Logic and Logical Fallacies

As we have discussed in class, education as a reinforcer/transmitter of culture depends upon systems of meaning such as language. Embedded in our concept of Democracy is an educated citizenry, each of whom is able to critically evaluate information. Therefore it is incumbent upon each of us to be clear as to what constitutes acceptable reasoning, as opposed to manipulation or erroneous thinking. If the conflict theorists are correct, and the social foundations of education are up for grabs by competing groups, then it stands to reason that sophists from each camp will stand and argue not necessarily to search for common truth but to advance their own agendas.With this in mind, I will be spending the first portion of next week's class (September 6) on logic, including the structure of basic syllogisms and argumentation. Please review the following list of logical fallacies (misleading or unsound arguments), adapted from California State University Northridge (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html), and consider whether any of these were used in the argument you selected. Please note that this list covers many of the most commonly used fallacies, but it is not comprehensive; if you identify a flaw in the argument you selected, but don't see the structure here, bring your question. Come to class prepared to discuss.

After you have read this list, please consider a policy statement (either formal, or something that you heard/read) that you consider absurd. See if you can catch a logical fallacy that informs the policy, and write a statement in which you rebut the argument.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.
Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a "straw man" (see below) argument.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.
It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs).

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the audience will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one.

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"
Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.
Complex questions are a well established and time-honored practice in debate, although they are rarely so bald-faced as the example just given. Complex questions usually appear in cross-examination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. For instance, one might say, "Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self-help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems?" Of course, the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true (in fact, it is false), but an unwary debater might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable. This is a sneaky tactic, but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. You wouldn't want to put a question like that in your master's thesis, but it might work in a debate. But be careful -- if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you'll look stupid. "The assumption behind your question is simply false. The majority of blacks do not live in poverty. Get your facts straight before you interrupt me again!"

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that "President Clinton has great economic policies; just look at how well the economy is doing while he's in office!" The problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence (e.g., the President may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth), or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time (e.g., the current economy's health is determined by the actions of previous presidents), or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause (e.g., downsizing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsizing).
It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coexist. But a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. For instance, some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better (loosely speaking), so the coincidence of deficit reductions under Clinton and the economy's relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. In debate rounds, what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc, below. The two terms can be used almost interchangeably, post hoc (as it is affectionately called) being the preferred term.

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct).

Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.
The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival.

Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.
For example, someone might argue that the premise, "This medicine will prevent you from dying" immediately leads to the conclusion, "You should take this medicine." But this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. To reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: "You ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible."
The naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. Two examples are argumentum ad antiquitatem (saying something's right because it's always been done that way) and the appeal to nature (saying something's right because it's natural). In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. David Hume called this trying to bridge the "is-ought gap," which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy.
One unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as axioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. Fortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation. For example, suppose your opponent has stated axiomatically that "whatever is natural is good." Inasmuch as this statement is an axiom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof, there can be no purely logical argument against it. But some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: (a) questioning whether anyone -- you, your judge, or even your opponent himself -- really believes that "whatever is natural is good"; (b) stating a competing axiomatic value statement, like "whatever enhances human life is good," and forcing the judge to choose between them; and (c) pointing out logical implications of the statement "whatever is natural is good" that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong.

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. For example, "Racism is wrong. Therefore, we need affirmative action." Obviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support (such as, "Racism is common," "Affirmative action would reduce racism," "There are no superior alternatives to affirmative action," etc.).

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible that some psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might cause both a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious.
It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.
There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don't like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, "individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies," the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs -- so if we don't support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don't really believe in that principle.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.
In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.

Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. For example, "They accuse us of making unjustified assertions. But they asserted a lot of things, too!"

WEEK 1 Assignments

1. Reconsider the Plato reading with the following questions in mind: a)What are the qualities of a democracy? b)What are the qualities of the democratic person? c)What are the advantages of democracy? d)What threatens democracy?

2. Read Dewey to p.100. Remember to read actively (see note at the bottom of this post) and engage the text, and come to class prepared to discuss.

3. Read the "Socratic Method" post on the blog, which will help prepare you for every future discussion you will ever have...

4. Start keeping a journal in which you observe your workplace-- and our nation's culture-- through the theoretical frameworks we discuss in class.

5. Bring in a resource that you think is relevant, and which your classmates will find interesting and/or helpful. A resource can be a website, article, book, speaker, company, or anything else that supports and extends our understanding of Democracy & Education. Please bring the resource to class, along with a brief write-up that includes bibliographic data (i.e., where we can find it) and 1-2 paragraphs describing the value of the resource (i.e., why we should look for it in the first place).

A NOTE ABOUT ACTIVE READING
Although you have experience in academic reading, I would like to see you extend your critical thinking skills during this course. In addition to the traditional approach of highlighting and/or underlining main ideas, I want you to engage the text by annotating it with your own comments and questions. Anything is fair game-- write a note in the margin whenever you agree, disagree or question an idea. Also, keep a quality dictionary nearby when you read; I often find that academic reading presents opportunities to learn something new or remember something forgotten.

Socratic Method

THE SOCRATIC METHOD (adapted from Ray Linn, LAUSD)

The key teaching method used in this class is called the “dialectic” or “the Socratic method.” This approach consists of a continual dialogue including questions, answers, and criticisms/clarifications of answers. It is one way of pursuing truth, and it can be used directly in conversation or indirectly in discussing literature that has been read in class. The method is so simple that at first it doesn’t seem like much of a “method” at all—it is, however, and I think it is the best method for pursuing truths about human beings and their assumptions about reality and abstractions such as values, culture, and the social foundations of education. The dialogue which follows illustrates how the Socratic method was used in a high school class to explore the topic of status as a possible goal of human existence. The dialogue is rearranged and idealized, but it provides an idea of how the Socratic method works and where it took participants in their discussion of a widely held value of modern society. As you read it, consider your own private desire to be held in high esteem by others and, by imagining yourself in the role of Student, ask yourself how you would answer the questions in the dialectic.

Teacher: Is there anyone in this room who is not greatly concerned with achieving high status? Is it worth living for?

Student: What else am I to live for? I sure don’t want to be a loser, and I know that when I make it I’ll be happy.

Teacher: Don’t all desires make you unhappy with your present situation in the world? If you want to be big, you must now feel small, and thus you aren’t happy.

Student: Perhaps, but when I make it...

Teacher: Make what? Just what are you going to “make,” and how will it make you happy? Society might give you some sort of symbolic prize for your efforts, but you are essentially a body with desires. How can a symbol satisfy a desiring body?

Student: But after I’m rich and famous, I’ll have lots of fine bodies to choose from!

Teacher: Perhaps, but as Philip Slater says, you’ll do without them while striving for that carrot, and how long will it take? And even if you’re right about what will happen after you hit the big time, what makes you think you’ll be loved for who you are? If it’s money that brings you to her attention, perhaps it’s money that she loves.

Besides, the problem with status-lovers is that they’re always trying to show that they are superior to the people around them. To have status is to act superior. Do you truly love people who think they’re superior to you? Do status-conscious people produce the impulse of love, or the desire to tear them down?

Student: So? (This student is not “superior”)

Teacher: Isn’t it inevitable that status-seeking separates you from other human beings? Since status is a self-centered goal, it focuses your attention on what’s going to happen to you—which automatically separates you from the people around you. Do you prefer the feeling of loneliness?

Student: No, but nobody wants to be close to a loser either.

Teacher: Why not try to meet the Other as an equal? And if you persist in defining yourself as the “superior,” are you different from the slime that joins the Klan in order to establish a sense of superiority in the world? As long as the desire to be high dominates your consciousness, don’t you have to look down on the Other? Isn’t it logically impossible to define yourself as superior without defining someone else as inferior? And isn’t this what you, just like the Klansman, are doing all the time?

Student: Maybe so, but I’m not a loser.

Teacher: What are you, essentially?

Student: As Descartes said, “I am a thing that thinks.” To be presently aware of these thoughts, I must exist as an unchanging mental thing.

Teacher: Are you such a “thing?” As Hume says, look again: can you find an unchanging thing, in addition to your changing thoughts and feelings? When I introspect all I find is a bunch of changing thoughts and feelings and impulses—are you so different?

Student: OK, I can only be certain of the changing thoughts and feelings.

Teacher: But is this the reality you pay attention to when you try to rise up and be the best thing around? Or do you ignore this changing internal reality when you act like you’re the top rat in the rat race? Is Tolstoy right when he says that the great thing that you want to be is merely a pretense, and that in attempting to become it you must ignore the real life that is within you? Since society only gives status to fixed positions like “judge” or “executive,” doesn’t the status-seeker have to ignore the real, changing feelings and impulses that are within? If so, is Tolstoy right in saying that status-seeking leads to death?

Student: What else should I do with my life?

Teacher: Why not return to the “living” by ignoring your desire to be superior, and instead focusing your consciousness on the reality of human needs and feelings? Why not focus on meeting the needs of people around you?

Student: I don’t care what you say, achieving a high position is important to me.

Teacher: Look around the room. Would your status with your peers still be as important if you knew you were going to die tomorrow?

The actual classroom dialogue went way beyond this brief and condensed version, and it contained twists and turns not mentioned here, but these are some of the questions, answers, and criticisms of answers which were expressed in class. In analyzing the Socratic method of pursuing truth, several things may be stated: first, it is essentially a negative method. People using it are often trying to tear down the ideas they hear; they listen to others’ propositions, usually with one ear turned toward what is wrong with it. If they don’t listen in this critical way, if they aren’t willing to think negatively, the method cannot exist.

The Socratic method works best when its practitioners have developed a sensitivity to logic and semantics—specifically, to what makes a good argument and what doesn’t (logistical fallacies), and to language that is vague, misleading or meaningless. Asking clarifying questions such as, “What do you mean?” is essential to the Socratic method. In Preface to Plato Havelock argues that this question marks beginning of this particular approach to the search for truth. Questioning the meaning of the key terms in an argument is especially important in using this method. So is an awareness of the vague clichés of the day, e.g., “He’s making it…” “This idea sucks…” “That’s sick…” “It’s awesome…” etc. Again, for the Socratic method to work practitioners must be willing to think negatively, to look for and identify instances of insufficient evidence, and for sloppy use of language.

In attempting to justify this negative approach to education, we can begin by noting that the Socratic method first grew out of a particular way of thinking about knowledge that surfaced in 5th century Greece. For Socrates, a great many knowledge claims and value claims seemed empty, meaningless, and even destructive. The traditional Homeric view of things was still a major part of Greek education in the 5th century, even though it had little to offer the world in Socrates’ day. In addition, the Sophists had revealed the apparent relativity of all answers about what is real and what is good—so that what might be true in Athens wouldn’t necessarily be true somewhere else. Given this social situation, it was difficult to accept the traditional idea that knowledge was simply the collective memory of the community. In other words, knowledge was no longer thought of as a set of established truths which an older person knows and simply pours into the head of a younger person. In an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, the “lecture method” no longer seemed adequate. When one way of seeing things gives rise to many, it’s difficult to believe that memory alone produces knowledge. Thus Socrates began to think of knowledge in a different way: as something achieved by individuals actively searching for the truth through constant questioning and criticism. Active, critical questioning, rather than the acceptance of secondhand opinion, became the key to knowledge. Thus Socrates tells us that, “The life without criticism is meaningless.” Since we too live in an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, Socrates’ method seems well-suited to today’s classroom. When there are many competing answers about what human beings are like and what they should do, all answers become questionable, and at this point so does a straight lecture approach to education. It seems more sensible to survey the competing answers with a critical mind, actively investigating for ourselves what has meaning for us and what does not.

In addition to providing an ideal method for this skeptical era, there are other advantages to the Socratic method: first, it takes the subject off the page and places it in the student’s life. One problem with a straight lecture/reading approach to education is that it often fails to bring the abstractions into the student’s experience. For example, in some epistemology classes students are simply asked to read and listen to lectures on Descartes, Locke, and Hume; they are asked to get the issues straight, to think about the problem of skepticism, etc.—but they are not asked to relate the issues to their own lives. The problem is that when this relation is ignored education becomes a meaningless, formal exercise. The value of Socratic questions like, “What do you actually observe when you think one event causes another?” and “Do you know more than my dog Brewster?” is that they force students to consider how epistemological issues relate to their own lives. Thinking about this relation is important even when studying something as removed from students’ lives as epistemology; for example, one of the great values of skeptical arguments such as Hume’s is that they tend to discourage rashness (“because I know I might be wrong”) and encourage tolerance/appreciation (“because I know that even foreigners might be right”). But this kind of influence is possible only if the student relates the abstract issue to his own situation in the world.

In connection with this point, it seems that nothing enters a student’s life as much as the concept of “no.” A nonchallenging comment like, “That’s an interesting answer’’ encourages complacency rather than critical thought. “No, you’re wrong” or “Your sentence is meaningless” or “You have no evidence for that,” on the other hand, are challenges to the mind that demand action. “No” is something that must be dealt with, something that must be taken into account rather than ignored. If a teacher referred to your self-centered love of status as “interesting” or as “one of the many things that human beings live for,” would you have thought much about it? Such tepid niceness might allow an extremely self-centered student to feel good about himself, but it evokes little serious thought about what the student is living for. Pragmatists are basically right in asserting that we don’t reflect on our experience until we have a problem. “No” presents the problem in clear relief.

Another advantage of the Socratic method is that it fosters critical thinking skills—skills that remain long after the particular subject matter is forgotten. By “critical thinking skills” I mean the ability to separate what is valid and true and significant from what is nonsense. After prolonged exposure to the Socratic method, students tend to internalize it—so that even in their private thinking when they run a proposition through their mind they simultaneously search for its weakness, e.g., “The teacher’s statement might be right, but where is the evidence?... And what does he mean by…?” This critical way of thinking about one’s private thoughts is not natural, and it is one of the main consequences of exposure to the Socratic method. In an era dominated by the media, modern politics and so much nonsense, developing critical thinking abilities is important. One problem with the lecture approach to education is that it doesn’t encourage the student to constantly think critically, but when he leaves the lecture and faces the modern world he will be better off if he does.

The Socratic method has great value for another reason: it sharpens the teacher’s mind, and leads her to constantly delve deeper into her subject. This is because it forces her to constantly think of the key questions and issues related to the subject she is teaching. The most important questions, key terms, and relations within a particular subject area are not obvious, and more than a few teachers have trouble writing up essay questions because they haven’t thought out the general questions which relate to their subject. If they use the Socratic method, they have no choice: they must search for the key assumptions, terms and issues in order to raise the right questions.

The Socratic method forces the teacher to pay close attention to students. One problem with a lecture/reading-based course is that allows the teacher to ignore student feedback until exam time (and in many college/graduate courses, not even then). In using the Socratic method teachers are forced to consider student responses daily. Specifically, student feedback provides a formative assessment that identifies intellectual blind spots, false reasoning, clichés and unexamined language, inane values, and other needs for improved reasoning. Of course such intimate intellectual contact can be repulsive, but it does enable teachers to think more realistically about how to communicate and relate the lesson to individual students.

Granted: the Socratic method sometimes evokes too much disrespect for authority, particularly in misguided or dimwitted students, because the method tends to assume that authority is meaningless. Granted: the method sometimes evokes such strong emotions that defenses impair or prevent learning. Granted: the method can often be bruising to a student’s ego. However, without bruising the childhood ego would never be left behind, and the typical delusions of ego about one’s self-importance constitute baggage far too heavy to carry in the search for truth. The Socratic method, by subjecting the ego to constant criticism, is helpful in eliminating the ego from discussions of truth. In evaluating this method, consider the alternatives: would students learn more that is important in their lives during the same limited time period if teachers relied on lecture and reading, or Descartes’ introspection (searching within one’s own consciousness for ideas that are clear and certain), or on Buddhist meditation? Would these or any other approach to the search for truth cause you to think as deeply about your own desire to be top rat?

Please come to class prepared to defend your answer.

Welcome & Syllabus

Hello and welcome to EDUU 605: Democracy and Education. We will occasionally be using this blog as a way to exchange information. Following is the syllabus for the course. I look forward to working with you this session!
Dr. Preston



Note: Individual Instructors complete the asterisked (*) components of the syllabus. ALL other components will be prescribed by University College, the Department Chair, or Course Custodian and must be included on each instructor’s syllabus as provided.

NEW (CAC Approval Date):

X UPDATED (Date): 08/22/06

*TERM / YEAR / CAMPUS LOCATION


COURSE NUMBER, TITLE and CREDITS

EDUU 605 Democracy, Education and Social Change 3 credits

*INSTRUCTOR NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION
David R. Preston, Ph.D.
voice : 805.349.3373
e-mail: dpreston@chapman.edu
office hours / or out of class time contact information: Thursday 3-5 P.M.

CUC COURSE CUSTODIAN:

Aspasia Neophytos-Richardson, Ed.D.
neophyto@chapman.edu

BULLETIN COURSE DESCRIPTION:

Students examine the relationship between democratic theory, educational practice, and social change. Specific attention is paid to theories of democracy, the democratic nature of historical and current reform efforts, the contradictions and dilemmas of schooling, and the ways in which schooling might influence social change.

PREREQUISITES:

EDUU 600

RESTRICTIONS:

See the Chapman University Catalog for each Master’s degree program

ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES:

The room assigned for this course should be spacious, with furniture that is easy to move into various configurations, including small working groups. A working overhead projector, VCR, and screen are essential; power point capability is desirable.

COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of the course the student should be able to . . .

1. Craft personal definitions of democracy, social change, and their relationships.

2. Articulate a position on the relationship of education, democracy and social change.

3. Describe the democratic ramifications of current school issues such as, but not limited to, bilingual education,
privatization, standards, sex education, vouchers, testing, tracking, grading practices, and core curriculum.

4. Cite historical and current school reform efforts and the degree of their democratic commitment.

5. Understand the democratic tensions and ethical dilemmas in daily school/ educational practice.

6. Analyze the culture of their home schools or other work environments in terms of the democratic orientations and dilemmas with particular attention paid to race, class, gender and multi ethnic issues. (This objective can met through the “mid-term” Cultural Analysis Paper or through several written reflections throughout the term.)

7. Understand current movement toward democratic schools and design a democratic action plan for implementation in their schools. (This objective is met through the “final paper” the Democratic Action Plan)

8. Assess the status of his or her own democratic personhood.

9. Understand and conduct research (quantitative, qualitative, participatory as appropriate and feasible), related to democratic education.

10. Meet two self-chosen objectives.

MAJOR STUDY UNITS:

1. Theoretical notions of democracy and social change, theories of justice, philosophical and psychological
approaches.

2. Relationships among democracy, social change and education: can schools build "a new social order" or are the schools reflections only of existing social arrangements?

3. Identification and analysis of current school issues such as but not limited to bilingual education, privatization, standards, sex education, vouchers, testing, tracking, grading practices, and core curriculum.

4. School reform movements and degree of democratic commitment, eg. "good" schools, Coalition of Essential Schools, etc.

5. Ethical dilemmas of schooling, issues of race, class, gender, and multi-ethnicity in daily school practice.

6. Study and reports of individual schools' democratic orientation.

7. The "ideal" example of democratic classrooms and schools; designing democratic action plans for school implementation.

*INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES:

Selected by individual instructors.

This course, to be consistent and internally valid will be democratic and highly participatory. Student focused, its methodology includes large and small group dialogue, intensive close reading of textual material, experiences to foster self-understanding, in- and out-of-class writing, a collaborative research/action project, the use of video and other media, and guest speakers who will help us to focus on the democratic process and education, and what our role in these is. In entering into communication with the written word through critical reading, the reader is led through a process of reflection that allows him/her to make meaning from this dialogue with the text and take action based on the new understandings gained.




REQUIRED TEXTS:

Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. (ISBN: 1421906139)

Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (ISBN: 0-877227756)

SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT:

Apple, M.W. & Beane, J. (1996). Democratic schools

Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., Tipton, SM., & Bellah, R.N. (Ed.). (1996). Habits of the heart: Individualism & commitment in American life (Updated ed.). University of California Press.

Cummins, P.F. & Cummins, A.K. (1998). For mortal stakes: Solutions for schools and society. New York: Bramble Books.

Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Guttman, A. (1987). Democratic education. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Hollins, E.R., King, J.E., Hayman, W.C. (Eds.). (1994). Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base.
State University of New York Press.

Kohl, H. (1988). 36 Children. New York: Plume Book, Penguin Group.

Kohl., H. (1994). I won’t learn from you. The New Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: J Jossey-Bass.

Meier, D. (1996). The power of their ideas. New York: Beacon Books.

Sadker, M. & D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Touchstone.


Chapman On-Line Bookstore: WWW.mbsdirect,net/chapman


*STUDENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS:

Attendance, preparedness and active participation. Regular class attendance is important and expected. Students are responsible for all materials used in class, as well as for any announcements concerning course policy and important dates.

Written reflections: Using understandings from Dewey as a frame of reference, class members will prepare at least five written reflections or journal entries in which each critically examines the democratic nature and orientation of her/his classroom, school or other work place. These reflections should include:
(1) the extent to which the individual’s classroom (school, workplace) reflects democratic processes as outlined in Education and Democracy;
(2) specific examples to support conclusions arrived at in (1), and
(3) how understanding of Dewey has contributed to understanding of one’s role as an educator.
The idea here is to turn the spotlight of creative reflection on one’s own work – as well as on the larger trends in our educational system -- using Dewey’s theoretical framework

On-line communication among class members:
Each class member will email to all members of the class an interesting/relevant resource, website, or article found on the Internet which supports the notion of democratic education today or which sheds light on the pedagogy of democratic education.

Book Review Presentation:
Class members in groups, will read, review, and present to the class in “fishbowl format” their understandings of the democratic education concepts and methods, and the historical events discussed by Freire and Horton in We Make the Road by Walking. Other readings may also be assigned by the instructor.

Democratic Research Action Project:
Based on the class discussions, class members in groups of 3 to 4 persons will collaboratively develop and present a democratic research/action project which applies democratic education principles in their schools to inform and create change in educational practice and foster a more democratic, caring and just society. This critical step in defining and proposing action is the translation of ideas generated from class discussion and reflection into action possibilities beyond the Chapman classroom and usually at the school site level. Projects must be developed in consultation with the instructor. Action research is performed in an actual classroom or school, and can entail the use of surveys, interviews, videos, photos, etc.

*METHODS OF EVALUATION FOR DETERMINING GRADES:

As determined by the instructor. Examples to evaluate student performance may include:

Assessment will be based on the successful combination of preparedness, participation, and satisfactory completion of course activities which may include journals, readings, discussions, formal research papers, group projects, and examinations.


ATTENDANCE AND OTHER CLASS POLICIES
Class Attendance policies are determined by each instructor and shall be included on the course outline distributed during the first week of each class. The university recommends as a minimal policy that students who are absent 20% of the course should be failed.


CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
ACADEMIC WRITING STANDARDS

Specific writing standards differ from discipline to discipline, and learning to write persuasively in any genre is a complex process, both individual and social, that takes place over time with continued practice and guidance. Nonetheless, Chapman University has identified some common assumptions and practices that apply to most academic writing done at the university level. These generally understood elements are articulated here to help students see how they can best express their ideas effectively, regardless of their discipline or any particular writing assignment.

Venues for writing include the widespread use of e-mail, electronic chat spaces and interactive blackboards. Chapman University is committed to guaranteeing that students can expect all electronic communication to meet Federal and State regulations concerning harassment or other “hate” speech. Individual integrity and social decency require common courtesies and a mutual understanding that writing--in all its educational configurations--is an attempt to share information, knowledge, opinions and insights in fruitful ways.

Academic writing (as commonly understood in the university) always aims at correct Standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

The following details are meant to give students accurate, useful, and practical assistance for writing across the curriculum of Chapman University College.

Students can assume that successful collegiate writing will generally:

• Delineate the relationships among writer, purpose and audience by means of a clear focus (thesis statements, hypotheses or instructor-posed questions are examples of such focusing methods, but are by no means the only ones) and a topic that’s managed and developed appropriately for the specific task.

• Display a familiarity with and understanding of the particular discourse styles of the discipline and/or particular assignment.

• Demonstrate the analytical skills of the writer rather than just repeating what others have said by summarizing or paraphrasing

• Substantiate abstractions, judgments, and assertions with evidence specifically applicable for the occasion whether illustrations, quotations, or relevant data.

• Draw upon contextualized research whenever necessary, properly acknowledging the explicit work or intellectual property of others.

• Require more than one carefully proofread and documented draft, typed or computer printed unless otherwise specified.

DOCUMENTATION
Any material not original to the student must be cited in a recognized documentation format (APA, ASA, MLA or Chicago-style) appropriate to the particular academic discipline. For quick reference to documentation standards for various fields you may refer to: www.chapman.edu/library/reference/styles.
Deliberate use of information or material from outside sources without proper citation is considered plagiarism and can be grounds for disciplinary action. See the explanation of Academic Integrity below.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
As a learning community of scholars, Chapman University emphasizes the ethical responsibility of all its members to seek knowledge honestly and in good faith. Students are responsible for doing their own work, and academic dishonesty of any kind will not be tolerated. "Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, or misrepresentation of information in oral or written form. Such violations will be dealt with severely by the instructor, the dean/center director, and the standards committee. Plagiarism means presenting someone else's idea or writing as if it were your own. If you use someone else's idea or writing, be sure the source is clearly documented." Other guidelines for acceptable student behavior are specified in the Chapman University College Catalog.

ACADEMIC WRITING GUIDE



Student’s Name________________________________ Instructor _______________________________

Paper Assignment ______________________________Course Title______________________________


(Instructor: Read the entire paper through then reflect on its merits employing the following criteria. Our goal is to provide guidance to the student progressively in order to improve the quality of his or her writing.)

Criteria Comments NSW Dev WD
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the assignment by using a style, form and language that is appropriate for its intended audience.
The writer has chosen a topic in accord with the assignment and limited it sufficiently to explore in depth in the space allotted.
The paper focuses its presentation by means of a clear statement of purpose (thesis statement, hypothesis or instructor posed question) and logically organized sub-topic paragraphs or sections.
The writer substantiates abstractions, judgments and assertions with specific illustrations, facts and evidence appropriate to the assignment and/or discipline.




The writer has added to on-going discussions of the topic with his or her own critical analysis, rather than simply repeating what others have said through quotation-stacking, paraphrasing or summaries.




The writer draws upon research whenever necessary to support critical analysis or assertions made and properly acknowledges the work of others by utilizing a standard documentation format acceptable for the course.




The paper conforms to the minimal essentials of Standard American English grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation.





N S W = Needs Significant Work, D = Developing WD = Well Developed

OVERALL RATING

The writer meets the needs of the particular audience and succeeds in his or her intended purpose--honestly engaging the subject and establishing her or his authority by offering a persuasive and supportable analysis. Needs
Significant Developing Well Developed
Work
⎮⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯→
Comments:



A. If this version of the paper is to receive a grade, the grade is_______. Instructor______ Date ______


AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT

Any personal learning accommodations that may be needed by a student covered by the “Americans with Disabilities Act” must be made known to the Campus Director or Advisor as soon as possible. This is the student's responsibility. Information about services, academic modifications and documentation requirements can be obtained from the Director of a Chapman University College campus.


QUICK ACCESS TO THE ON-LINE CHAPMAN LIBRARY RESOURCES
http://www.chapman.edu/library/


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

See “supplemental texts”

*INSTRUCTOR’S CLASS BY CLASS ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE
[Attach sheets as necessary.]