 |
USA Edition | Today Is Sunday, May 19, 2013 |
|---|
Socratic Warning
Newsroom Magazine
May Challenge
Or Demand
Critical Thinking
|
|---|
|
|
The intellectual roots of critical thinking date back to the Greek philosophers.
Socrates discovered, by means of probing questions, that in the exchange of competing ideas, people sometimes make confident claims based on unreliable assumptions or failed logic.
Such arguments, he discovered, were either erroneous in fact, absent sufficient foundation, or failing in logic. Instead, most arguments were based on confused meanings, inadequate evidence, or contradictory beliefs.
Socrates' contributions to critical thinking were many -- for he established new ways to think about contentious issues in terms of the quality of assumptions, facts and logic.
Thus Socrates demonstrated that persons may have passion, or power or high position but yet be deeply confused and irrational.
Good journalism, like compelling debate, is based on a clear understanding of facts and the logical construction of one's argument. And that is what the Socratic Method and The Sophist Tradition is all about.
Evidentiary Approach
The Socratic Method is the preferred way to examine issues.In the Socratic mode of questioning, postulations, ideas or arguments are examined for their clarity and logical consistency by systematic analysis of facts, assumptions and logical methodology to support a conclusion.
Socratic analysis is accomplished by means of a series of probing questions that systematically examine the quality of an argument or conclusion.
Understanding the quality of information, argument or one's conclusions, is fundamental to critical thinking -- and the goal of critical editing.
Historical Foundation
Socrates’ practice was followed by the critical thinking of Plato (who recorded Socrates’ thought), Aristotle, and the Greek skeptics, all of whom emphasized that things are often very different from what they appear to be.Only the trained mind is prepared to see through the way things look to us on the surface (delusive appearances) to the way they really are beneath the surface (the deeper realities of life.)
From this ancient Greek tradition emerged the need, for anyone who aspired to understand the deeper realities, to think systematically, to trace implications broadly and deeply; for only thinking that is comprehensive, well-reasoned, and responsive to objections can take us beyond the surface.
Means Of Analysis
The common denominators of Critical Thinking requires, for example, the systematic monitoring of thought; that thinking, to be critical, must not be accepted at face value, but must be analyzed and assessed for its clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and logical validity. All reasoning occurs within points of view and frames of reference.All reasoning proceeds from some goals, objectives, and has an informational base. All data, when used in reasoning, must be interpreted. That interpretation involves concepts, that concepts entail assumptions, and that all basic inferences in thought have implications, and each of these dimensions of thinking need to be monitored where problems of thinking can occur.
Questioning Chain
The result of the collective contribution of the history of critical thought is that the basic questions of Socrates can now be much more powerfully and focally framed.In every domain of human thought, and within every use of reasoning within any domain, it is now possible to question:
• ends and objectives
• the status and wording of questions
• the sources of information and fact
• the method and quality of information collection
• the mode of judgment and reasoning used
• the concepts that make that reasoning possible
• the assumptions that underlie concepts in use
• the implications that follow from their use
• the point of view or frame of reference within which reasoning takes place
Jeffrey Slee
Logician
| Browsing Federal Trade Commission Section | Organized In Date Order | [ 98 items ] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Item | Earlier | Middle Item | Last Item | ||
.. the preponderance of the evidence did not support FTC complaint charges that McWane illegally conspired with two of its competitors, Sigma Corporation and Star Pipe Products Ltd., to raise and stabilize DIPF prices. But the judge ruled that the preponderance of the evidence did show that McWane reached an anticompetitive agreement that led Sigma to abandon its efforts to enter the market for domestic DIPF, and that McWane illegally pressured distributors to exclude Star Pipe from the domestic DIPF market.
Washington
Administrative Law Judge Dismisses Illegal Price-Setting Charges Against McWane, But Finds That It Illegally Excluded Competitors
May 9, 2013
In an Initial Decision announced today, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed charges in a Federal Trade Commission complaint that McWane Inc. — one of the largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF) used in municipal and regional water distribution systems — illegally conspired with its competitors to raise and stabilize DIPF prices. But the Judge found that McWane violated the antitrust laws when it excluded competitors from the market for U.S. made DIPF (domestic DIPF).
Judge Chappell found that the preponderance of the evidence did not support FTC complaint charges that McWane illegally conspired with two of its competitors, Sigma Corporation and Star Pipe Products Ltd., to raise and stabilize DIPF prices. But the judge ruled that the preponderance of the evidence did show that McWane reached an anticompetitive agreement that led Sigma to abandon its efforts to enter the market for domestic DIPF, and that McWane illegally pressured distributors to exclude Star Pipe from the domestic DIPF market.
Ductile iron pipe fittings are used in water distribution systems for the installation of valves, water meters, and hydrants and to change the flow of water. According to the FTC’s complaint, McWane, Sigma and Star Pipe account for the overwhelming majority of ductile iron pipe fittings sales in the United States.
Judge Chappell found that there is a separate product market for domestic DIPF because in some waterworks projects, state or federal law requires that only domestically manufactured fittings be used. In addition, in February 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which allocated more than $6 billion to water infrastructure projects. Waterworks projects funded by ARRA were required by federal law to use domestic fittings.
Issued in January 2012, the FTC complaint alleged that the three companies entered into an agreement, beginning in 2008, to raise and stabilize the prices for imported DIPF. The complaint also alleged that McWane possessed a monopoly in the market for domestic DIPF. The FTC complaint alleged that McWane illegally sought to maintain its monopoly after Sigma and Star tried to enter the market in 2009.
McWane denied the allegations. Sigma and Star Pipe both previously settled FTC charges.In the Initial Decision announced today, Judge Chappell dismissed the first three counts in the seven-count FTC complaint, finding that the evidence presented by FTC staff failed to support allegations that McWane:
- conspired with competitors to raise and stabilize prices in the market for imported DIPF.
- conspired with competitors to exchange competitively sensitive sales information.
issued an “invitation to collude,” to restrain price competition, to competitors in the market for imported DIPF.“Accepting Complaint Counsel’s conspiracy theory depends on accepting numerous assertions, assumptions, and inferences that are not sufficiently grounded in evidence,” the Initial Decision states. “In addition, the preponderance of the economic evidence is not consistent with the alleged conspiracy.”
However, in upholding the last four counts of the complaint, Judge Chappell concluded that the evidence did show that:
- There is a separate relevant product market for U.S. made DIPF, and that McWane possesses monopoly power in the market for domestic DIPF, as established both by the company’s high market share and the high barriers to entry facing any potential competitors, and by the company’s ability to control prices or exclude competitors.
McWane announced and implemented an exclusive dealing policy to forestall Star’s entry into the domestic DIPF market, with the specific intent of preventing Star from entering and lowering prices in the domestic DIPF market.
McWane entered into a distribution agreement with Sigma that unreasonably restrained trade in the domestic DIPF market, and further excluded Star from the market.
“Counts Four, Five, Six, and Seven – that respondent engaged in monopolistic practices, attempted to monopolize, engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize, and engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade with Sigma in the Domestic Fittings market – have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The appropriate remedy is to bring an end to this conduct, rectify past violations, and prevent reoccurrence,” the Initial Decision states.
The Order Judge Chappell included with the Initial Decision would require McWane to cease and desist from, among other things:
- allocating or dividing domestic DIPF markets, customers, contracts, transactions, business opportunities, lines of commerce, or territories.
- agreeing with competitors not to compete for each other’s customers, contracts, transactions, or business opportunities in the domestic DIPF market.
- inviting, entering into or enforcing certain customer exclusivity agreements in the domestic DIPF market.
- inviting, entering into or enforcing certain retroactive customer sales incentives in the domestic DIPF market.
- discriminating against, penalizing, or otherwise retaliating against any customer that distributes, purchases or sells a competitor’s domestic DIPF.
The Appeals Process. The Judge’s Initial Decision is subject to review by the full Federal Trade Commission on its own motion, or at the request of any party. The Initial Decision will become the decision of the Commission 30 days after it is served upon the parties, unless a party files a timely notice of appeal – and thereafter files a timely appeal brief – or the Commission places the case on its own docket for review or stays the effective date of the decision.
Source: Federal Trade Commission