Full Group Exercise:

For each 
Pair with person nearby.

Tak Full Group Exercise:

''Jack, y Implicit Patterns of Inference Example:
''He shed no light on 
Light is needed to see the pr 
This person is probably of no Break out groups of 4 persons

Inference Patterns

Implicit Patterns of Inference in Conceptual Metaphor

Because of normative expectations, correspondence mappings describe the lines along which we might draw conclusions about what has happened, what is part of what, and what will or should happen. "Normative expectation" for Schön (1993) strongly resembles what Lakoff calls an "inference pattern". We can illustrate by recalling the example from above:

Mother says, "I get the whole picture. He sees what they’re doing but doesn’t put it together."

What must one understand to interpret the italicized words in the example? From the correspondences listed above come strong constraints for how one would think about this situation. The constraints exist not because of rules of logic but because of near universal experience within the community of English speakers who implicitly comprehend the metaphor Understanding is Constructing a Picture. The normative expectation within the correspondence mappings of this metaphor is that, to understand, one must do something with what one sees. This is our everyday experience in the domain of seeing, and it tells us, for example, the following: If Father sees things but doesn’t do anything with them he will not automatically get the whole picture. If the parts aren’t combined in the appropriate ways (such as identifying certain patterns and seeing if what is seen matches those patterns) he will not get a useful picture. Also one can infer that an overall plan may exist that describes several alternatives for a final result. Lakoff (1993) illustrates how this kind of "inference pattern" is part of every conceptual metaphor.

Awareness of Inference Patterns - Identifying Assumptions and Incommensurable Terms

By understanding disputants’ operating metaphors to the level of correspondence mappings and inference patterns, the mediator can intervene with more precision to explore disputant thinking and what assumptions might need clarification. For example, the mediator could ask the mother what patterns does she believe Father hasn’t seen, what would help to already have pre-assembled in one’s mind, does it take a certain kind of energy or effort, and do you have to keep track of a lot of pieces at once in order to put it all together.

Consider these examples that use inference patterns to pinpoint hidden assumptions:

q (To Mother, talking about putting things together) "What goes with what? Are there clues as to how best to put it all together? Are you looking for a pattern? When does the picture you get become useful?"

q (To Father, at this point only checking that he is following) "What’s would be your strategy if you were to start assembling a jigsaw puzzle?"

Compare To The Logic of Critical Thinking

Contrast the above discussion of inference with that given as introduction to a course on critical thinking offered by S. Humphrey at UC Santa Barbara (http://www.philosophy.ucsb.edu/coursesw02.htm):

 

Logic is the study of what are called "inferences". If we believe some statement, or statements, and then come to believe some further statement because of our prior beliefs, we have made an inference. For example, if I believe that all rock stars are drug users, and then I read about some drug user, call her Sue, I might conclude that Sue was a rock star. Prior to this, I did not have the belief that Sue was a rock star. That belief arose from my making an inference, based upon the two preceding statements; that all rock stars are drug users, and that Sue is a drug user.

It should be clear from the above example that there is something "wrong" with certain inferences. I think we can all see that even if it were true that all rock stars were drug users, the fact that Sue is a drug user does not mean that she is a rock star. Surely, some drug users are not even musicians. The main purpose for studying logic is to learn to distinguish "good" inferences from "bad" ones, and this course will be our primary task in this course.

As we will discover, however, there are many "bad" inferences which most of us will find compelling. We will find ourselves strongly tempted, over and over, to move from available evidence to conclusions using inferences which are not logically correct. In fact, I maintain, certain inference "patterns" are hard-wired into us by evolutionary forces acting on human beings over the last half million years, or so. That is, just as our modern physical features have been shaped by our ancestors’ interactions with their environments, so too have many of our brain functions, including our propensity to find certain inference patterns irresistibly attractive. We will spend some of the class time identifying such inference patterns and considering why they seem so compelling to us.

Inference patterns would seem to be the Lakoffian term for the pragmatic, rhetorical aspects of metaphor discussed by Charteris-Black (2004) and Eubanks (2000).

Ex IP.3

Full Group Exercise:

For each metaphor below, do the following:

Give an example of what someone might say.

State the entailments involved.

What is the normative expectation?

What is the implied evaluation?

Making Concessions is a Slippery Slope

Negotiating is Dancing

A Company is a Family

Ethics and Morality are Accounting

Business is Theater

Love is a Journey

Ex IP.1

Pair with person nearby.

Take your statement written down at beginning...

Review the following in each of your statements:

Target domain

Incongruous words

Source domain

Name the metaphor

Entailments

Now go on to identify the following:

Normative direction

Inference structure

 

Ex IP.2

Full Group Exercise:

"Jack, you are a lying jerk! You've cheated on me and betrayed our children! You're no good! I wish you were dead!"

Target domain

Incongruous words.

Source domain. Is there more than one?

Name the metaphor(s)

Entailments

Correspondence mappings

Normative direction

Inference structure

 

 

"She is so relaxed and finally listening instead of just yelling! I think it is because we both feel so safe here"

Furthering the Mediation Process by Uncovering Metaphors

Inference Patterns

Implicit Patterns of Inference in Conceptual Metaphor

Because of normative expectations, correspondence mappings describe the lines along which we might draw conclusions about what has happened, what is part of what, and what will or should happen. "Normative expectation" for Schön (1993) strongly resembles what Lakoff calls an "inference pattern". We can illustrate by recalling the example from above:

Mother says, "I get the whole picture. He sees what they’re doing but doesn’t put it together."

What must one understand to interpret the italicized words in the example? From the correspondences listed above come strong constraints for how one would think about this situation. The constraints exist not because of rules of logic but because of near universal experience within the community of English speakers who implicitly comprehend the metaphor Understanding is Constructing a Picture. The normative expectation within the correspondence mappings of this metaphor is that, to understand, one must do something with what one sees. This is our everyday experience in the domain of seeing, and it tells us, for example, the following: If Father sees things but doesn’t do anything with them he will not automatically get the whole picture. If the parts aren’t combined in the appropriate ways (such as identifying certain patterns and seeing if what is seen matches those patterns) he will not get a useful picture. Also one can infer that an overall plan may exist that describes several alternatives for a final result. Lakoff (1993) illustrates how this kind of "inference pattern" is part of every conceptual metaphor.

Awareness of Inference Patterns - Identifying Assumptions and Incommensurable Terms

By understanding disputants’ operating metaphors to the level of correspondence mappings and inference patterns, the mediator can intervene with more precision to explore disputant thinking and what assumptions might need clarification. For example, the mediator could ask the mother what patterns does she believe Father hasn’t seen, what would help to already have pre-assembled in one’s mind, does it take a certain kind of energy or effort, and do you have to keep track of a lot of pieces at once in order to put it all together.

Consider these examples that use inference patterns to pinpoint hidden assumptions:

q (To Mother, talking about putting things together) "What goes with what? Are there clues as to how best to put it all together? Are you looking for a pattern? When does the picture you get become useful?"

q (To Father, at this point only checking that he is following) "What’s would be your strategy if you were to start assembling a jigsaw puzzle?"

Compare To The Logic of Critical Thinking

Contrast the above discussion of inference with that given as introduction to a course on critical thinking offered by S. Humphrey at UC Santa Barbara (http://www.philosophy.ucsb.edu/coursesw02.htm):

 

Logic is the study of what are called "inferences". If we believe some statement, or statements, and then come to believe some further statement because of our prior beliefs, we have made an inference. For example, if I believe that all rock stars are drug users, and then I read about some drug user, call her Sue, I might conclude that Sue was a rock star. Prior to this, I did not have the belief that Sue was a rock star. That belief arose from my making an inference, based upon the two preceding statements; that all rock stars are drug users, and that Sue is a drug user.

It should be clear from the above example that there is something "wrong" with certain inferences. I think we can all see that even if it were true that all rock stars were drug users, the fact that Sue is a drug user does not mean that she is a rock star. Surely, some drug users are not even musicians. The main purpose for studying logic is to learn to distinguish "good" inferences from "bad" ones, and this course will be our primary task in this course.

As we will discover, however, there are many "bad" inferences which most of us will find compelling. We will find ourselves strongly tempted, over and over, to move from available evidence to conclusions using inferences which are not logically correct. In fact, I maintain, certain inference "patterns" are hard-wired into us by evolutionary forces acting on human beings over the last half million years, or so. That is, just as our modern physical features have been shaped by our ancestors’ interactions with their environments, so too have many of our brain functions, including our propensity to find certain inference patterns irresistibly attractive. We will spend some of the class time identifying such inference patterns and considering why they seem so compelling to us.

Inference patterns would seem to be the Lakoffian term for the pragmatic, rhetorical aspects of metaphor discussed by Charteris-Black (2004) and Eubanks (2000).

Metaphor Source Domain

Example:
"He shed no light on the problem"
Illumination
Focus
Clarity
Angle or Viewpoint

Normative Expectation


Light is needed to see the problem.
You must get it in "focus".
It is desirable to see "clearly".
Viewing angle or point of view should be direct, unobstructred.

Automatic Inferences


This person is probably of no help.
A brighter person would be better.
The brighter the person, the clearer we will be.
Bright light won't solve problem, but needed to start.
Too much brilliance ruins clarity.

Ex IP.4

Break out groups of 4 persons each - 2 disputants and 2 mediators.

1. Pick a case <14>253<15> from those given, or own.

2. Assign Roles and briefly play roles to gain understanding.

3. Discuss and identify

Target domain

Incongruous words.

Source domain

Name the metaphor

Entailments

Correspondence mappings

Normative direction

Inference structure

4. Continue role play. Mediators ask questions to uncover metaphors, aid communication, extend...

5. Report to whole group.

Review

Practice

Metaphor Source Domain

Normative Expectation

Automatic Inferences