Lecture Six (Chapter Five)
ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION:
An argument is basically a bunch of premises that support a conclusion. We turn to
some techniques for reconstructing an argument; for taking a piece of prose. Text,
speech and putting it into standard form. We do this to help us to understand our own
views on the topic and our main goal is not to win arguments but to discuss the truth.
Example of a standard form inductive argument:
1. Most politicians are talented communicators.
2. Donald Trump is a politician.
Therefore, probably
3. Donald Trump is a talented communicator. (from 1,2)
PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY:
The principle of charity states that basically don't twist other people’s words (either for
the better or for the worse), basically misrepresenting someone's view and what
someone is saying. What you need to DO is be fair when you express somebody’s
position.
In simpler 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
Slightly more technically:
The principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational
way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible
interpretation.
PC: When reconstructing an argument, try to formulate a reconstruction that is
WELL-FORMED, has premises that are reasonable/justified/rational, for the
author/speaker, and (in the case of inductive arguments) that is UNDEFEATED.
Basically making the arguments as STRONG as possible and consistent with what you,
upon careful and fair-minded reflection, take to be the author or speaker’s intention.
, HOW TO RECOGNIZE ARGUMENTS:
- Look for a conclusion ( a statement that is being supported), and look for
premises (the statements offering support). You have to think about whether the
author is trying to get you to believe something by giving you reasons in support
of it. If yes, then it is an argument and if no, then it is not an argument.
- Some contrasts are that are NOT arguments:
(1) descriptive writing: example I ate a pig today
(2) Rhetorical writing: this merely asserts one or more conclusions without offering
reasons. If someone says I believe in god without actually providing reasons. This is
more of an opinion and not an argument. Another example: “We ought to build a bridge
over the river. And we should limit the cars that go on it. And let's fix the park while we
are at it.
Note: it is okay if an argument has the conclusion first and to have one premise and one
conclusion in one sentence. These are still considered arguments. Additionally, a long
text or speech might well contain all three kinds of writing. Our goal here however is to
ignore everything else and focus on the argument only.
We need to separate the noise and only focus on the argument. We do that by
identifying the conclusion first:
TECHNIQUES FOR IDENTIFYING CONCLUSIONS:
(1) Try to ignore non-argumentative material (such as descriptive writing and
rhetorical writing).
(2) Remember that any proposition, on any topic, expressed by any person, at any
time can be a conclusion.
(3) Ask yourself: what's the overall point of the (argumentative portion of the)
text/speech? That will likely be the main conclusion.
Be careful when a person starts with the common expression
- “My argument is that..”
- “I would argue that..”
Most of the time, what comes next is not an argument at all- its most likely the
conclusion.
(4) Remember that one text/speech may well contain
- Several independent arguments
- Sub-arguments
ARGUMENT RECONSTRUCTION:
An argument is basically a bunch of premises that support a conclusion. We turn to
some techniques for reconstructing an argument; for taking a piece of prose. Text,
speech and putting it into standard form. We do this to help us to understand our own
views on the topic and our main goal is not to win arguments but to discuss the truth.
Example of a standard form inductive argument:
1. Most politicians are talented communicators.
2. Donald Trump is a politician.
Therefore, probably
3. Donald Trump is a talented communicator. (from 1,2)
PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY:
The principle of charity states that basically don't twist other people’s words (either for
the better or for the worse), basically misrepresenting someone's view and what
someone is saying. What you need to DO is be fair when you express somebody’s
position.
In simpler 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
Slightly more technically:
The principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational
way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible
interpretation.
PC: When reconstructing an argument, try to formulate a reconstruction that is
WELL-FORMED, has premises that are reasonable/justified/rational, for the
author/speaker, and (in the case of inductive arguments) that is UNDEFEATED.
Basically making the arguments as STRONG as possible and consistent with what you,
upon careful and fair-minded reflection, take to be the author or speaker’s intention.
, HOW TO RECOGNIZE ARGUMENTS:
- Look for a conclusion ( a statement that is being supported), and look for
premises (the statements offering support). You have to think about whether the
author is trying to get you to believe something by giving you reasons in support
of it. If yes, then it is an argument and if no, then it is not an argument.
- Some contrasts are that are NOT arguments:
(1) descriptive writing: example I ate a pig today
(2) Rhetorical writing: this merely asserts one or more conclusions without offering
reasons. If someone says I believe in god without actually providing reasons. This is
more of an opinion and not an argument. Another example: “We ought to build a bridge
over the river. And we should limit the cars that go on it. And let's fix the park while we
are at it.
Note: it is okay if an argument has the conclusion first and to have one premise and one
conclusion in one sentence. These are still considered arguments. Additionally, a long
text or speech might well contain all three kinds of writing. Our goal here however is to
ignore everything else and focus on the argument only.
We need to separate the noise and only focus on the argument. We do that by
identifying the conclusion first:
TECHNIQUES FOR IDENTIFYING CONCLUSIONS:
(1) Try to ignore non-argumentative material (such as descriptive writing and
rhetorical writing).
(2) Remember that any proposition, on any topic, expressed by any person, at any
time can be a conclusion.
(3) Ask yourself: what's the overall point of the (argumentative portion of the)
text/speech? That will likely be the main conclusion.
Be careful when a person starts with the common expression
- “My argument is that..”
- “I would argue that..”
Most of the time, what comes next is not an argument at all- its most likely the
conclusion.
(4) Remember that one text/speech may well contain
- Several independent arguments
- Sub-arguments
