3:40PM Jul 23, 2019
Okay, see? Okay.
Am I invited? Am I invited?
Yeah. Oh, that would be interesting. Yeah, I
think you could do it, Maybe.
See liberation hurts. Okay, so what I want to do is this, The next I'm gonna take 30 minutes. Okay, I think I can do this in 30 minutes, but in 30 minutes, it will take keen reflection on your part. Because What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to argue to you that the way to move out of the cave, The way to enter into the conversation, the way to move from shadows to things or from dark to light In ultimately is the ability to problematic ties ideas. And when I say problem with ties, remember what I mean pro balling, to throw it in front of you to look at it. The problem with the people in the cave is they've never looked at it. They've only looked at the shadows, and they think they're looking at the real things. But they're only looking at the shadows. And they've never actually looked at anything else. So only looking at A's, B's and C's, and they've never actually looked at physics. So What I'm trying to do is get you there. I'm convinced that though a professor as Socrates says a professor cannot put sight in your eyes. What the professor can do is teach you how to ask better questions. I'm convinced me unconvinced that the only tool you need to be a student is the ability to ask better questions. That's how you transform something from a conveyor belt to a conversation. So that's the purpose of my class for the first whole three weeks. Really the all five weeks, what I'm trying to do is get you to ask better questions, but you'll notice I'm asking them in different ways. One week, I'm asking to ask better questions about yourself. One week, I'm trying to get you to ask better questions about the nature of college. One week, I'm trying to get you to ask better questions about the nature of texts. One week, I'm trying to get you to ask better questions about the nature of the social world around you. The goal in all of them, is to turn everything into a conversation through the art of question asking, so how do I do that? I do that by inviting you to ask questions. The purpose of a disputation and don't forget this is to prune, literally to peel apart. The idea of it disputation is not to write a paper is not to disagree. It's to enter into a conversation and peel it apart and find new things in it. That's what will happen. The people who are looking at shadows on the wall, if they asked more questions, why is it fuzzy one day and not the
other? Why is it inconsistent?
Because what's happening with the fire? Is the fire one solitary light, or does the fire move, which would suggest that sometimes the image is lighter or darker, lighter or darker? On the wall? And if they're asking those questions, it may create enough motivation for them to move. Are you following me? The questions themselves are good. And So what I want to do is press further into that. Now Here's the crux, This is the heartbeat of my class. And if there's anything to know, this is it, because this is what I put on the final. I have this chart on the final and I asked you to fill it out. This is everything. If they're you know, most most my classes, you're not like writing stuff down or recording information as if it was a psychology class. That's because it's mostly conversational. But this is how I want you to think about conversations. Basically, most people don't talk like they do in critical thinking. If a therefore be in this be there for see most people don't act that way. It just doesn't happen. Right? There was a guy named Steven tullman. And I think his model is probably the most helpful for you. And what I want to show you is that the model is applicable or is useful in everything from science class, to your boyfriend's conversations, All these operating according to the same principles. And here are the principles. Every argument, every argument
Okay? It has this structure.
There's a right side left side and there's something under the ground, I'm going to put a little bit of a wavy line here to indicate that this is below the ground. It's something that you never see. Every argument has a claim.
Now, before I get too far into that, remember where we are.
There's always a conversation, let's call it botany class, right? There's always an argument or claim that comes from a text
you following. Watching them and I do
remember my example about my son Lewis in the first hour. Let me use the example of the pig. We're in zoology class, or we're first year we're first year vet students or something like that, or second year vet students. And we're cutting, I'm going to ping and we noticed inside the pig certain features, and we're going to try to discern what claim that pig is making a think well, a dead pig makes no claim. In some ways it does its body is suggesting there is something going on there. And The claim is that the white polyps that we see on its liver are result or have something to do with a circulatory problem. So me and my partner, we have a lab report you ever having to do these in high school, we had to fill in sheets out, right, whatever, you may have to do this in college, you're filling a lab report what you found in this and you're saying it appears that the circulatory system lead to liver failure, which developed blah, blah, blah, blah, That's the claim.
what the pig is the text?
That's what we're talking about. The claim that comes from the text is about the circulatory and system and whatnot. Now We're at the level of argument, you see, text. Here's the argument, The argument is that the liver problem is circulatory. The conversation is how do undomesticated swine, You know, behave Is this makes sense? specific to the pig, zoom out a little bit. So the argument about a pig's liver and a circulatory system, zoom out a little bit further to the conversation about swine and their anatomy. Okay, That's how it works. There's always an outer and inner. This structure right here puts it in front of you in a different way. Every text, every text
somewhere right here.
So we want to figure out how to get from the text to the argument. This is the space that I'm concerned about right now. How do we get from the text of the pig to the claim? What we're doing is we want to try to map out the argument in front of us every text is making a claim. Well, how do we find that claim? We have to evaluate data. There's always data and there's always a claim. So before I talk about warrant, Let me explain. You said just a moment ago, you went to go take a nap, right? I think I caught that. Alright, so let's say in between class, I'm going to use very basic than all day everyday examples. Let's go take a nap. This moment says we should go take a nap. We're all sitting here discussing for the 10 minutes of break, we should go take a nap. That's a claim. The claim is that we should take a nap.
The text is the time the 10 minutes we're sitting here and,
and our future like what we're going to do next. Right?
The data is over here. Like how we feel what we did last night. What we're going to do tomorrow, how many assignments we have Baba, Baba, Baba, blah, blah, blah, This, this makes sense. The idea here is that the claim in the data, the closer they are together, the stronger the argument appears. Everybody follow that?
Okay. Let me use a different example. I talked
about this the other day where I said you remember those moments where you're home over the break. And right before you're starting back to class in the fall classes, and you decide that your your parents wants to take you out to dinner to celebrate Oh, my great college student who's going back off to big ol UT Ba, ba, ba ba ba. And you have that moment where everybody argues about where to go go to dinner, everybody acts like they don't care. But they really do care, right? You say oh, let's go to this. And they say I don't care where we go, you suggest something everybody says no. So and so forth. This is going to happen today, right around 1230 You guys are going to be done. You're going to say where you want to go to eat. And somebody's going to make a claim we should go to blank. But before that you start throwing out a whole bunch of claims and you try to see if it matches the data. And people What are some of the data points that people throw out when they're deciding what claim to follow? Where to go to eat?
Okay, Why be more specific?
Okay, nowhere with pizza because I had it last night. Or it's I don't like it. Okay, so I don't like it. I don't like it. Or It makes me sick. Or I'm allergic. Or I had it last night.
Okay, there's some data points. What else?
Good distance, distance and transportation. Excellent. How far is it? Can we get there?
What else is also in the consideration? Pardon?
Okay, mood disposition? Alright, we can put that there.
Ah, Excellent. And Why is that important?
good. So the number of people is important, because that indicates how long you'll wait or what access you'll have to it. And you don't want to wait, you don't have a certain amount of time. So we'll put clock here.
Okay, the quality of the place. Good
to have all of this. And then ultimately, your claim is that we should go to
blank. Okay, Somebody's falling so far.
Every I mean, you can put everything through that filter. I just did it with the pig. The claim is that the pig had a circulatory problem that was causing his liver failure. The data was all the stuff I examined in the pig, You follow? Everything works according to these principles, I could jump over to the romantic example.
You are a bad boyfriend,
day to day to day to day to day that it happens when you're arguing with that boyfriend on the phone. Again, like I said, I'm speaking from a heterosexual example. You can import your own experience, you could share a make it about gaming or something like that it works with everything. But all of these also have one more piece underneath. And This piece is called the warrant. Now What is the warrant? And why is it underground, sort of it holds the data and the claim together. It's The thing that's bringing them into relationship with one another. Let me give you an example. A war is something that you believe in, you never say out loud, you just assume it to be true. For example, if I'm complaining that my boyfriend is not doing what he should be doing, or that so on and so forth, It's because down here underneath the ground, or deep in my belly, I have a belief about what a boyfriend should do. I don't have to say that to him, I'm operating from it. I don't talk about it, it's already there. But The problem is the boyfriend himself might not share that warrant. So your claim is invalid to him. Even the data you didn't come here, come here, come here for him here. Because your belief is a boyfriend should communicate. That's the warrant you have done here. But his warrant is a boyfriend should be free to be whatever he wants, Right? Because he's operating from a different warrant. And therefore your claim is always butting up against his because the problem is not at the level of claim. It's at the level of warrant Are you following? It's in a different plane.
So every conversation and every argument, Notice that
we did just this just a second. And we talked about the Republic, We moved from the question of we should know and have knowledge. The text was Republic. We talked about all these data points, people turning around being chained. And we see that underneath the ground of all of this. There's some question down here about what you care about. Right wasn't part of the text, we see that it's down there. Something has to be talked about? Well, let's go back to our food example. We don't like it makes me sick. We have allergies had it last night, the quality of the place. notice down here, there's a implicit assumption about what eating can be. What do we just implicitly assume that going out to eat is for?
What for what?
Interesting, Okay, so those are two very different things. One kind of warrant what could be celebration.
And one could just be sustenance.
And Notice that in this day and age you grew up, eating was more about personal preference. You're more like a shopper. And you can just choose what you want What satisfies the self. Notice that these are three very different warrants and look at how they affect the claim. If It's just personal preference, then yeah, we should go to the place that I like, because that one makes me sick. I had that last night. But
food is about sustenance, then it doesn't really matter how long we wait. It doesn't really matter whether I had it last night. We have to eat. But we don't usually operate from sustenance, right? Because we're 21st century American people in Flint food is pretty plentiful.
Right? Especially here.
This is interesting them as peoples brings up celebration, that's an ancient idea that food is about celebration. or food is about what's very close to celebration, what's historically food been used for over the last? Oh, gosh, 6000 years said again, Keep y'all keep going. That's right community that you eat together to be together. I mean, if I want to get to be friends with you, Usually it's like, Let's go eat. I mean dating is that way, families do that, after church dinners come over to our place Ba ba ba ba ba, that food is a means by which by which to get acquainted. Now Look, look how these different words changed the claim in the data. If it's about community, that doesn't matter how long we wait, because we're together. If it's about community, it doesn't matter how far we travel, if we can be in the car together. But If we can't be in the car together, it does matter. It doesn't really matter whether I don't like it, or if it's the bad quality, if the purpose is is to be together. So What I'm trying to demonstrate here is there's a relationship between the claim we should do this, the data, all the information, and what we kind of believe down here at the same time, they all are related to one another. The quality of the argument is not whether it's right or wrong, The quality of the argument is whether it's stronger or weaker, an argument would be stronger. If it got really close together, It would almost look factual. We tend to think that things are factual. They're not. Does anybody know what if I hear a means FACERE. It's a Latin term, which we get the word fact.
It means to make.
So a fact is not something that falls from heaven.
But it's not, It's something we make. It's what we call it an artefact affect him is a creation.
So there's no argument
that's objectively perfect. It's just stronger and weaker. It's stronger when the claim and the data and the war are very close together. Are you following me here? No, it's making sense. So For example, here might be the claim, We breathe in oxygen, and our blood works well. And we're alive, You would think that's a brute fact.
it's a fat, it is an argument that's consistent. But every now and again, it breaks. This person is breathing oxygen, but their blood is not getting what they're supposed to be getting. So that this claim in this data suddenly start to separate. And when they do, that's when the scientific researcher researcher comes in and re investigates, Are you following me. So It doesn't always work. So that's what you're looking at in any kind of claim any kind of data in any kind of warrant. Now. This is how this is how I hope that you will think about arguments is if you can map anything on this. Like I said before, it could be a relationship, it could be, let me show you. I'll actually I'll show you some examples just second. Now. This is how your disputation is operating is your ability to pull that stuff apart. The claim up here was that college will make your life better. But What is ivory tower doing, stretching that apart, pulling it apart and showing you more stuff. So that you see maybe that claim the claim doesn't hold with the data,
they start to separate?
That's what you're doing in a disputation as you're pulling this stuff apart? So How do you get better at this? How do you get more stuff on this? Well, first of all, I want to start with claims and show you that there are five different kinds of claims techs can make. Okay? And I need you to think with me. And when I say give me examples, Don't stare at me for 20 minutes
For the love of God.
Okay, There are five different kinds of claims. The first kind of claim that we're that we're going to talk about is a causal claim. So Let me draw this back up here really quick. They're always going to be five claims over here. And What I'm going to show you, is there tomorrow, is there five types of questions you can ask if data over here and in in hopes that you will get a better picture. And by still with me so far, The first clinic claim is a causal claim. And the causal claim is this thing cause causes or caused that thing. So let me use a strictly societal, I'm going to use societal examples, academic examples, And then we can go from there. A societal example would be, I don't want to go to that place to eat, because those burritos, give me the runs. Right? This happens all the time. I'm not eating that hurts my stomach. That's a causal claim, that hurts my stomach. Now, it's a weak causal claim, because I don't have enough data to understand why that thing hurts my stomach, it may not be that thing that hurts my stomach, but an ingredient in that thing that's used in other places. And it also hurts my stomach, you follow? But It's a causal claim. An academic it might look look something like this. My example of the pig, The bad circulation lead to liver problems, that's a causal claim. This cause that following Give me a normal everyday human example of a causal claim. That Okay, great. The rain cause cancellation? Perfect. And It wouldn't come out like that. Right? You wouldn't say it that way. It looked more like this text. Why are we not going? Well, because it's raining. It would sound more like that. It's harder to see claims in arguments when they're structured that way. That's Why you you believe, or have grown too accustomed to believing that there are not arguments going on around you all the time. It's because the form in which they're delivered. You don't see them as easily. Akademi is different because it actually is trying to formalise the arguments, you live arguments all the time, you just don't see that you're doing it.
For example, you just talked about mentors just
second ago, right?
You said, you said
Oh, this happened the other day with the pool party I didn't get invited to
right. Is that bridge?
is having a pool party.
Having a pool party? And then you say are you going? That does not look like an argument. But it is. And it's making an assumption. It's making an assumption right here. That's left out. Verse seven Pool Party, are you going? It assumes one thing that everybody just knows and does have to say out loud? What is it?
Now that you're registered?
The assumption is, these two things go together? You don't have to say that sentence you leave it out. It's not necessary. Right? That's Why it's harder to see arguments is because they don't come out in real life with all the information in front of you. It's not said the same way. So Same thing with causal. Why are we not going to class because it's raining? Why does that matter? Because he couldn't get here in time. Cause cause cause, right cause acclaim Costco and Costco. You hear in sports all the time.
We would have won If what?
Watch a ballgame. You griping about losing to Florida On the third time. And everybody's all up in arms.
If he would have thrown to him,
We would have won. That's a causal claim. That pass turns into that touchdown causal, do you see it or No? I mean, it happens in lightning speed. In lightning speed happens so so quickly. The second kind of claim is a proposal claim. And a proposal claim is always that we should do this. Right? You use those, you're going to use those in the next 20 minutes. When you When do well, I should probably you do it to yourself. Like you're sitting here right now. And you're halfway sleepy. And you know that I want to be out of here about 1215. So you're actually talking inside of your head of like, shut try to focus? Should I just go ahead and like kind of relax my mind. You Don't even say it out loud to yourself what's happening inside you. You're making these claims for yourself. You never know which one you shouldn't you should evaluating the data was 15 minutes left, Will I'll be able to do this. Maybe I should just do this my paper really quickly or I should look this up this text so I can find out what to do next. It's just happening constantly. You can't get away from it. And academia. What what academic discipline focuses heavily on proposals, we should do this. Pardon? That's right. So Okay, so you're it's so funny. When I ask these questions, students automatically think about their experience. I mean, from the subject itself. What subject itself deals in proposal claims. Does botany deal in proposal claims? Like if you're looking at botany? Are you going to see a lot of shifts in botany?
Math, you can see a lot more is is
not science you're going to see a lot of is is What do you mean by that? Yes, maybe? Go ahead.
Okay, man, Okay, marketing and business.
What about law?
That's all it is, is proposals, that building over there, People spend thousands and thousands of dollars to study the art of proposal claims. That's all they're doing. We should do this. Women should get equal pay. We should not do this. We should bomb so and so we should not do that We should elect politics and law are full of proposals. They're everywhere. Sometimes you're going to see proposals and other things. But that's what you're going to see nominally. The next kind is evaluation. In evaluation, what you're doing is you're comparing two things and trying to figure out which one is greater than the other or lesser than the other. It's anytime you have this er, this thing is fashion. This thing this thing is slower. This thing is more dangerous. So you would do this watching sports, right? Oh, man. He's not as blank is blank, right? He's not as fastest so and so. Or Peyton is not better than Brady or Brady is better than Peyton. Was this making sense to you? You do this with the restaurant. Now? I mean, to Portland Mo's, they're almost like but AAA is better than this, or Moses better in this. That's an evaluative claim. It's happening constantly, you actually do it with your boyfriends or friends. unwittingly you compare them and to find out which one is better than the other. Right? Happens all the time. Where might you see evaluations in academia, evaluative claims.
explain what you mean.
Okay, okay. Okay. Yeah, I can see that. Yeah. Well, I mean, in the subject itself, Like what subject areas? What academic disciplines focus on evaluation take things. Okay, this, this chemical is more dangerous than this chemical? Correct? Right? Pardon? this thing goes faster, moves faster, moves slower according to these principles. Right? Ivan make it to you. When I come in and say conversation instead of conveyor belt. I'm saying more success rather than less success. Right? I mean, I'm making innovative claim to they're constantly happening. Why is this valuable? Is because if you're entering into a conversation about anything, identifying what kind of claim is being made is a one of the first steps being able to peel it apart? And say, what kind of claim was ivory tower making?
Right? Is it worth it?
It's a question of value, does it have this value? Or does it not is a greater or lesser than it used to be? The next kind of definition, These are really, really hard to see. We have been trained to believe that definitional claims are pure facts. And as I demonstrated a minute ago, there's no such thing. But it's hard to see that. When you say something like he is a bad boyfriend, when you use the word is you're making a definitional claim. You're saying this thing is that thing, for lack of a better example, and he's a sensitive one, There was a time when legal us documents said certain people have certain skin colours were two thirds persons.
That was a definitional
It was disputed, peeled apart,
Right? The Point is, it's hard to see, because when I say the Apple is red, you take that to be a factual observation. But It is a claim. It's just a very tight claim. Right? The data and the claim are really close together. So we don't usually question it. Questioning is the art of pulling that stuff apart. It's taking that T and stretching it out and seeing what's in there.
Is this making sense to any of you? Okay, good.
When you say my boyfriend sucks,
or my boyfriend is bad, or my boyfriend is awesome. Well, my friend is an idiot. You're making definitional claims, claims that are indisputable. All of them are disputable, even scientific ones. Right? They're always disputable because we can re examine them. The last one is what we call resemblance. The goal of resemblance is to say this thing is like that thing.
Okay, let's suppose for example, I did the whole
You will know who LeBron James is.
Okay, I know that sounds like a dumb question. But I just double check because I don't know if everybody sports people.
You from Earth and a Michael Jordan.
This is the constant question of every Sports Centre you've ever watched. Is, is Mike like LeBron, That would be the resemblance version, the evaluation version would be? Is Mike better than LeBron or LeBron? Better than Jordan? The issue here is those proposals are surfacing all the time. Where might you see resemblance proposals and academic
resemblance claims? Excuse me?
Yes, the person you're dating is like your mother.
Happens all the time. Great example.
Right? We might say this era is like the 60s, we might say that country, Our relationship that countries like our relationship with this country,
For better or worse,
History might make evaluative claims this presidents better than that President worse than that President longer lasting that President these policies are better or worse. So on and so on, If I can start to take the claim, The way that I move, let me go all the way back. If The text is the narrow part, the way that I moved from the text to the argument is I have to start discovering what the claim is. That's the key. And It helps to have a certain catalogue of claims. If I know the kinds of claims, let me say this one last thing. So make sure you get this. Think of that claim ball there, that little orb. If I wrote the word claim, think of a claim as a five sided Nabi ball. I'll use my knuckles As an example. Let's suppose these are the different kinds of claims, A lot of times a subject area is going to have all of these claims. It's just that's rotated. So one is more prominent than the other. Okay? Let's say for example, nursing. Second, Miss Carver in the first hour, she said, so let's take nursing, for example, how would it be? What kind of claim would we make? And I said, if you're rushing into a room, And there's somebody who's coding, Okay, And I say, this person is Code Red.
Okay, you following me? What kind of claim is that?
definitional claim, I'm saying they are in this state. Now, you see how it's a claim? Because Do I have all the data? No, All I have is a machine buzzing? Right. I don't know exactly what's going on, because they don't have enough data. But it's a reasonable claim. with reasonable data, the machine is buying the data the claim is being made. But let me say this, let's keep going. That's the definition of claim. She's code read, We are going to inject her with this, which will give her which will give her oxygen calls will claim.
And It's all written on top of a proposal
that Miss Johnson here on the bed should not die. We don't have to say that out loud. We all already believe she should die. It's why we became nurses. We became nurses because we absolutely believe that that proposal claim. So when you're dealing with the text, Miss Johnson's coding, you're dealing with multiple claims at a certain time, it's just some of them are more pronounced than others you following there, some of those claims are more prominent, and sticky on your face. So Let's go all the way back to the Republic. In Plato's Republic there when he's talking about the cave, what kind of claim is he making? If that's the text? How do we get to the argument, we get to the argument of finding out what the claim is, what do you think his claim is? He uses a kind of resemblance claim, he compares knowledge to what a life in a in a cave. So there's a resemblance thing there. He also says that he also evaluates the knowledge between the person who's in the cave and the person that's out which one does he think is better?
person that's out.
He does make a proposal that we should leave the cave.
He questions the cause of how you leave the cave. You can't do it by the professor forcing you. That's what we were asking. We were asking what, what's the cause? And He also is on definition. This looking at shadows is not what starts with the K. But it sounds like in knowledge, it's not knowledge, he's making a definition claim. This is not knowledge.
You See, all those are working played over now.
If we can get there, now we're closer to disputing it. We're peeling it apart. We're looking at saying which feature of this needs more questions. What I want to come back to do and tomorrow is I want to take the same idea and go to this side of the data and say, how do we deal with claims, we've got to expand the data. And the way to expand the data is I'm going to show you five different types of questions you can ask of your text. So Look, what I'm doing five kinds of claims that you can ask of your text, and five different kinds of data questions, you can ask me texts. So it'll make that argument brief, and you get better at it. And we use one mathematical example. If this said x squared minus y equals blank, That's the claim. And Let me show you something.
This, Do you know what that means?
It's A definitional claim. It is. x is why it's only a sentence. The man is fat.
It's just a sentence.
You know what this means?
Pardon? To add. It's literally from the Latin word it. It means and over time they drop that. It just means Billy, and Johnny are mean.
It's a claim. That's all it is.
So all these structures, Last one,
Johnny, and Billy, that doesn't say is
it says cause,
Make that whatever that is Radioactive, whatever. I don't know, I don't know anything about chemistry, but understands principles, understand its language, understand this conversation. That's What I'm trying to give you is I'm trying to show you that that's nothing but a claim. That's nothing but a claim. That's a definitional claim. That's a collision claim. It's all. And of course, I know I keep saying last one, you'll be fine.
evaluative claim. Right?
greater than less than So divides, you see that right? resemblance, Approximately.
Yeah, in some sense. Yeah. greater than or equal to like.
That's all I want to argue. Is that,
Alright, see you all tomorrow. Bye.
Well, one more thing. Just kidding.