In the first two assignments you have been asked to break down reasoning processes and to evaluate them. The course has now covered material relating to non-deductive thinking and practical reasoning. The purpose of this assignment is to test your ability to break down and evaluate cases of practical reasoning.
On Friday March 22nd we will watch season 3 episode 2 of House MD.
While argument and reasoning take place throughout the episode, there are six major moments where the team engages in prolonged discussion of their problem. I have provided time-codes for convenience; however, you will need to note what happens outside of these times as well.
Your task includes the following:
1. Review Dewey’s account of inquiry and valuation and then explain how the problem is initially defined and then re-defined as new information comes to light. What information was determined to be relevant or irrelevant to the problems as defined?
2. Pick two of the ways the problem is defined in the episode. For each problem as defined identify the proposed ends-in-view considered and adopted. How does the definition influence proposed courses of action? Without relying on information that comes later in the episode (do not rely on hindsight) evaluate the team’s practical reasoning.
Please keep in mind that you do not have to be an expert in medicine, nor do I expect a full medical account of every possible symptom or a description of every test. It might be a good idea to mention important symptoms or tests however. Practice your best judgment based on what will make your analysis clear.
You are not required to standardize, but when you evaluate feel free to standardize parts of the argument if you believe it will help provide clarity. When evaluating, consider factors that we have already covered like whether a premise is acceptable, whether a conclusion follows, and so on. However, also consider factors like risks and the probable consequences that could occur as a result of a proposed action being taken that you think are relevant to determining whether a proposed course of action is a good idea or not.
If you standardize, you MUST follow the same format used in class. This includes numbering each premise, using indicator words to suggest sub-conclusions and final conclusions, and removing all rhetoric (See slides from Week 2a). When you evaluate you should indicate any fallacies that you detect as well.
You will be graded on the level of clarity provided, your ability to recognize all important (sub)conclusions and ends-in-view. You will also be graded on your evaluation. You must not only be able to use the resources of the class, but to use them correctly. When you evaluate, you must consider whether the arguments presented are grounded (based on what is known at the time), acceptable, and relevant.
While you will not be explicitly graded on things like spelling and grammar, the point of this assignment is to clearly break down an argument and this involves proper spelling and grammar. It will be expected that you take time to review your work before submission and that it will be in keeping the writing levels expected of a university student, including proper writing and the ability to follow the guidelines of this assignment.
Remember to review the lectures and the strategy for how to standardize and evaluate argumen