Free Argument To Critically Access – Howling Man Critical Thinking Sample

The book offers diverse tools to identify loopholes in an argument which will be utilized to address the arguments in the howling man. In the Howling Man episode, the imprisoned devil claims that he has been imprisoned against his will by the members of the hermitage, while the conclusion drawn is that the members of the hermitage are mad and insane. Alternatively, the same arguments can also be presented as the claim that the members of the hermitage are made and insane leading to the conclusion that they have imprisoned an innocent person (devil) through an irrational act. Brother Jerome on the other hand counters the claim by reclaiming that the imprisoned individual is a devil, therefore, he has been imprisoned. However, both the arguments are considerably weakened by the fact that no support is provided for the claim. In other words, we are not to know whether the imprisoned man is a devil or whether the members of the hermitage are mad unless we can find clues in favor of the claims made.
In this case, the two sets of arguments are: I have been imprisoned for no reason/Those who imprisoned me are mad; and Devils must me imprisoned/This person is a devil/So, he has been imprisoned. It is also evident that reason must state facts that are indisputable for the conclusions to be true. In this case, however, we do not have facts. We just have claims. That the person has been imprisoned for no reason or that the person is a devil is not supported by evidence.
Yet, Ellington decides to release the prisoner because he comes to believe the statement of the prisoner while disbelieving the claims of Jerome. What might have led Ellington to believe the prisoner? Or, perhaps, the prisoner presented his argument in a compelling manner for Ellington to take positive action. Logically, Ellington may have thought: Devils don’t plead for mercy/ This man is pleading for mercy/ Therefore, this man cannot be a devil.
Further, he may have also logically thought the claims made by Brother Jerome verge on incredulity. This man is very powerful, responsible for two world wars/So, he has been imprisoned. How could such a powerful person be imprisoned? There are no facts or evidences on the claim made above. The dilemma faced by Ellington could now be resolved. The story told by the imprisoned man appears more plausible than narrated by Jerome.
Although there are disputes about the truth of the premises in both the arguments and the dispute may remain interminable – you are devil/I am not/you are devil/I am not or You are mad/I am not/you are mad/I am not – yet the dispute says nothing about whether it is a good reason to believe in the argument. Although Ellington may have erred in respect of facts or information, he did not make an error in respect of the consistency of the argument. Therefore, in order to avoid the errors of judgment, it is critical that facts are presented for evaluation, which in the case of ‘howling man’ is absolutely missing. In fact the facts are deceptive. The satan has successfully deceived Ellington by misrepresenting the facts. Yet, it doesn’t imply that truth of the premises amounts to the support to the conclusion. Nevertheless, reason must express the truth and it must also be relevant to the claim for the conclusion to be valid.
What exactly makes Ellington disbelieve Jerome’s claim? If we understand a sentence according to neuroscience findings, we believe it to be true and if we do not understand a sentence, we do not believe it to be true. Probably, Ellington fails to believe that “This man is a devil” and thinks it to be not true. If more information was available, then Ellington could have probably made the right judgment. For instance, how do we identify a fake currency? If a currency note has a set of hallmarks, it is genuine currency. Similarly, if Jerome had informed Ellington that devil has a set of marks (x, y, z), it would have been possible for Ellington to verify. On the contrary, the devil represented a set of marks compatible with innocence (crying, pleading for mercy, and so on).