Critical Thinking
Question 1. Discuss what constitutes a good argument, how arguments work and what makes some arguments better than others. (minimum 600 words)
In the realm of logic and critical thinking, an argument is a collection of statements. One statement will be the conclusion and the other statements will be the assumptions or assertions in support of the conclusion. The rational connections between the premises and the conclusion affect the validity of an argument. The premise(s) and conclusion of an argument may be arranged in any number of ways; it is not required that the conclusion be preceded by the premise(s). One may expect the conclusion of an argument to be noted as such by the couching language. The use of words or phrases such as, “in conclusion,” “therefore,” “so,” “hence,” “thus,” or “it follows that” typically indicate that one has reached the conclusion of the argument.
An argument may be considered valid if there is no logical way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Validity does not determine the truth or falsity of an argument, simply whether or not the conclusion is logical. One may work from a collection of premises that are all false and even arrive at a false conclusion using an argument that can be considered valid. For example, I could state that all pumpkins are mammals and that mammals are all purple and therefore pumpkins are purple. Despite the fact that every statement in the argument is false, the argument is still valid because there is no logical way for the premises (pumpkins are mammals, mammals are purple) to be true and the conclusion (pumpkins are purple) false.
Clearly, validity is not a guarantee that an argument’s conclusion will be correct. After all, an argument can be valid even if one or more of the premises are false.
If we can be assured of an argument’s validity, then we may go on to evaluating the truth of the premises. If each premise within an argument can be verified as true, then the argument is considered sound. If the individual premises are not true, the argument is unsound (though not necessarily invalid). To be considered a good argument, it should be sound.
In order to be considered good, one may be tempted to say that an argument must not only be sound, but valid. However, a valid argument is not always true. When an argument is not valid, it must at least be inductively strong. An inductively strong argument is one in which the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true. An argument may be good and the conclusion true even if it is not valid. Take the following argument as an example;
Margaret’s favorite food is corn. Mom served corn for dinner. Margaret will eat all of her corn.
This argument is not valid because there are possible scenarios in which the conclusion is false (Margaret will not eat all of her corn) even though the premises are both true (it is her favorite food and mom served it for dinner). Perhaps Margaret had a big snack right before dinner and will be too full to finish her corn, or maybe she has a stomach bug and doesn’t want to eat anything. However, the argument is inductively strong, meaning that it seems likely that Margaret will eat all of her corn.
Being sound as well as strong or valid are not enough, on their own, to make a good argument. The premises must be relevant to the conclusion and also be plausible. A good argument will be one that a reasonable person will accept. Furthermore, a good argument will not be based on circular logic. For instance, saying plants need light, therefore plants need light, is not a good argument though it could be considered valid. When the conclusion also appears in the argument as a premise, it begs the question, but why? This is not an argument style that can be expected to be very persuasive.
References:
"Argument Analysis." Critical Thinking Web. Ed. Jonathan Chan and Joe Lau. University of Hong Kong (Philosophy Department). Web. 17 Aug. 2014. <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/>.
Question 2. What is the difference between inference and deduction? (minimum 100 words)
When one infers, one reaches a conclusion based on available information. There are various methods of reasoning that can be used to make an inference. One of these methods is known as deductive reasoning (other methods are inductive reasoning, probability, and statistical reasoning). Deductive reasoning makes use of a chain of statements, each based on the previous statements and typically moving from the general to the specific.
For example; Coal miners handle coal. Coal gets on the hands and under the nails of miners. A miner will have coal under his nails. A man with coal under his nails is probably a miner. Bob has coal under his nails. Bob is probably a miner.
The difference between inference and deduction is that inference is the end and deduction is the means.
Question 3. What is a fallacy? (minimum 100 words)
A fallacy is an unsound belief, conclusion, or argument which has been arrived at through faulty reasoning, as opposed to factual mistakes or misunderstandings (like saying June 4 is the US Independence Day). It is possible to break the study of fallacies into four broad categories; inconsistency, irrelevancy, inappropriate presumption, and insufficiency. Inconsistency refers to propositions or premises that are self-contradicting (i.e.: “Morality is individual and relative, therefore it is always wrong to impose our morality on someone else”) or self-defeating (i.e.: saying, “I can’t speak any English”). Irrelevancy refers to two problematic actions: first, including irrelevant premises/considerations in an argument and second, failing to include relevant premises/considerations in an argument. Inappropriate presumptions are fallacies because they begin with either implicit or explicit unreasonable or irrelevant assumptions (i.e.: asking, “have you stopped being a jackass?”). Fallacies of insufficiency lack an acceptable amount of evidence to support a premise (i.e.: George Burns smoked cigars constantly and lived to be 100, so cigars cannot be bad for your health.)
Within in these four broad categories, there are numerous types of specific, named fallacies. Some, by no means exhaustive, examples are;
Ad hominem: rejecting a premise because of who presents it
Ad ignorantiam: appeal to ignorance
Ad misericordiam: appeal to pity
Ad populum: appeal to popularity
Affirming the consequent: if P is true then Q is true, thus if Q is true then P is true
Denying the antecedent: if P is true because Q is true, then P is false if Q is false
Petitio Principii: Begging the question or circular reasoning
Complex/Loaded question: where any answer commits you to a position you may not hold
Composition: the sum will have the same properties as its part, i.e.: cinnamon is tasty. Salmon is tasty. Marshmallows are tasty. Cinnamon, salmon, and marshmallows will be tasty if mixed together
Division: the parts are assumed to have the same properties of the whole, i.e.: bakers chocolate is tasty because it is an ingredient in brownies and brownies which are tasty
Red Herring: an irrelevant premise
Straw Man: attributing to an opponent an argument which is easily defeated
Slippery Slope: suggesting that support of premise 1 implies support of premise 2 and on and on until the resulting conclusion is absurd
Genetic fallacy: the assertion that because one thing derives from another, there will be shared characteristics, i.e.: Sally is tone-deaf. Therefore, Sally’s daughter will be tone-deaf
Gambler’s Fallacy: that independent statistics are dependent, i.e.: I lost the last five coin tosses, I am bound to win the next one.
References:
"Fallacies and Biases." Critical Thinking Web. Ed. Jonathan Chan and Joe Lau. University of Hong Kong (Philosophy Department). Web. 7 Oct. 2014. <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/>.
Question 4. What is the difference between an inference and a premise? (minimum 100 words)
A premise is a statement used in an argument to support a conclusion. “Premise” is a noun, a thing, a part of an argument. When we infer, we are performing an action, doing something. Inference is what moves us from premise(s) to conclusion. Inferences may be included among the premises of an argument, and the conclusion of an argument is always an inference. According to Chris Swoyer, “the premises of a good inference provide reasons or justification or warrant or evidence for the conclusion that we infer.”
Take, for example, the following argument:
Lawyers make a lot of money (premise)
People with a lot of money can buy fancy boats (premise)
Lawyers can buy fancy boats (inference)
Billy wants a fancy boat (premise)
Billy should become a lawyer (conclusion, arrived at through inference)
References:
Swoyer, Chris. "Arguments and Inferences." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Question 5. Discuss the effect of bias on thought and moral reasoning. (minimum 100 words)
According to Merriam-Webster.com, bias is “: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly:
a strong interest in something or ability to do something”
One’s personal bias is made-up of all of an individual’s cognitive biases, experiences, values, and beliefs. It is the tendency of a person to see things their own way, though a sort of filter. The issue of personal bias leads us to question whether humans are capable of objective judgment.
In his essay “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment” Jonathan Haidt outlines a model for arriving at moral judgments in which moral reasoning comes after making a judgment. In the intuitionist model, intuition and/or the acceptance of moral truths informs the initial judgment and moral reasoning is used to support the initial judgment (Haidt, 815). In this quite reasonable and plausible model, it follows that one’s personal bias plays an integral and guiding role when one arrives at a judgment. One would then employ moral reasoning to justify one’s arrival at a particular bias-based judgment.
References:
Haidt, Jonathan. "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: a Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment." Psychological Review 108.4. 2001.
Question 6. Take an Indo-European topic essay of a minimum of five pages in length and analyze it for soundness, validity, fallacies, rhetorical devices and overall quality of composition. (Contact the ADF Preceptor for examples and suggestions of papers to critique.) (minimum 600 words)
For my essay, I chose Ceisiwr Serith’s article, “The Proto-Indo-European Hearth” published on the ADF website. The stated purpose for the article is to identify styles of Indo-European fire altars, suggest a Proto-Indo-European model for such fires, and offer methods for incorporating such a model(s) into current ADF practice. Serith’s writing style is fairly unembellished. He does not indulge in the use of many rhetorical devices other than the occasional application of enumeratio which is the listing, detailing, or enumeration of the parts of something.
The bulk of the essay is concerned with the various types of ritual fires evidenced in Indo-European cultures. He begins with legal examples of fire being used as a means of claiming space from Welsh law. He moves on to assert that disassembled hearths found in apparently voluntarily evacuated Romanian houses could be further indication of the belief that fire conferred ownership. I believe this assertion is based on the work of Vlad Zirra, who is cited at the end of the third paragraph of the essay. However, Serith does not attribute this leap to Zirra and offers no arguments for why the archaeological discovery of dismantled hearths should be connected to an IE belief structure.
The essay then begins to examine various iterations of a community hearth and the requirements of those who tend the fire on the hearth. Serith immediately differentiates between the round temples of Vesta and the rectangular shape of all other Roman temples. A parallel is drawn between wives tending the domestic hearths of their husbands and the Vestal Virgins, the Brides of Rome, tending the community hearth of the Roman people. A supporting example comes from the Grecian temples of Hestia, which were also round in contrast to other rectangular Greek temples, and tended by widows considered too old to marry again. With these two examples, Serith sets up a dichotomy between circular and rectangular fires. Interestingly, he seems to present the shape of the fire almost in passing, without making comment on any possible significance shape may have.
The next two examples, from the Thracian royal residence of the 3rd century and the 12th century fire of Brighid at Kildare, Ireland, continue to offer support for the notion of a national community hearth tended by women generally unavailable for marriage. Both of these examples feature a circular fire. Serith then describes a 15th century Lithuanian fire tended in honor of the god Perkunas. Serith’s source for the Lithuanian practices does not specify whether the fire tenders, who were female, were allowed to marry and Serith draws the conclusion that they were not, basing his inference on the examples from Greece, Rome, and Ireland. This inference, despite being inductively sound, is not valid. Let us break it down into simple statements.
P: The women (Virgins) tending the Roman fire to Vesta could not marry
P: The women (widows) tending the Greek fire to Hestia were too old to marry
P: The women (nuns) tending the Irish fire to Brighid could not marry
C: The women tending the Lithuanian fir to Perkunas could not marry
It is an invalid conclusion because there are reasonable scenarios in which the Lithuanian fire-tenders could indeed marry.
Serith concludes his examination of domestic and community hearth practices by asserting that they were composed of only one fire. Moving into the second half of the article, he begins with the questions of the number of fires used in PIE public rituals; one, two or three. Though Vedic practice includes three distinct fires, Serith rejects that a three-fire model for PIE ritual. He points to linguistics as evidence and details the way in which the name of the third Vedic fire is based on its location which is an entirely different naming construction than the names for the other two fires, which are based on their purpose. He goes on to offer evidence of a two fire PIE system by examining the two PIE words for fire itself. That there are two words, of different genders, for fire indicates to Serith that there were two types of fire; the masculine word referring to public ritual fire, and the neuter word referring to the domestic and/or community hearth. Again Serith seems to rely on a deductive jump made by authors cited in the article, but does not offer the arguments of those authors. Given the audience for whom Serith is writing, leaving out involved linguistic arguments made by scholars is not a surprising choice. However, it does leave a reader wondering if the assumption that an early PIE grammar was based on animate vs. inanimate words instead of the more familiar masculine/feminine/neuter breakdown is his own or someone else’s.
Overall, the article is quite sound and, discounting the odd typo, well-written. There are no great inferential leaps made. The inferences which are made are convincing and seem reasonable. My only criticism would be that the author is not always clear about which inferences are his own and which belong to the authors of the references materials.
References:
Nordquist, Richard. "Enumeratio (Enumeration)." About Education. About.com. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/Enumeratio.htm>.
Serith, Ceisiwr. "The Proto-Indo-European Hearth." Ár NDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <https://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/pie-hearth.html>.
Question 1. Discuss what constitutes a good argument, how arguments work and what makes some arguments better than others. (minimum 600 words)
In the realm of logic and critical thinking, an argument is a collection of statements. One statement will be the conclusion and the other statements will be the assumptions or assertions in support of the conclusion. The rational connections between the premises and the conclusion affect the validity of an argument. The premise(s) and conclusion of an argument may be arranged in any number of ways; it is not required that the conclusion be preceded by the premise(s). One may expect the conclusion of an argument to be noted as such by the couching language. The use of words or phrases such as, “in conclusion,” “therefore,” “so,” “hence,” “thus,” or “it follows that” typically indicate that one has reached the conclusion of the argument.
An argument may be considered valid if there is no logical way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Validity does not determine the truth or falsity of an argument, simply whether or not the conclusion is logical. One may work from a collection of premises that are all false and even arrive at a false conclusion using an argument that can be considered valid. For example, I could state that all pumpkins are mammals and that mammals are all purple and therefore pumpkins are purple. Despite the fact that every statement in the argument is false, the argument is still valid because there is no logical way for the premises (pumpkins are mammals, mammals are purple) to be true and the conclusion (pumpkins are purple) false.
Clearly, validity is not a guarantee that an argument’s conclusion will be correct. After all, an argument can be valid even if one or more of the premises are false.
If we can be assured of an argument’s validity, then we may go on to evaluating the truth of the premises. If each premise within an argument can be verified as true, then the argument is considered sound. If the individual premises are not true, the argument is unsound (though not necessarily invalid). To be considered a good argument, it should be sound.
In order to be considered good, one may be tempted to say that an argument must not only be sound, but valid. However, a valid argument is not always true. When an argument is not valid, it must at least be inductively strong. An inductively strong argument is one in which the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true. An argument may be good and the conclusion true even if it is not valid. Take the following argument as an example;
Margaret’s favorite food is corn. Mom served corn for dinner. Margaret will eat all of her corn.
This argument is not valid because there are possible scenarios in which the conclusion is false (Margaret will not eat all of her corn) even though the premises are both true (it is her favorite food and mom served it for dinner). Perhaps Margaret had a big snack right before dinner and will be too full to finish her corn, or maybe she has a stomach bug and doesn’t want to eat anything. However, the argument is inductively strong, meaning that it seems likely that Margaret will eat all of her corn.
Being sound as well as strong or valid are not enough, on their own, to make a good argument. The premises must be relevant to the conclusion and also be plausible. A good argument will be one that a reasonable person will accept. Furthermore, a good argument will not be based on circular logic. For instance, saying plants need light, therefore plants need light, is not a good argument though it could be considered valid. When the conclusion also appears in the argument as a premise, it begs the question, but why? This is not an argument style that can be expected to be very persuasive.
References:
"Argument Analysis." Critical Thinking Web. Ed. Jonathan Chan and Joe Lau. University of Hong Kong (Philosophy Department). Web. 17 Aug. 2014. <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/>.
Question 2. What is the difference between inference and deduction? (minimum 100 words)
When one infers, one reaches a conclusion based on available information. There are various methods of reasoning that can be used to make an inference. One of these methods is known as deductive reasoning (other methods are inductive reasoning, probability, and statistical reasoning). Deductive reasoning makes use of a chain of statements, each based on the previous statements and typically moving from the general to the specific.
For example; Coal miners handle coal. Coal gets on the hands and under the nails of miners. A miner will have coal under his nails. A man with coal under his nails is probably a miner. Bob has coal under his nails. Bob is probably a miner.
The difference between inference and deduction is that inference is the end and deduction is the means.
Question 3. What is a fallacy? (minimum 100 words)
A fallacy is an unsound belief, conclusion, or argument which has been arrived at through faulty reasoning, as opposed to factual mistakes or misunderstandings (like saying June 4 is the US Independence Day). It is possible to break the study of fallacies into four broad categories; inconsistency, irrelevancy, inappropriate presumption, and insufficiency. Inconsistency refers to propositions or premises that are self-contradicting (i.e.: “Morality is individual and relative, therefore it is always wrong to impose our morality on someone else”) or self-defeating (i.e.: saying, “I can’t speak any English”). Irrelevancy refers to two problematic actions: first, including irrelevant premises/considerations in an argument and second, failing to include relevant premises/considerations in an argument. Inappropriate presumptions are fallacies because they begin with either implicit or explicit unreasonable or irrelevant assumptions (i.e.: asking, “have you stopped being a jackass?”). Fallacies of insufficiency lack an acceptable amount of evidence to support a premise (i.e.: George Burns smoked cigars constantly and lived to be 100, so cigars cannot be bad for your health.)
Within in these four broad categories, there are numerous types of specific, named fallacies. Some, by no means exhaustive, examples are;
Ad hominem: rejecting a premise because of who presents it
Ad ignorantiam: appeal to ignorance
Ad misericordiam: appeal to pity
Ad populum: appeal to popularity
Affirming the consequent: if P is true then Q is true, thus if Q is true then P is true
Denying the antecedent: if P is true because Q is true, then P is false if Q is false
Petitio Principii: Begging the question or circular reasoning
Complex/Loaded question: where any answer commits you to a position you may not hold
Composition: the sum will have the same properties as its part, i.e.: cinnamon is tasty. Salmon is tasty. Marshmallows are tasty. Cinnamon, salmon, and marshmallows will be tasty if mixed together
Division: the parts are assumed to have the same properties of the whole, i.e.: bakers chocolate is tasty because it is an ingredient in brownies and brownies which are tasty
Red Herring: an irrelevant premise
Straw Man: attributing to an opponent an argument which is easily defeated
Slippery Slope: suggesting that support of premise 1 implies support of premise 2 and on and on until the resulting conclusion is absurd
Genetic fallacy: the assertion that because one thing derives from another, there will be shared characteristics, i.e.: Sally is tone-deaf. Therefore, Sally’s daughter will be tone-deaf
Gambler’s Fallacy: that independent statistics are dependent, i.e.: I lost the last five coin tosses, I am bound to win the next one.
References:
"Fallacies and Biases." Critical Thinking Web. Ed. Jonathan Chan and Joe Lau. University of Hong Kong (Philosophy Department). Web. 7 Oct. 2014. <http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/>.
Question 4. What is the difference between an inference and a premise? (minimum 100 words)
A premise is a statement used in an argument to support a conclusion. “Premise” is a noun, a thing, a part of an argument. When we infer, we are performing an action, doing something. Inference is what moves us from premise(s) to conclusion. Inferences may be included among the premises of an argument, and the conclusion of an argument is always an inference. According to Chris Swoyer, “the premises of a good inference provide reasons or justification or warrant or evidence for the conclusion that we infer.”
Take, for example, the following argument:
Lawyers make a lot of money (premise)
People with a lot of money can buy fancy boats (premise)
Lawyers can buy fancy boats (inference)
Billy wants a fancy boat (premise)
Billy should become a lawyer (conclusion, arrived at through inference)
References:
Swoyer, Chris. "Arguments and Inferences." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Question 5. Discuss the effect of bias on thought and moral reasoning. (minimum 100 words)
According to Merriam-Webster.com, bias is “: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly:
a strong interest in something or ability to do something”
One’s personal bias is made-up of all of an individual’s cognitive biases, experiences, values, and beliefs. It is the tendency of a person to see things their own way, though a sort of filter. The issue of personal bias leads us to question whether humans are capable of objective judgment.
In his essay “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment” Jonathan Haidt outlines a model for arriving at moral judgments in which moral reasoning comes after making a judgment. In the intuitionist model, intuition and/or the acceptance of moral truths informs the initial judgment and moral reasoning is used to support the initial judgment (Haidt, 815). In this quite reasonable and plausible model, it follows that one’s personal bias plays an integral and guiding role when one arrives at a judgment. One would then employ moral reasoning to justify one’s arrival at a particular bias-based judgment.
References:
Haidt, Jonathan. "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: a Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment." Psychological Review 108.4. 2001.
Question 6. Take an Indo-European topic essay of a minimum of five pages in length and analyze it for soundness, validity, fallacies, rhetorical devices and overall quality of composition. (Contact the ADF Preceptor for examples and suggestions of papers to critique.) (minimum 600 words)
For my essay, I chose Ceisiwr Serith’s article, “The Proto-Indo-European Hearth” published on the ADF website. The stated purpose for the article is to identify styles of Indo-European fire altars, suggest a Proto-Indo-European model for such fires, and offer methods for incorporating such a model(s) into current ADF practice. Serith’s writing style is fairly unembellished. He does not indulge in the use of many rhetorical devices other than the occasional application of enumeratio which is the listing, detailing, or enumeration of the parts of something.
The bulk of the essay is concerned with the various types of ritual fires evidenced in Indo-European cultures. He begins with legal examples of fire being used as a means of claiming space from Welsh law. He moves on to assert that disassembled hearths found in apparently voluntarily evacuated Romanian houses could be further indication of the belief that fire conferred ownership. I believe this assertion is based on the work of Vlad Zirra, who is cited at the end of the third paragraph of the essay. However, Serith does not attribute this leap to Zirra and offers no arguments for why the archaeological discovery of dismantled hearths should be connected to an IE belief structure.
The essay then begins to examine various iterations of a community hearth and the requirements of those who tend the fire on the hearth. Serith immediately differentiates between the round temples of Vesta and the rectangular shape of all other Roman temples. A parallel is drawn between wives tending the domestic hearths of their husbands and the Vestal Virgins, the Brides of Rome, tending the community hearth of the Roman people. A supporting example comes from the Grecian temples of Hestia, which were also round in contrast to other rectangular Greek temples, and tended by widows considered too old to marry again. With these two examples, Serith sets up a dichotomy between circular and rectangular fires. Interestingly, he seems to present the shape of the fire almost in passing, without making comment on any possible significance shape may have.
The next two examples, from the Thracian royal residence of the 3rd century and the 12th century fire of Brighid at Kildare, Ireland, continue to offer support for the notion of a national community hearth tended by women generally unavailable for marriage. Both of these examples feature a circular fire. Serith then describes a 15th century Lithuanian fire tended in honor of the god Perkunas. Serith’s source for the Lithuanian practices does not specify whether the fire tenders, who were female, were allowed to marry and Serith draws the conclusion that they were not, basing his inference on the examples from Greece, Rome, and Ireland. This inference, despite being inductively sound, is not valid. Let us break it down into simple statements.
P: The women (Virgins) tending the Roman fire to Vesta could not marry
P: The women (widows) tending the Greek fire to Hestia were too old to marry
P: The women (nuns) tending the Irish fire to Brighid could not marry
C: The women tending the Lithuanian fir to Perkunas could not marry
It is an invalid conclusion because there are reasonable scenarios in which the Lithuanian fire-tenders could indeed marry.
Serith concludes his examination of domestic and community hearth practices by asserting that they were composed of only one fire. Moving into the second half of the article, he begins with the questions of the number of fires used in PIE public rituals; one, two or three. Though Vedic practice includes three distinct fires, Serith rejects that a three-fire model for PIE ritual. He points to linguistics as evidence and details the way in which the name of the third Vedic fire is based on its location which is an entirely different naming construction than the names for the other two fires, which are based on their purpose. He goes on to offer evidence of a two fire PIE system by examining the two PIE words for fire itself. That there are two words, of different genders, for fire indicates to Serith that there were two types of fire; the masculine word referring to public ritual fire, and the neuter word referring to the domestic and/or community hearth. Again Serith seems to rely on a deductive jump made by authors cited in the article, but does not offer the arguments of those authors. Given the audience for whom Serith is writing, leaving out involved linguistic arguments made by scholars is not a surprising choice. However, it does leave a reader wondering if the assumption that an early PIE grammar was based on animate vs. inanimate words instead of the more familiar masculine/feminine/neuter breakdown is his own or someone else’s.
Overall, the article is quite sound and, discounting the odd typo, well-written. There are no great inferential leaps made. The inferences which are made are convincing and seem reasonable. My only criticism would be that the author is not always clear about which inferences are his own and which belong to the authors of the references materials.
References:
Nordquist, Richard. "Enumeratio (Enumeration)." About Education. About.com. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/Enumeratio.htm>.
Serith, Ceisiwr. "The Proto-Indo-European Hearth." Ár NDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <https://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/pie-hearth.html>.