2-Argument Classification and Evaluation - Posted Version
2-Argument Classification and Evaluation - Posted Version
2-Argument Classification and Evaluation - Posted Version
Department of Philosophy
Fall 2023
Professor K. J. Kraay
If you just enrolled in PHL110 (or missed last week), you should:
(1) Log in to D2L and read the Course Outline for PHL110 carefully.
(4) Get notes from a classmate for the classes that you missed.
(5) Memorize the definitions for all key terms covered so far, and practice using them
correctly.
Argument Classification and Evaluation
( For contrast, check out this classic Monty Python Skit: “The
Argument Clinic”: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k )
• Arguments are all around us!
(2) Some passages/texts merely offer the author’s _______, without trying to
provide to accept it. These are arguments.
It could be an argument …
How to Recognize Arguments:
• If Yes: it is _________________.
• If No: it is _________________.
Compare:
• “Work is underway to build a bridge over the river. It is hoped that this
bridge will solve our traffic problems.”
• “We ought to build a bridge across the river. And we should limit the cars
that go on it. And let’s fix the park while we are at it.”
• “We ought to build a bridge across the river, because doing that is the best
way to solve the traffic problems.”
Conclusion-Indicators Premise-Indicators
Two Crucial Points about Indicators:
(1) Cross out material that is redundant, or not part of the argument.
1.
2.
Therefore,
3.
“Why am I an atheist? I’ll tell you. If there
really were a God, then God would not let
terrible things happen to people who believe in
him. But terrible things happen to religious
believers all the time. I rest my case.”
1.
2.
Therefore,
3.
Truth and Logical Strength
Consider:
Deductive Validity
Why?
Some More Valid Arguments
But not all arguments are deductive: in some cases, premises are
intended to give ______, not _________, support for the
conclusion. These are inductive arguments.
Cogency
Non-Cogent Argument
This argument has two false premises and a false conclusion … but,
nevertheless, it’s what we call _____.
Why?
The Cogency Test:
• When testing for cogency, the issue is ____ whether the premises and
conclusion are _______________; it’s whether the premises, if all
true, would make the conclusion ___________.
• This means that we do ____ need to know whether the premises and
conclusions are _____________ in order to figure out whether the
argument is cogent.
Argument Classification (so far):
Arguments
(a) ________;
(b) _____________________ for the person to believe
one or more of the argument’s premises based on the available
evidence;
(c) both a + b.
• Why is it valid?
• Why is it weak?
Additional Comments on Deductive Strength
• What do (a) and (b) alone in this definition tell us about the conclusion
of a strong inductive argument? (We’ll get to (c) in a bit.)
(a) _____________ ;
(b) ____ rational/justified/reasonable for the person to believe
one or more of the argument’s premises, based on the available
evidence;
(c) the argument is __________ by some other piece of evidence.
(d) any combination of the above.
• An argument can be inductively strong for one person but not for another. Why?
• An argument can be inductively strong for a given person at one time but not at
another time. Why?
• The stronger the available evidence for the premises, the more
rational/justified/reasonable it is to believe them.
Consider:
• If you have good reason to believe that (1) and (2) are true, this gives you reason to
believe (3), since it’s a cogent argument. But: you might have ____________
against (3).
• Note: when an argument is defeated, this does not mean that it’s not cogent, nor
that the premises are false or not r/j/r to believe.
A Few More Points about Inductive Strength
• ______ also comes in degrees, so the more cogent an argument is, the
more reasonable it is to believe its conclusion (provided that the premises
are r/j/r and the conclusion is not ______).
Arguments
The Components of Standard Form:
** It’s OK to add what you think are the missing claims when
standardizing, but always follow the Principle of Charity.
Principle of Charity
• In simple terms:
- DON’T: twist other people’s words (either for the better or for the worse)!
- DO: be fair when you express somebody’s position.
• Do you think that Clifford is right that we have a moral duty to base our
beliefs on the evidence alone? Why or why not?
• Clifford’s main conclusion is very bold: “To sum up: it is [morally] wrong
always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient
evidence.” (p.6) Can you think of any plausible exceptions to Clifford’s
rule? If so, what are they, and why are they legitimate exceptions? If not,
why not?