LANGUAGE

TRUTH &
ACCEPTABILITY
BY MA DO THI HA PHUONG
SESSION OBJECTIVES

■ CLARITY

■ NEUTRALITY

■ DEFINITION

■ TRUTH DEFINITION

■ TRUTH DISCOVERIES

■ TRUTH EVALUATION
LANGUAGE
CHAPTER 5
 LANGUAGE
■ Language, in critical thinking, is merely the way we
convey our thinking, it is about clear thinking i.e.,
expressing thinking in a neutral way— without
deception, manipulation, or similar interference with
people’s autonomy, their rational assessment of
what you’ve said.

■ Good language needs clarity, neutrality and choose

good definitions.
CLARITY
Beware of manipulation Detail

CLARITY

Precise diction Precise grammar Repetition

CLARITY
■ PRECISE DICTION

- Part of being precise is avoiding vague words, words that have no clear meaning

- Another part of being precise is avoiding exaggeration

Eg:

- I have many books.

- Everyone loves dogs because they are so cute.

CLARITY
■ PRECISE GRAMMAR

- Having the right grammar is equally important. Grammar can makes meaning changes.

- If grammar fails you, consider using emphasis (through italics or underlining, for
example) to make your meaning clear (but make sure not to include emotions!)

Eg:

The car hit the woman and her little daughter but she was totally fine.

A: Marry is giving birth today. Such a lovely puppy !!!!

CLARITY
■ REPETITION

- Sometimes repetition can increase clarity

- Saying the same thing twice is most a problem, however, when you say it once as your
conclusion and once as your premise, which is—a circular argument.

Eg:

“No matter where you are, or what you’re doing, or who you’re with, it doesn’t matter it
doesn’t change it, I have and I always will, honestly, truly, completely love you”. (Love, Rosie)
CLARITY

■ DETAILS

- In addition to precision, detail is often the way to clarity. It’s this ability to attend to detail
that enables us to make distinctions.

- Specialized vocabulary, additional words enable you to think about, to discuss, the
precise and detailed features of the subject.

Eg:

The woman, who is in the red dress and waving to the cameras, is the Queen.
 CLARITY
■ BEWARE OF MANIPULATION

- Lack of clarity— usually through lack of

precision or lack of detail—is a tool, a way to
manipulate us into accepting a claim that has
no support at all.
NEUTRALITY
Loaded language

NEUTRALITY

Visual effects Aural effects Other effects

NEUTRALITY
■ LOADED LANGUAGE

- Prevent us from thinking critically by distracting us, by “merely” getting in the way and
making us work harder to pay attention to the argument, or simply by appealing to our
emotion instead of to our cognition.

- Using neutral language is harder than it might seem

Eg:

The woman who came into a strange man’s house was sexually assaulted after some drinks
at night.

Going to the University is the common way to be successful in this society.

We are afraid to let you go out of this position!

 NEUTRALITY

■ VISUAL EFFECT

- Visual language can be loaded: what we see, and

how it is presented, can influence how we respond.

- With regard to print materials, consider placement,

size and front styles.

- With regard to images, consider camera angle,

camera distance, lighting, color, context.

- Whenever you read quoted material, keep in mind

that it’s probably an excerpt, an incomplete part of a
whole.
NEUTRALITY
 NEUTRALITY
■ AURAL EFFECT

- Like the written word, the spoken word can predispose

us to agree or disagree with a claim, independent of the
reasoning being presented.

- Pitch, the pace of speech, tone can affect our thinking.

- Visual effects combine with aural effects not only in facial

expression. The whole body is important

- In advertisements, as well as television programs of all

kinds, the sound- track and sound effects are designed
to elicit or magnify certain responses— generally not
including critical response.
NEUTRALITY
 NEUTRALITY

■ OTHER EFFECTS
- Sheer repetition is powerful. So beware of
repeated words and phrases
- It might be valuable to note that people who
pay a lot of attention to form (appearance)
may do so because they’re unable to
understand, and hence assess, substance.
DEFINITION
■ Definitions are merely how we use our words, then it’s particularly important to specify
how indeed we’re using them

DEFINITION

Necessary and Inclusiveness and

Genus and species
sufficient conditions exclusiveness
DEFINITION
■ GENUS AND SPECIES

- The genus refers to the larger group to which a thing belongs, and the species (also
called “differentia”) refers to the features that set this particular thing apart from others in
that larger group.

Eg:

A dog is a four-legged animal.

An abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy.

 DEFINITION
■ NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS

- Necessary conditions are those conditions or attributes that must be present in order
for something to fall within your definition. For example, in order to be considered a hat,
an article must be intended to be.

- Sufficient conditions are those conditions or attributes that if present are all that is
required for something to fall within your definition. Unlike necessary conditions, sufficient
conditions are sufficient—nothing else is required

Eg:

- Necessary conditions : A good students has the average grade from 8.0.

- Sufficient conditions: A good student in chemistry has an average grade in Chemistry

from 8.0
 DEFINITION
■ INCLUSIVENESS AND EXCLUSIVENESS

- Definitions that are too broad are too inclusive—they include more than you want

- Definitions that are too narrow are too exclusive—they exclude more than you want

Eg:

Football is a sport with two teams.

A book is a written pieces of paper and published by famous-registered publishers.

 DEFINITION
■ EQUIVOCATION (AN ERROR IN REASONING)

- Equivocation is an error of reasoning that occurs when you use the same word to refer
to different things in an argument. It’s an error of definition—you’re changing your
definition in the middle of an argument and you can’t do that.

- On the other hand, equivocation is an error of clarity, because if you were precise about
the words you were using, the error wouldn’t occur

Eg:

They are the strongest men so they can handle the stress of this job.
 TRUTH AND
ACCEPTABILITY
CHAPTER 6
 TRUTH AND ACCEPTABILTY
■ TRUTH

- Our arguments depend on truth. In order for a deductive

argument to be sound, two criteria must be met: the

structure must be valid and the premises must be true. In

order for an inductive argument to be strong, three criteria

must be met: the premises must be relevant, they must be

true, and they must be sufficient.

- Given the importance of truth, it is somewhat paradoxical—or

at least ironic—that scientists spend more time proving things

to be false than proving them to be true.

 TRUTH AND ACCEPTABILTY
■ TRUTH

- If we can show X to be true, we have verified X -> A claim is verifiable if we can describe conditions

under which we can show it to be true.

- If we can show X to be false, we have falsified X -> A claim is falsifiable if we can describe

conditions under which we can show it to be false.

 It is far easier to falsify a claim than to verify it and negative claims are virtually impossible to

prove

Eg:

Falsify “ All leaves are green” -> find a leaf not green

Verify “ All leaves are green” -> find every leaf to examine if it’s green.
 TRUTH AND ACCEPTABILTY

■ ACCEPTABILITY

- There are three categories of claims for which we use the standard of acceptability.

- The first category includes instances in which the claim is indeed true or false, but it is unlikely, for
practical reasons, that we will be able to establish whether it’s true or false.

- The second category in which we use acceptability rather than truth includes instances in which it is
impossible, even in theory, to determine truth .

- The third category in which we use the criterion of acceptability rather than truth includes claims of a
non-empirical nature.

- Another approach to determining acceptability, which can be used in all three cases, is to consider the
implications of the claim.
THEORIES OF TRUTH

Subjectivism

•The Coherence Theory

•The Correspondence
Theory

•Pragmatism
THEORIES OF TRUTH

■ SUBJECTIVISM

- This theory of truth, stands in opposition to objectivism, according to which truth is

independent of any particular subject or person.

- Very few people really subscribe to this theory of truth as it’s very hard to defend

Eg: I believe God exists as I saw him with my own eyes, you just don’t see it, but he does
exists.
THEORIES OF TRUTH

■ THE COHERENCE THEORY

- According to the coherence theory of truth, something is true if it fits with other things
we hold to be true.

- Perhaps the most obvious problem with this theory is that those other things we hold to
be true may, in fact, not be true. It is, however, valuable to check for coherence when you
are considering claims of truth;

Eg: The bird can know the music notes because they can make different rhythms, the sound
they make have unique and consistent sound and we know that music notes help to build the
memories for a specific sounds.
THEORIES OF TRUTH

■ THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

- According to this third theory of truth, the correspondence theory, if X accords with the
way things are, X is true.

- There is a possible circularity with this theory, however, one that is perhaps more easily
seen when stated thus: if X accords with the facts, it’s true

Eg:

If he is a good student, and he in fact gets certificates for being a good student, then it proves
he actually studies well.
THEORIES OF TRUTH

■ PRAGMATISM

- The pragmatist looks at the effects of a thing, the consequences, in order to determine the
meaning of a thing. Thus, according to the pragmatist theory of truth, if X works, it’s true.

- One of the problems with this view is the definition of “works.”

- Another “problem” with pragmatism—though this is more likely to be a problem with

misunderstanding pragmatism—is that it can be reduced to mere expediency.

Eg:

Using lemon is a good way to clean lasting dirt, it works every time.
DISCOVER THE TRUTH

TRUTH DISCOVERY
Innate ideas and/or experience
and/or reason

Random personal experience

Methodical investigation: the

scientific process
DISCOVER THE TRUTH

■ INNATE IDEAS AND/OR EXPERIENCE AND/OR REASON

- Early philosophers believed that we are born with certain ideas already in our minds—
innate ideas .

- The alternative view is that we obtain all of our ideas through experience, a view called
empiricism.

- A third possibility, called rationalism, is that we are born not with ideas but with a certain
cognitive framework within which, as it matures, we will process our experience.
DISCOVER THE TRUTH

■ RANDOM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

- There are several points about personal experience—whether our own or that of others—that we
should be aware of, most of which indicate its limitations with regard to claims to truth

• Our personal experience is usually a random affair -> shouldn’t be called upon for any kind of
complete or cohesive picture of the world

• Personal experience is an experience that has happened to one person -> Keep in mind that
while personal experience is insufficient for proving a generalization

• The nature of personal experience is such that it almost always involves interpretation: we
almost always make some assumptions between the experience and our description of it

• Our own sensory perception deficits may get in the way but are affected by the following
factors: environmental conditions, observational skill, emotional state, cognitive state, memory .
DISCOVER THE TRUTH

■ METHODICAL INVESTIGATION: THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

- Scientific investigation is methodical, not random -> scientists isolate the phenomenon that’s
being investigated in order to be sure that that’s the thing that is indeed being investigated.

- Scientific evidence represents the experiences of more than one person—both with regard to
the data itself and to the obtaining of that data

- Scientists are careful to separate their observations from their interpretation of their observation

- The influence of sensory perception deficits, emotional states, and cognitive states is minimized
by the use of instruments for measurement

- Unlike most of us going about our business throughout the day, scientists publish their
discoveries, exposing their claims of truth to public scrutiny.
 DISCOVER THE TRUTH
■ METHODICAL INVESTIGATION: THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

The actual steps someone follows when making a scientific investigation are as follows:

1.Become 1.Formulate
familiar with conclusions
1.Identify the issue of 1.Develop a 1.Test the
relevant based on
investigation hypothesis hypothesis
existing the
knowledge evidence
EVALUATE THE TRUTH

■ If the claim is the conclusion of an argument, then evaluating it is a matter of evaluating the
argument.

- Deductive arguments: the premises are true + the form is valid = the conclusion must be true

- Inductive arguments: the premises are true + relevant + sufficient = the conclusion can be
accepted as true.

■ If the claim in question is a premise of an argument, we evaluate it depending on the kind of

claim it is. They are: personal testimony, studies, sources, image.
EVALUATE THE TRUTH
■ EVALUATING PERSONAL TESTIMONY

The following questions give us further direction

- Is the claim based on personal sensory experience or something like intuition or faith?

- How much of the claim is tainted by interpretation?

- How good is the person’s sight, hearing, smell, and/or taste?

- What were the conditions at the time? Is the person particularly observant?

- What was the person’s emotional state? Cognitive state ?

- How long ago did it happen? How credible is the person?

- Lastly, is there any corroborating or contradicting evidence to support the personal testimony?
EVALUATE THE TRUTH
■ EVALUATING STUDIES (SURVEYS, EXPERIMENTS, NUMBERS)

Some general questions to ask with regard to any study, in order to evaluate the truth or
acceptability of its evidence:

- How old is the study?

- Who conducted the study? Who funded the study?

- Were the instruments (tools and/or techniques) both valid and reliable?

- Is the evidence consistent with other established knowledge?

- What state of affairs would contradict the evidence? Was the study replicated?

- Does the nature of the study support its conclusions?

EVALUATE THE TRUTH
■ EVALUATING SOURCES

Several questions should be asked :

- Is the source given?

- Is the source qualified?

- Are the qualifications relevant? Is the source impartial?

- Is the source thorough, especially in a way that leads to fair representation?

- Has the report (article, story, and so on) undergone peer review?

- Has the source been around for a while?

- Is the source presenting the original publication of the evidence or is it presenting a quote or a
summary?
EVALUATE THE TRUTH
■ EVALUATING IMAGES

Here are some questions to consider with regard to images (photo- graphs, web images, and so on):

- Is the lighting consistent?

- Are there inconsistencies in the sharpness of the various objects in the picture?

- Are there errors in perspective or scale?

- Are there any anachronisms in the picture, things that are out of place time- wise?

- Are there contradictions to known facts in the picture? Is context missing?

 ERRORS OF TRUTH

■ Basically, any false premise is an error of truth

Eg: Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women,

and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers
of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of
our citizens in New York, in Washington, and
Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action
against them: to defeat them abroad before they
attack us at home.

(President George W. Bush, June 28, 2005)

ERRORS OF TRUTH
■ There are several specific false premises that are quite common

the
the fallacy the
either/or the fallacy
of gambler's
fallacy composition of division
fallacy
ERRORS OF TRUTH

■ THE EITHER/OR FALLACY

- This error (also known as the black-and-white fallacy or a false dichotomy) occurs when
a person presents two options as if they’re the only options—when in fact they’re not.

- Perhaps we fall for this erroneous reasoning because of a lack of imagination

Eg:

In order to be successful, you just have to be rich or be intelligent.

 ERRORS OF TRUTH

■ THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION

- What is true for individual parts is not necessarily true of the whole formed by those parts

- We tend to make this error because we fail to consider how com- plicated reality can be;
parts and wholes are not always related in straightforward ways

Eg:

We have Messi and Ronaldo- the two best players in one team, therefore our team can beat
any team.
 ERRORS OF TRUTH

■ THE FALLACY OF DIVISION

- When you claim that a whole of truth just based on its individual parts, you commit the
fallacy of division.

- It is important not to make this error especially when we’re talking about people

Eg:

He cannot get in the University, all of his family members cannot even graduate high schools.
 ERRORS OF TRUTH

■ THE GAMBLER’S FALLACY

- This error involves a mistaken understanding about reality; specifically, it involves a belief
that previous occurrences affect probability of current occurrences, when in fact that’s
simply not true.

Eg:

He have safely got into class without any notices for a whole week, this time he will also get it
over.
COUNTEREVIDENCE
■ When evidence is suppressed, the truth of the matter as presented is incomplete

■ When we use an incomplete truth as a premise, we’re reasoning to a conclusion on

insufficient grounds

=> You can respond by presenting evidences that counter the premise.

Eg: A : High salaries will make doctors in public hospitals have more responsibilities toward
the patients and take better care of them.

B: In private hospitals where doctors are paid with high salaries, there are patients who
could not be treated well also.