Hey, this is weird: I just got back from the river and my pants were on backwards! But I went to Taco Bell (actually I went to the ATM first because the Taco Bell in Grass Valley doesn't take ATM cards) and in both places I took my wallet out of my back pocket and put it back in, and my keys were in my front pocket. So, somehow, between Taco Bell and home, my pants got on backwards. I still can't figure this out.
Arguments
Arguments are found in the interactions we have with friends and acquaintances every day. There are the occasional knock-down drag-out arguments of those who despise one another, and the more frequent everyday exchanges that occur without most people even thinking about it. After all, an argument is merely the expression of one’s point of view on a subject with evidence given to support it. A discussion of opinions, if you will. I bring up the rules of arguing as a prequel to a discussion of religion because of the often-relied upon discussion-stoppers that you hear when debating religion with someone. You know, when arbitrary definitions and constructs are taken as absolutes. That kind of thing. It’s extremely important to learn how to make a good argument. Summarizing information that you’ve heard and just repeating facts doesn’t get you very far. Many “facts” you read or hear about may just be one person’s interpretation of a set of information. One always needs to examine that interpretation and defend it, refute it, or offer some new views of their own. In this way one can develop a point of view on or interpretation of that material, with plenty of evidence for your position. And the more you improve your skills in crafting an argument, the better you will be at thinking critically, reasoning, making choices, and weighing evidence.
The first step to understanding the arguments the other side is making is being able to actually sit through an entire argument. Nothing gets accomplished by just stating your opinion and running. Personally I’ve found that, in all other social situations, running away is usually a good idea. Not so with communicating your thoughts. Listening to opposing viewpoints helps us to understand the argument the other person is making. And the give and take involved in the discussion can make us reach and understand new views and the reasons for those views. It also helps us to organize our own thoughts and to adapt our own reasoning processes as a means of forming our own conclusions.
First, some definitions that we have to agree on. An argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a true or false sentence that is offered in support of the conclusion (the claim being made). A syllogism is a logical argument that uses deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive, and an argument is said to be valid or sound. Arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Whew. OK. Let’s go.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:
A deductive argument is one that is intended to guarantee a true conclusion, provided that the premises are true. We’ve all heard the famous one:
Premise one:
All men are mortal.
Premise two:
Socrates is a man.
Conclusion:
Socrates is mortal.
In this example, each premise is true, and thus the conclusion is also true. Note that no new information is offered in the conclusion. Have you ever heard Sherlock Holmes pontificate on the importance of deductive reasoning? Well, he lied. Because Sherlock Holmes mostly uses inductive reasoning.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT:
An inductive argument is one that is intended to establish the probability of its conclusion. If the person with the argument believes that their premises provide a good enough reason for their conclusion to be true, then their argument is inductive. This is the type of argument that is part of the scientific process. Specific observations and measurements might show a general pattern. From this is formulated a tentative hypothesis which is explored further, possibly resulting in some general conclusions. And from this, a scientific theory.
Every time I have gone to Starbucks they’ve spelled my name wrong on my cup. Therefore, the next time I go to Starbucks they will spell my name wrong.
The conclusion to this argument is not guaranteed, even if the premise is true. Which it most certainly is!!! Damn Starbucks. Anyway, the strength of the conclusion increases with the number of times they’ve spelled my name wrong. Which is every single time!!! Pretty much….
Inductive arguments are considered strong if the conclusion definitely follows from the premises, and weak if it follows only dubiously. To critique an inductive argument it is necessary to attack either the premises or the inferences. In this case, have they really always spelled my name wrong at Starbucks? However, it’s important to know that even if it can be demonstrated that both the premises and the inferences are incorrect, that doesn’t necessarily mean the final conclusion is also false. All that has been demonstrated is that the argument itself cannot be used to establish the truth of the conclusion.
VALID ARGUMENTS:
An argument can be either valid or invalid. A valid argument is one where it is impossible for all its premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Valid Argument:
Premise one:
Fred is a horse.
Premise two:
Fred is brown.
Conclusion:
Fred is a brown horse.
Assuming that both premises (Fred is a horse, Fred is brown) are true, the conclusion is also true; Fred is a brown horse. This is a valid argument. Here’s another one:
Premise one:
All mammals are warm-blooded.
Premise two:
Dogs are warm-blooded.
Conclusion:
Dogs are mammals.
An invalid argument, on the other hand, can have its conclusion be false even if all the premises are true:
Invalid Argument:
Premise one:
Birds sing when the sun rises.
Premise two:
Birds sing when the sun sets.
Conclusion:
The rising and setting of the sun depends on birds singing.
SOUND AND UNSOUND ARGUMENTS:
An argument is called sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true (and not just assumed to be true).
Sound Argument:
Premise one:
All trees are plants.
Premise two:
The redwood is a tree.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the redwood is a plant.
Each of the above premises are true, and the conclusion is also true. This is a valid and sound argument. An argument can be valid, however, but not sound.
Unsound Argument:
Premise one:
All birds are mammals.
Premise two:
The platypus is a bird.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the platypus is a mammal.
This is a valid argument, even though both premises are false. Remember, if we assume both premises are true, then the conclusion is also true. In this case, the argument is internally consistent. If birds were mammals, and the platypus was a bird, the platypus would indeed be a mammal. But, in the real world, both these premises are not true, so the argument is not sound. Oh, and even though the Bible says bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), they’re not! Another valid but unsound argument:
Premise one:
All dogs are green.
Premise two:
Anything that is green is a fish.
Conclusion:
Therefore, all dogs are fish.
Both Unsound and Invalid Argument:
Premise one:
No mammals have lungs.
Premise two:
No whales are mammals.
Conclusion:
Therefore, no whales have lungs.
This argument is invalid and its premises are also false. Therefore, it is unsound.
Now for the tricky part. As I’ve shown above, all sound arguments are also valid arguments. However, while an unsound argument can be either valid or invalid, that doesn’t mean that the conclusion is false. The conclusion might be perfectly true, but the person doing the arguing got there through incorrect means. So when discussing your opinions with friends or acquaintances, keep in mind that you cannot reject the conclusion of an argument simply by discovering that the argument is flawed. All a flawed argument tells us is that the truth of the conclusion cannot be based on the argument itself.
PRAGMA-DIALECTICS.
Pragma-dialectics is a study of argumentation that focuses on the ethics of one’s logical choices in creating an argument, to the argument’s structure itself. Some of these rules I list are found in the book Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, by Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francesca Snoeck Henkemans.
The Freedom Rule:
Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.
Sit through the argument and listen.
The Burden-of-Proof Rule:
A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so.
If you make an argument, you have to provide evidence to back it up.
The Standpoint Rule:
A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.
A standpoint is the person’s claim in the argument. If you disagree with a person’s claim you must address that specific claim. This is a good example of where the knowledge of logical fallacies may come in handy.
The Starting Point Rule:
No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.
An argument is pointless unless both parties are addressing the same subject.
The Closure Rule:
A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts.
If your argument is faulty and your opponent can prove their points more effectively, admit it and move on.
Our current media and political climate seriously fails to encourage good argumentation. If everyone would follow at least some of these methodical approaches to discussing opinions, the soundness and general quality of people’s arguments would greatly improve while the culture of understanding and tolerance would blossom like the seeds of a thousand hummingbird’s nectar-filled wings of understanding. (My God that’s beautiful!)
Or at least maybe some people wouldn’t be nearly as cranky anymore (you know who you are...).
Coming up (eventually)... Logical Fallacies!