WRIGHT BROS NOT FIRST TO FLY
Unit 2 Critical thinking: the basics
Claims, assertions, statements
or assertion could also be made by sketching and labelling a map showing the two countries next to one another.
Since [A], [B] and [C] are all claims, all three can be judged to be true or false. You may not know whether a particular claim is true, but at least it makes sense to say that it is; or that you agree or disagree with it. It makes no sense to say that a question or command is true.
Fact and opinion
Claims can be divided roughly into those that state facts and those that express opinions.
This is a useful distinction, but it needs some clarification.
Activity
Look again at the three expressions above, [A], [B] and [C]. They are all grammatical statements. They all express claims. Discuss how, if at all, they differ from each other.
Commentary
A fact is a true statement. Of the three
examples, the first, [A], is a fact. What is more,
2.1 Claims, assertions, statements 17 Another way to distinguish this claim
from the other two claims is to say that it is purely subjective. That means that its truth is decided by each individual person – or subject – who thinks about it. This is in contrast to the first two, which are objective.
They are true or false regardless of what anyone thinks or knows. The fact that the truth is hidden does not mean that there is no fact to be discovered.
Value judgements
Claims like [C], that something or someone is good, bad, better, nice, nasty, greedy, too rich, underpaid, and so on, are also called value judgements, for the obvious reason that they are opinions about the perceived value or worth or rightness or wrongness of things. It is not a value judgement to claim that dinosaurs had cold blood. Nor would it be a value judgement to claim that some bank bosses earn more in a week than an average worker earns in a lifetime. For these are matters of fact which can be quantified and verified – or falsified, as the case may be – for example, by comparing the earnings of actual people.
It becomes a value judgement if you claim that there is something ‘wrong’ or ‘excessive’
or ‘obscene’ about a level of earnings; or if you say that, on the contrary, it is ‘right’ for such successful and talented individuals to get huge rewards. It might be difficult to justify a claim that such huge pay differentials are ‘right’; but in the end it remains a matter of opinion or belief; and people may differ in their opinions.
When someone says, therefore, that a value judgement is true (or false), they are using the words in a broad sense to mean something like
‘true (or false) in my opinion’, or ‘true (or false) for me’.
Predictions and probabilities
Another special kind of claim is a prediction. A prediction is a claim that something may or may not be true because it is still in the future, it is a known or an established fact. You can
check it by looking in an atlas, or going there and crossing the border. Some people may not be aware of the fact, or even mistakenly think something different; but that doesn’t in any way alter the fact. If someone says, ‘No, these two countries do not share a border,’ they are wrong, and that’s all there is to it.
Note that stating a fact is not the same as claiming it – or making a factual claim. You can state a fact only if it really is a fact. But you can claim that something is a fact and be mistaken, or even be lying. Similarly, you can claim to know something and be mistaken.
But you can’t actually know something that isn’t true. You can only think you know it.
Statement [B] that dinosaurs were cold- blooded is a claim to fact. But unlike [A], it is not a known fact, by the author or by
anybody else. Scientific opinion on the subject is divided, with grounds for claiming either that the dinosaurs were cold-blooded (like modern reptiles), or that they were warm-blooded (like birds and mammals). The best we can therefore say of this claim is that it is a belief (or judgement or opinion); and unless or until there is more factual evidence available, it will remain so.
This does not mean, however, that this sentence is neither true nor false. For either the dinosaurs were cold-blooded or they weren’t. Scientists may never know the truth, but the truth exists and is there to be
discovered – even if it has to wait for the invention of a time machine!
The third claim, [C], is purely an opinion.
Two people can disagree as to whether it is true or not, and neither of them is necessarily wrong. It comes down to what they think or believe to be a reasonable wage, and/or what they think of as ‘too much’. To say that the sentence is true just means that you agree with it, or assent to it. And to say that it is false means you disagree. It can be ‘true’ in your opinion at the same time as being ‘false’
in someone else’s.
often referred to as hypotheses, even when they are generally accepted as true.
Take the prediction that, if a dart and an empty drink can are dropped simultaneously from an equal height (under ordinary atmospheric conditions), the dart will land first. This claim is made on the grounds that, whenever two such objects are dropped, the result is always the same – or always has been the same – so that it is entirely reasonable to expect it to go on being the same in the future.
The observed result is explained by the general principle that thin, arrow-shaped objects encounter less air resistance than bulkier ones, allowing the former to accelerate more rapidly under the same force (in this case gravity) than the latter.
The hypothesis has been so well tested that the probability of such a claim ever being wrong is practically non-existent. We call it a
‘hypothesis’, rather than an absolute certainty, because conceivably the laws of physics may not be the same in the far, unknowable future, or in all possible worlds.
Besides, there have been many scientific beliefs in the past that no one seriously doubted, but that have had to be revised because of later discoveries. One of the best-known examples is the belief that the Sun circled the Earth, or actually rose each morning from beneath the Earth and travelled across the sky. It was widely accepted by astronomers before the time of Copernicus.
More recently, Albert Einstein’s claim that or is as yet unverified. For example, someone
might claim, at a certain time and place:
[D] There’s going to be a storm in the next 24 hours.
If there is a storm within one day of the sentence being spoken, then you can say, looking back, that the prediction (or forecast) was correct. But you cannot, even with hindsight, say that the prediction was a fact when it was made, because at the time of making it, it was not yet known to be true.
Even when a claim cannot be made with certainty, it can often be made with some degree of probability. If you are playing a game with five dice, and need five sixes with your next and final throw, it is a fairly safe prediction that you won’t win, because the chances of throwing five sixes all at once are very low. But it is not impossible. On average, five sixes will come up once in every 7776 (65) throws. The claim that you will lose, therefore, has a high probability of being a correct prediction, but it is not a fact. Similarly, if someone said after you had thrown (and lost):
‘I knew you wouldn’t win,’ you could correctly reply (as a critical thinker): ‘You didn’t know it.
You predicted it correctly, that’s all.’
Hypotheses
Strictly speaking, many of the claims that scientists treat as fact should be understood as probabilities of a very high order. These are
2.1 Claims, assertions, statements 19 Grammatical note
We saw earlier in the chapter that claims typically take the form of statements, or declarative sentences. In some cases, however, other grammatical forms can be used.
Take [C] again. A similar point could be made by ‘asking’:
[C1] How disgusting are bankers’ wages?
‘Asking’ is in quotation marks because [C1] is not a genuine question but a rhetorical one.
(You could alternatively call it an exclamation, and punctuate it with an exclamation mark.) What defines a rhetorical question is that it is not really in need of an answer: it is making an assertion. In this case the assertion is:
[C2] Bankers’ wages are disgusting.
• In this chapter we have discussed and analysed one of the most basic concepts in critical thinking: claims. These are also referred to as ‘assertions’ and
‘statements’.
• Several important kinds of claim have been introduced. They include:
• claims to fact
• statements of opinion or belief
• value judgements
• predictions
• hypotheses
• recommendations.
There will be more discussion of all of these kinds of claim in the coming chapters.
Summary
nothing could exceed the speed of light seemed unchallengeable until, in 2011, a team of scientists at the Large Hadron Collider claimed to have measured a tiny subatomic particle – a neutrino – travelling fractionally faster. Their measurements have yet to be confirmed, and may have been proved wrong by the time you are reading this page. But whilst any uncertainty remains, Einstein’s assertion is still just a hypothesis, and hence a claim, not a fact.
Recommendations
Recommendations or suggestions are claims of yet another sort. Here is one example:
[E] The wages and bonuses of bankers should be capped.
This may seem quite similar to [C]: the claim that top bankers earn too much. Both express a similar sentiment, and both are opinions rather than hard facts. However, there is an important difference. [C] is an observation. It describes a situation as the author sees it: the way things are in his or her opinion. [E], in contrast, is a claim about how things ought to be, or what the author thinks should be done in response to the situation.
Recommendations, like value judgements, are not straightforwardly true or false. Two people – even two people who agree about [C] – may disagree about whether the recommendation to cap wages is the right way to deal with what they see as excessive earnings. Neither of the two will be factually wrong in their judgement. If one person says that it is ‘true’ that bankers’ wages should be capped, it just means that he considers it to be a good idea. If another says it is ‘false’, she is claiming it is a bad idea.
In what way is each of these different from the others? (You can use a dictionary to help you answer the question.)
5 How would you define the following special kinds of claim?
• allegation
• accusation
• insinuation
• confirmation
• denial
• verdict
6 The idea of claims is central to the discipline of critical thinking. Why is this so?
Answers and comments are on page 311.
1 Explain briefly, in your own words, the difference between a claim and a fact.
2 Is there any significant difference between a claim and an assertion? If so, how are they different? If not, what do they have in common?
3 For each of the five examples [A]–[E] in this chapter, suggest two other claims that have the same relation to the truth, but on different subject matter.
4 The word ‘hypothesis’ has several close relatives. Here are four:
• conjecture
• theory
• guess
• speculation
End-of-chapter assignments
2.2 Judging claims 21 The moral of the story is that truth and
trust are both important. People need to be able to rely on what they are told most of the time; and people who speak the truth need others to believe them most of the time. But that does not mean we should respond with blind acceptance to everything that we read and hear. Obviously we cannot assume that just because something has been asserted – in spoken, printed or any other form – it is true, or we have to agree with it. People do make false assertions not only with intent to deceive, but also out of carelessness or ignorance. Even when there is a core of truth in what someone says, it may be exaggerated, or over-simplified, or a mere approximation, or a rough guess. There are many ways, besides being plainly false, in which a claim may be less than the whole truth.
None of this means that we should start routinely doubting everything. But it does mean we should keep an open and inquisitive mind.
Justification
As you saw in the previous chapter, it is not always possible to know whether a claim is straightforwardly true or false. Knowledge requires certainty and certainties are rare. In the absence of certainty, the best evaluation we can give of a claim or belief is to say whether it is justified, or warranted. These two words mean much the same as each other. A warrant is a right or entitlement. We are entitled to hold a belief, or to make a claim, if there are strong grounds – for example, evidence – to support it. Without such grounds a claim is unwarranted (unjustified).
Judging claims
2.2
When a claim is made, especially publicly, it is natural to think we are being told the truth.
Most of the time we accept claims, especially claims to fact, at face value. For instance, if we read in the newspaper that there has been a plane crash, we are entitled to assume that such an event really has taken place. We don’t jump to the conclusion that the statement is false just because we have not witnessed it ourselves. We hear the football results, or baseball scores, and assume they are correct, and not made up to please the fans of some clubs. We get a weather forecast telling us to expect heavy snow, and we plan accordingly: we don’t ignore it just because it is a prediction, and predictions aren’t facts.
Assuming that most of what we are told is true is entirely reasonable. Indeed, it is necessary for a normal life, and the
functioning of a modern democratic society.
If we questioned, or refused to believe, everything we read or heard, life as we know it would come to a standstill. That is why we all have a responsibility to tell the truth; and why people are understandably annoyed if they are told something that is not true.
Everyone knows the story of The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’ or a story like it. The boy has a bad habit of raising false alarms, in particular frightening his community by shouting out that a pack of wolves is approaching the village. At first the villagers run to safety whenever he does this. But after a while they stop believing him, until the day comes when a real wolf appears. By then, of course, the boy has lost all credibility and his for-once genuine warning is ignored. (You can work out the ending yourself.)
Judging which of these is the right way to respond to a claim is at the heart of the discipline of critical thinking, and is part of what we mean by ‘evaluation’.
Recall the example in the last chapter: the claim that the prehistoric dinosaurs were cold-blooded. Two facts are often cited in support of this:
[A] The dinosaurs were reptiles.
[B] Modern reptiles, e.g. snakes and lizards, are all cold-blooded.
Discuss whether these two facts between them justify the claim that the dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
Activity
Commentary
The two facts give some support to the claim, but only some. They are grounds for the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were cold- blooded inasmuch as they add some weight to that side of the debate. If you knew nothing else about dinosaurs, or reptiles, or evolution generally, you might be tempted to accept the grounds as sufficient. But it would be a big step to take. For one thing it would mean assuming that what is true of reptiles now must have been true of reptiles 70 million years ago, and earlier. It is not at all impossible that there were once warm-blooded reptiles running around, including some of the dinosaurs; but that these reptiles became extinct, leaving only the cold-blooded species surviving today. (Being cold-blooded may have given certain reptiles a survival advantage over the warm-blooded ones.
Warm-blooded species use more energy than those with cold blood, and food sources may have become scarce.) This possibility alone means that the assumption is questionable, though not necessarily false.
At first sight it may seem that truth and justification amount to the same thing: a claim is justified if it is true, and unjustified (or unwarranted) if not. But neither of these is correct. A claim can be true but unjustified if the person making it does not have good grounds for believing it – or in extreme cases may not believe it at all. Suppose, for example, a crime has been committed. The victim (we’ll call her Vera) claims that her neighbour (Nick) was the one who did it, perhaps because she doesn’t like him, or perhaps because she wants to see someone convicted, and anyone will do. Other than this she has no reason for making the allegation, and certainly nothing that would count as evidence. But then suppose it is discovered that Nick, just as Vera has claimed, is guilty of the crime! Would the discovery of Nick’s guilt justify Vera’s accusation? No. It would just be chance that the claim she had made was true. Given her motives her claim would still be a lie.
Conversely, a false claim can be justified in some circumstances. Someone may make an assertion on the basis of all the information available at the time of making it. If that information gives convincing grounds for the claim, then it is fair to say that it is a justified claim to have made, even if it later turns out to be false on the basis of some new
information.
In other words, truth and justification are different. Justification is provided by the reasons that can be found and given for a claim, but truth or falsity belong to the claim itself. We may never know for certain whether a particular claim is true, but we may be able to say that there is sufficient evidence or grounds or support to justify asserting it. Alternatively we may say that a claim is unjustified, because there are not sufficient grounds or support for it, or because there are sufficient grounds to cast doubt on it. This is different from saying that it is actually false.