|
A Little Logic
1. Philosophy is about arguments Philosophy is not not about the world. Philosophy is not about ideas or theories. Philosophy is not about books, or individual men and women. Philosophy is about arguments. True, arguments are often about the world. And arguments usually involve ideas or theories. And arguments can normally be found in books. And books, to our knowledge, are all written by men and women. But the subject-matter, the métier, of philosophy, is arguments. More particularly, philosophy is about arguments concerning the most general claims to be made about anything. Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it.
2. Kinds of Arguments For the purposes of an introductory philosophy course, you need to know that: (1) All arguments are either invalid or valid; (2) All valid arguments are either unsound or sound.
3. What is an Argument? An argument is a finite set of premises followed by a conclusion. (This definition is not without problems, but I shall ignore them here). Consider the following:
(1) Never! (2) Green is green is yellow. (3) Hooooommmm. ––––> I'm at home now, give me a call.
This is not an invalid argument. This is simply not an argument at all. Premises and conclusions in arguments must be full, grammatically correct sentences (i.e. not words, or half-sentences) that are declarative (i.e. not questions or exclamations) and that can be true or false. Consider the following:
(1) He saw the movie. (2) It rained yesterday. ---> All animals have tails.
Is this an invalid argument, or not an argument at all? Most of us would want to say that this is not an argument at all. There is no relation, and no attempt at showing a relation, between the two premises and the conclusion. So let us stipulate that in arguments the conclusion must be related to, or must be intended to be related to, the premises. We could transform it into an argument, as follows:
(1) He saw the movie. (2) If he saw the movie, then it rained yesterday and all mammals have tails. ---> All animals have tails. This is an argument because the conclusion is related to, or is intended to be related to, the premises. However, it is an invalid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The conclusion is about animals, and none of the premises mentions animals. The second premise only mentions mammals.
4. Valid Arguments However, we can turn the above invalid argument into a valid argument, as follows:
(1) He saw the movie. (2) All animals are mammals. (3) If he saw the movie, then it rained yesterday and all mammals have tails. ---> All animals have tails.
A valid argument is an argument in which, IF you accept the premises, THEN you must accept the conclusion, or else you are contradicting yourself. In the case of a valid argument, if you Grant the premises, then you must grant the conclusion. The conclusion does indeed follow from the premises. Hence, in the case of a VALID argument, IF the premises be true, then the conclusion MUST be true. An argument may be valid even if every single premise, as well as the conclusion, is false. The following is a valid argument:
(1) All dogs are immortal. (2) Socrates is a dog. --> Socrates is immortal.
However, the above argument is not a sound argument. A sound argument is a valid argument in which each premise is true. And since the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true, also, because it is impossible, in the case of a valid argument, for the premises to be true and the conclusion be false. An example of a sound argument (assuming, that is, that these premises are indeed true) is:
(1) Everything that is actual is possible. (2) Human beings are actual. ––> Human beings are possible.
What is important about a sound argument is that you have no choice but to agree with it. Sound arguments put an end to all possible debate and discussion. They are the ultimate debate-stoppers. Consider the argument above again. Remember that if this argument is sound, then there is nothing in the world that can alter the truth that human beings are possible. Non-trivial sound arguments are incredibly rare in philosophy. They are like gold dust. In general, the problem with an argument is that at least one premise is false, and hence, that the (valid) argument is unsound. Here is an example of an unsound argument:
(1) No swans are black. (2) All ravens are black. –––> No swans are ravens.
This argument is unsound, even though the conclusion is true, because one premise is also false ((1)). There exist black swans. (Who knows, premise (2) may be false also. Maybe some ravens are not black. Maybe there are albino ravens. However, you only need one false premise to make an argument unsound.) Some arguments however will be so bad that they are invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Even if you did believe all the premises, you could still reject the conclusion and not contradict yourself. For example:
(1) If God does not exist, then there is no right or wrong. (2) God exists. ---> There is right and wrong.
This argument is invalid because even if one agreed with the first two premises, one could still reject the conclusion. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It might be the case, for example, that even if God exists, there is no right or wrong. The argument, as it were, assumes this, but never states it. But it must be stated, otherwise the conclusion does not follow.
Be careful, in general, never to say that arguments are true or false. Arguments cannot be true or false. They can only be invalid or valid, and in the case of valid arguments, only sound or unsound. Be careful, in general, never to say that premises (i.e. particular sentences or claims) are valid or invalid or sound or unsound. Premises cannot be valid or invalid. They can only be true or false. Conclusion: A false premise exposes an unsound argument.
|
What you have above is the roadmap to finding the truth. What you have below is the roadblocks.
Fallacies of Philosophical Debate
Ad Hominem---
Attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.
Needling ---This is simply attempting to make the other person angry.
Straw Man--- (Fallacy Of Extension) Attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
Inflation Of Conflict--- Arguing a certain point that the entire field of knowledge is "in crisis" or does not properly exist at all.
Argument From Adverse Consequences--- (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics) Saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue.
Special Pleading--- (Stacking The Deck) Using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.
Excluded Middle--- (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation) Assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more.
Short Term Versus Long Term--- This is a particular case of the Excluded Middle.
Burden Of Proof--- The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa).
Argument By Question--- Asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer.
Argument by Rhetorical Question--- Asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer.
Fallacy Of The General Rule--- Assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case.
Reductive Fallacy--- (Oversimplification) Over-simplifying. As Einstein said, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Genetic Fallacy--- (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue) If an argument or arguer has some particular origin, the argument must be right (or wrong). The idea is that things from that origin, or that social class, have virtue or lack virtue.
Psychogenic Fallacy--- If you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he's biased, so his argument must be wrong. It is irrelevant.
Argument Of The Beard--- Assuming that two ends of a spectrum are the same. The name comes from the idea that being clean-shaven must be the same as having a big beard, since in-between beards exist.
Argument From Age--- (Wisdom of the Ancients) Snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior.
Not Invented Here--- Ideas from elsewhere are made unwelcome.
Argument To The Future--- Arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.
Poisoning The Wells--- Discrediting the sources used by your opponent.
Argument By Emotive Language--- (Appeal To The People) Using emotionally loaded words.
Argument By Personal Charm--- Getting the audience to cut you slack.
Appeal To Pity--- (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument) Some authors want you to know they're suffering for their beliefs. Or, that the question is personal.
Appeal To Force--- Threats, or even violence.
Begging The Question--- (Assuming The Answer, Tautology) Reasoning in a circle.
Stolen Concept--- Using what you are trying to disprove.
Argument From Authority--- (Appeal to Authority) The claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.
Argument From False Authority--- A strange variation on Argument From Authority.
Appeal To Anonymous Authority--- An Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named.
Appeal To Authority--- To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact quote within context.
Appeal To False Authority--- A variation on Appeal to Authority , but the Authority is outside his area of expertise.
Statement Of Conversion--- This is an implied Argument From Authority.
Bad Analogy--- Claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren't.
Extended Analogy--- The claim that two things, both analogous to a third thing, are therefore analogous to each other.
Reifying--- An abstract thing is talked about as if it were concrete.
False Cause--- Assuming that because two things happened, the first one caused the second one.
Causal Reductionism--- (Complex Cause) Trying to use one cause to explain something, when in fact it had several causes.
Cliche Thinking--- Using as evidence a well-known wise saying, as if that is proven, or as if it has no exceptions.
Exception That Proves The Rule--- This is used when a rule has been asserted, and someone points out the rule doesn't always work.
Appeal To Widespread Belief--- (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice) The claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it.
Fallacy Of Composition--- Assuming that a whole has the same simplicity as its constituent parts.
Fallacy Of Division--- Assuming that what is true of the whole is true of each constituent part.
Complex Question--- (Tying) Unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together.
Slippery Slope Fallacy--- (Camel's Nose) It is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.
Argument By Pigheadedness--- (Doggedness) Refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved.
Appeal To Coincidence--- Asserting that some fact is due to chance.
Argument By Repetition--- (Argument Ad Nauseam) If you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.
Argument By Half Truth--- (Suppressed Evidence) This is hard to detect, of course. You have to ask questions.
Argument By Selective Observation--- The enumeration of favorable circumstances, or counting the hits and forgetting the misses.
Argument By Selective Reading--- Making it seem as if the weakest of an opponent's arguments was the best he had.
Argument By Generalization--- Drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases.
Argument From Small Numbers--- This is Argument By Generalization, but it assumes that small numbers are the same as big numbers.
Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics--- This is the idea that things tend to go back to normal.
Inconsistency---Containing incompatible elements or illogical arguments
Non Sequential--- Something that just does not follow.
Meaningless Questions / Statements--- Irresistible forces meeting immovable objects.God knows your future, but you have free will.
Argument By Poetic Language--- If it sounds good, it must be right. Songs often use this effect to create a sort of credibility for example.
Argument By Slogan--- Being short, a slogan increases the effectiveness of Argument By Repetition. But slogans risk the Reductive Fallacy.
Argument By Prestigious Jargon--- Using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert. Why do people use "utilize" when they could utilize "use" ?
Argument By Gibberish--- (Bafflement) Gibberish may come from people who can't find meaning in technical jargon, so they think they should copy style instead of meaning.
Equivocation--- Using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different.
Euphemism--- The use of words that sound better.
Weasel Wording--- This is very much like Euphemism, except that the word changes are done to claim a new, different concept rather than soften the old concept.
Error Of Fact--- Typically, the presence of one error means that there are other errors to be uncovered.
Lies--- Intentional Errors of Fact.
Hypothesis Contrary To Fact--- Arguing from something that might have happened, but didn't.
Internal Contradiction--- Saying two contradictory things in the same argument.
Changing The Subject--- (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis) This is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid making good on a promise.
Having Your Cake--- (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim) Almost claiming something, but backing out.
Ambiguous Assertion--- A statement is made, but it is sufficiently unclear that it leaves some sort of leeway.
Failure To State--- If you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic.
Outdated Information--- Information is given, but it is not the latest information on the subject.
Amazing Familiarity--- The speaker seems to have information that there is no possible way for him to get, on the basis of his own statements.
Least Plausible Hypothesis--- Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations.
Argument By Scenario--- Telling a story which ties together unrelated material, and then using the story as proof they are related.
Affirming The Consequent--- Logic reversal.
Moving The Goalposts--- (Raising The Bar) Asking questions is easy.
Appeal To Complexity--- If the arguer doesn't understand the topic.
Common Sense--- There are a lot of issues where people disagree.
Argument By Laziness--- (Argument By Uninformed Opinion) The arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic.
False Compromise--- If one does not understand a debate, it must be "fair" to split the difference, and agree on a compromise.
