assumed

truth of those premises

To say that an argument is invalid means simply that it IS possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time. Invalid arguments MAY be strong arguments. Good arguments are either valid or strong. Hence, an invalid argument may be good.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Not all invalid arguments are necessarily weak arguments; in fact, some are quite strong.

Hence, we should not automatically discard every invalid argument simply because it is

not valid. Some invalid arguments are inductive. Although inductive arguments do not

necessarily guarantee the truth of their conclusions in the way that valid arguments do,

inductive arguments nonetheless provide a high degree of probability for their conclusions

As suggested above, some inductive arguments, although invalid, can be strongeroverall

than some valid arguments. But how is that possible? We have seen examples of

valid arguments that contained premises that were false in the actual world. Inductive

arguments consisting of premises that are all true in the actual world are generally

stronger than arguments that a

As you consider the various

arguments involving privacy, free speech, security, etc., in, determine

which ones meet the criteria of being inductive with all true premises. Such arguments

will be much more successful in establishing their positions (i.e., they will be much

stronger) than will deductive arguments that contain one or more false premises.re valid but unsound..

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS

All of the statements or claims in that particular argument were

true in the actual world, so the argument might have seemed fairly strong. Yet, because we could produce a counterexample (and, in fact, we saw that we could easily produce

several counterexamples), clearly the argument was invalid.

We next ask whether the argument is inductive or fallacious. That is, how likely is it

that the arguments conclusion,

Note that an arguments being fallacious has nothing to do with the actual truth or

falsity of its premises, so you have probably noticed a certain irony with respect to an

arguments strength of reasoning. We have seen that an argument can be valid and yet

contain one or more false premises and a false conclusion; and, conversely, an

argument can be fallacious despite the fact that all of its premises as well as its

conclusion could be true.

In the arguments current form, the conclusion does not likely follow from the

premise, even when that premise is assumed true. So the argument is fallacious

SEVEN-STEP STRATEGY FOR EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

:

Step 1. Convert the argument into standard form. (List the premises, followed by the

conclusion.)

Step 2. Test the argument for its strength of reasoning to see whether it is valid or

invalid.

Strategy: Assume the premises to be true, and ask yourself whether the

conclusion must also be true when those premises are assumed true. Is a

counterexample to the argument possible?

Is the argument valid?

If yes, go to Step 4.

If no, go to Step 5.

Step 4. Is the (valid) argument also sound? That is, are the premises true in the actual

world?

Strategy: To determine whether a claim is true or false in the actual world,

see the guidelines in Appendix G (available at www.w iley.com/college/

tavani).

a. If the argument is valid and if all of the premises are true in the actual world,

then the argument is also sound.

b. If the argument is valid, but one or more premises can be shown to be false,

then the argument is unsound. (Note that if one or more premises are unable

to be verified, i.e., determined to be either true or false, then the overall

argument is inconclusive.)

Step 5. Is the (invalid) argument inductive or fallacious?

Strategy: To determine this, ask how likely the conclusion would be true when

the premises are assumed true.

a. If the conclusion would likely be true because the premises are assumed

true[h1] (i.e., the evidence for the conclusion is strong), the argument is

inductive.

b. If the conclusion would not likely be true even when the premises are

assumed true, the argument is fallacious.

Note: Keep in mind that a fallacious argument can be made up of individual

claims or statements that are themselves true in the actual world.

Step 6. Determine whether the premises in your argument are either true or false in the

actual Step 7. Make an overall assessment of the argument by determining both (a) the

arguments strength of reasoning (valid, inductive, or fallacious) and (b) the

truth conditions of each of the arguments premises.

Strategy: Determine, for example, whether the arguments overall strength is

_ sound

_ valid but unsound

_ inductive with all true premises,

_ in_ fallacious with a mixture of true and false premises,

_ some other combination.

Remember that an inductive argument with premises that are all true can be stronger

overall than a valid argument with one or more false premises, which will be (valid but)

unsound.ductive with some false premises, world.

IDENTIFYING SOME COMMON FALLACIES

Contrary to what many people assume, fallacy does not mean false statement; rather, it

means faulty reasoning

all true statements and still be fallacious. (We also saw that an argument can contain all

false statements and still be valid, solely by virtue of its logical form.)

At this point, you might be unsure about your ability to recognize a fallacious

argument without using the counterexample strategy described in this chapter or without

applying some of the more sophisticated rules that comprise formal systems of logic.

Because so many fallacies appear in everyday reasoning, logicians have categorized them

in ways that are convenient for us to recognize. We refer to these kinds of fallacious

arguments as informal logical fallacies

Begging the Question

An argument commits the fallacy of begging the question when its premise(s) presuppose

the truth of the conclusion it is trying to establish. In such a case, the reasoning is circular.

Fallacy of Composition/Fallacy of Division

The fallacy of composition confuses the characteristics that apply to the parts of a whole,

or to the individual

iFallacy of Ambiguity/Equivocation

Fallacious reasoning can occur whenever one or more terms are used either ambiguously

or equivocally; ambiguous terms have more than one interpretation, and it is not always

clear which interpretation the author intends.Aterm is used equivocally, on the contrary,

when it has two (or more) different senses or meanings. Consider individual members of a group, with the characteristics of the whole itself.

Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)

Sometimes people appeal to the notion that there is strength in numbers

The Many/Any Fallacy

This fallacy assumes that because many things of a certain kind have a feature, anything

of that kind has that feature.

The Virtuality Fallacy

The virtuality fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of combining two premises together to prove that something is not real.^[1] The fallacy has the following form:

Premise 1: X exists in the virtual world

Premise 2: Virtual is not real

Conclusion: X (or the effect of X) is not real

This fallacy is mostly used by those who want to defend their own questionable behavior on the internet by saying this is not real and will not cause any harm to other people

Please write synopsis of this chapter in own words

[h1]