EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My … Thinking, Chapter 1 - Premise / Ultimate Conclusion...

Critical Thinking, Chapter 1 - Premise / Ultimate Conclusion Arguments Dona Warren

1

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My Answers

Exercises Aluminum 1) “Have you ever wondered whether or not recycling really matters? Rest assured that it’s important to recycle aluminum cans because if we don’t, the computers are going to collect that aluminum from landfills and use it to build an army of robots to take over the world.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “because.” I diagrammed and evaluated the passage as follows: 1. It’s important to recycle aluminum cans. 2. If we don’t recycle aluminum cans, the computers are going to collect that aluminum from landfills and use it to build an army of robots to take over the world. 2 A ☺ 1 The premise is bad because it’s false. The inference looks okay, though, because if Bob believed 2 he’d be very likely to believe 1. The good inference, however, is not enough to save the argument, which is bad because of the false premise. Because bad arguments can have true or false conclusions, this argument should have no effect upon our belief in the ultimate conclusion. 2) “The recycling of aluminum cans is crucial. Therefore it’s important to recycle them.” This passage does contain an argument.It uses the conclusion indicator expression “therefore.” I diagrammed and evaluated it as follows. 1. It’s important to recycle aluminum cans. 2. The recycling of aluminum cans is crucial. 2 A ☺! 1 The premise is bad because it can only be believed by people who already believe the ultimate conclusion, making the argument circular. The inference is perfect. If Bob believed 2, he’d be compelled to believe 1 since 1 just is the same as 2. he argument as a whole, however, is bad because of the question-begging premise. Because bad arguments can have true or false conclusions, this argument should have no effect upon our belief in the ultimate conclusion.


2

3) “Because aluminum can be shiny, it’s important to recycle aluminum cans. Start recycling today!” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “because.” I diagrammed and evaluated it as follows. 1. It’s important to recycle aluminum cans. 2. Aluminum can be shiny. 2 ☺ A 1 The premise of this argument is good. It’s true and it can be believed by someone who doesn’t already believe the ultimate conclusion. Unfortunately, the inference is bad - Bob can easily believe 2 without believing 1 - making the entire argument bad as well. Because bad arguments can have true or false conclusions, this argument should have no effect upon our belief in the ultimate conclusion. 4) “Aluminum is a limited and valuable natural resource. Therefore it’s important to recycle aluminum cans.” This passage contains an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “therefore.” I diagrammed it as follows: 1. It’s important to recycle aluminum cans. 2. Aluminum is a limited and valuable natural resource. 2 ☺ A ☺ ☺ 1 It seems to me that the premise is true. (Aluminum isn’t as valuable as gold, but it’s worth something, and presumably there’s only so much of it.) Now what about inference A? Given that Bob thinks aluminum is a limited and valuable natural resource, how likely will he be to believe that it’s important to recycle aluminum cans? I don’t think that Bob would be compelled to support recycling under those circumstances because (for instance) Bob could worry that the recycling process might use up more natural resources than it saves. Given this possibility, inference A isn’t valid. Nonetheless, I believe that Bob would be inclined to advocate recycling if he believes premise 1 because it’s reasonable to suppose that we should conserve limited and valuable things. This means that the inference is strong. Since the premise and the inference are both good, the argument as a whole is good as well. And because good arguments


3

must have true conclusions, this argument should lead us to believe that it’s important to recycle aluminum cans. 5) “Most cities have programs to facilitate the recycling of aluminum cans. In many cases, there are public drop-off canisters.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. Poodles 1) “Even though poodles are small, they can make a lot of noise and really annoy the neighbors.” This passage does not contain an argument. “Even though” is often mistaken for an inference indicator expression, because it seems to imply some connection between two ideas. However, the connection isn’t an inferential one. “Even though” implies that two ideas are contrasted, or opposed to another in some way, not that one idea makes the truth of the other more likely. 2) “Poodles often make crank calls. As a result, they can get annoying.” This passage does contain an argument. It contains the conclusion indicator expression “as a result.” I diagram and evaluate this argument as follows: 1. Poodles can get annoying. 2. Poodles often make crank calls.

2 ☺

1 The premise of this argument is bad because it’s false. The inference is strong because if Bob believed that Poodles often make crank calls, he’d probably believe that they can get annoying. The argument as a whole is bad because of the premise. Since a bad argument tells us nothing about the ultimate conclusion, we should neither believe nor disbelieve that poodles can get annoying on the basis of this argument. 3) “Poodles make great pets since they are delightful animal companions.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “since.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. Poodles make great pets. 2. Poodles are delightful animal companions.


4

2 ☺!

1 Although I think that this premise is true, it certainly assumes the conclusion. The only people who could believe 2 are people (like me) who already believe 1. Exactly because 2 assumes the truth of 1, if Bob believed 2 he’d be compelled to believe 1, which makes the inference is good. The entire argument is bad, however, because of the premise. Since this argument is bad, we should neither believe nor disbelieve that poodles make great pets on its basis. 4) “I had a poodle when I was growing up. His name was ‘Wiggles.’” This passage does not contain an inference indicator expression and does not contain an argument. 5) “Do you think that all dogs are messy? Poodles are clean. After all, they don’t shed.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “after all.” I diagram and evaluate this argument as follows: 1. Poodles are clean. 2. Poodles don’t shed.

2 ☺

1 The premise is good since it’s true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. The inference, however, is bad. Because shedding is not the only source of filth, Bob could believe 2 without believing 1, and this makes the argument bad. A bad argument tells us nothing about the ultimate conclusion, so we should neither believe nor disbelieve that poodles make great pets on the basis of this argument. 6) “Get out your check-book! Poodles are show-dogs. That’s why they can be expensive.” This passage contains an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “that’s why.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. Poodles can be expensive. 2. Poodles are show-dogs.

2 ☺ ☺ ☺

1


5

The premise is good because it’s both true and rationally acceptable to the argument’s audience. The inference is strong because if Bob believes 2 he’ll be likely to believe 1 as well. A good argument tells us that the conclusion is true, so we should believe that poodles can be pricey. 7) “Given that they are very small, toy poodles seldom kill anybody.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “given that.” I diagram and evaluate this argument as follows: 1. Toy poodles seldom kill anybody. 2. Toy poodles are very small.

2 ☺

1 The premise is good since it’s both true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. The inference, however, is bad. The flees that carried the plague were small. Thus, Bob could believe 2 without believing 1. Because this argument is bad, we should neither believe nor disbelieve that toy poodles seldom kill anybody on the basis of this argument. 8) “Some people make their poodles wear little outfits. Many poodles don’t appreciate this.” This passage does not contain an inference indicator expression and does not contain an argument. 9) “Some poodles like to fly. They sit in pet-carriers stowed underneath their owner’s airplane seat.”

This passage does not contain an inference indicator expression and does not contain an argument. 10) “Poodles can learn tricks, which implies that they’re very smart. Don’t you agree?”

This passage does contain an argument. It contains uses conclusion indicator expression “which implies that.” I diagram and evaluate this argument like so:

1. Poodles are very smart. 2. Poodles can learn tricks.

2 ☺

1


6

I think that the premise is okay.I’m not so sure about the inference. Is the conclusion talking about “Einstein smart” or “Waldo the Wonder Chicken” smart? Since this isn’t clear, I think that Bob would have some limited tendency to believe 1 on the basis of 2, but would entertain reservations about it as well. This is a mediocre argument. It may give us some reason to believe the ultimate conclusion, but we shouldn’t be entirely convinced. 11) “Pets can lower your blood pressure. It follows that poodle ownership should be encouraged among those at risk of heart-disease.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “it follows that.” I diagram and evaluate this argument as follows: 1. Poodle ownership should be encouraged among those at risk of heart-disease.” 2. Pets can lower your blood pressure.

2 ☺

1 I’m not a medical doctor, but I’ve heard that pets can lower your blood pressure, so I’ll grant it my provisional assent. The inference, however, is mediocre. Even if Bob believed 2, he could wonder about other possible problems with owning poodles. The argument is therefore mediocre. Because the argument is mediocre, it may give us some reason to believe the ultimate conclusion, but we shouldn’t be entirely convinced. 12) “Inasmuch as poodles are a domesticated breed, there are no packs of wild poodles.” This passage does contain an argument.It uses the reason indicator expression “inasmuch as.” I diagram and evaluate this argument like so: 1. There are no packs of wild poodles. 2. Poodles are a domesticated breed.

2 ☺

1 The premise is true and probably acceptable to the argument’s audience. But if Bob believed 2, I’m not sure he’d believe 1. Mightn’t some poodles have escaped and formed feral poodle packs? The entire argument, therefore, is not good. Because this argument isn’t good, we should neither believe nor disbelieve the ultimate conclusion on its basis.


7

13) “Many pets given as gifts during the holiday season get lost in the celebratory shuffle. Consequently, you shouldn’t give someone a poodle for Christmas, Hanukah or Kwanzaa. Remember that.” This is an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “consequently.” I diagram this argument as follows: 1. You shouldn’t give someone a poodle for Christmas, Hanukah or Kwanzaa. 2. Many pets given as gifts during the holiday season get lost in the celebratory shuffle.

2 ☺ ☺ ☺

1 The premise is true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. The inference is good because if Bob believed 2, he’d be likely to believe 1. This makes the argument good as a whole. Because this is a good argument, we should believe the conclusion of this argument. 14) “Many parents get poodles for their children, although it usually turns out that the parents do most of the work.” This passage does not contain an argument. Like “even though,” “although” is often mistaken for an inference indicator expression, because it seems to imply some connection between two ideas. But like “even though,” the connection implied by “although” isn’t an inferential one. “Although” implies that two ideas are contrasted, or opposed to another in some way, not that one idea makes the truth of the other more likely. 15) “Your poodle could be the reincarnation of your grandfather. Hence, you have certain obligations toward your dog.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “hence.” I diagram and evaluate this argument like so: 1. You have certain obligations toward your dog. 2. Your poodle could be the reincarnation of your grandfather.

2 ☺

1 I don’t know if the premise is true or not, but it certainly might not be rationally acceptable to the argument’s audience, so I’ll say that it’s mediocre at best. The inference is reasonably good since people who believe 2 will be inclined to believe 1. We should believe the ultimate conclusion on the basis of this argument only if we’re disposed to accept this assumption.


8

16) “Have you heard the news? When the house caught on fire, Fifi the poodle awakened the family and saved everyone’s life. Therefore, Fifi should get the Mayor’s Medal of Heroism.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “therefore.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. Fifi deserves the Mayor’s Medal of Heroism. 2. When the house caught on fire, Fifi the poodle awakened the family and saved everyone’s life.

2 ☺

1 Unless I have some reason to question an argument’s source, I usually accept the word of the author when it comes to premises like this, so I’ll grant the truth and acceptability of 2. The inference is dubious, though. Even if 2 is true, does 1 really follow? It wouldn’t be unreasonable for Bob to think that rewards should be species-specific. (You don’t praise a person by giving her a dog biscuit, after all, so maybe the Mayor’s medal isn’t the reward that Fifi deserves.) Since this argument is mediocre, I wouldn’t believe the conclusion on this basis. 17) “Just think about it for a minute. Because Fifi is just a dog, she can’t really be a hero.” This passage contains an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “because.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. Fifi can’t really be a hero. 2. Fifi is just a dog.

2 ☺

1 We can assume that the premise is true. (Of course, by saying that Fifi is just a dog, the author is implying that being a dog isn’t quite as good as being something else, but we can ignore that implication here and simply agree that Fifi is, in fact, a dog.) The inference in this argument, on the other hand, is very weak. Why can’t dogs be heroes? This is a bad argument, and so we should neither believer nor disbelieve that Fifi can be a hero on the basis of this argument. 18) “Give me a break! A hero is anyone who saves a life. This goes to show that Fifi is, indeed, a hero. Who could deny that?”


9

This passage does contain an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “this goes to show that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. Fifi is, indeed, a hero. 2. A hero is anyone who saves a life.

2 ☺

1 I don’t think that the premise is true. Would someone who accidentally saves a life in the course of committing a crime be a hero? We might accept the inference, assuming that the story about Fifi saving a life is treated as background knowledge, the sort of thing that Bob can be expected to know. But it doesn’t matter if the inference is good or bad, because the premise ruins the argument. Since this argument is bad, we don’t know, from this argument, whether or not Fifi is a hero. 19) “Some poodles awaken the family when a fire starts, but others just scamper out of the house and save their own fluffy hides.” This passage does not contain an argument. Like “even though,” and “although,” “but” is often mistaken for an inference indicator expression, because it seems to imply some connection between two ideas. But like “even though,” and “although,” the connection implied by “but” isn’t an inferential one. “But” implies that two ideas are contrasted, or opposed to another in some way, not that one idea makes the truth of the other more likely. 20) “Some poodles save themselves instead of their families, which means that some poodles are selfish little cowards.” This passage contains an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “which means that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. Some poodles are selfish little cowards. 2. Some poodles save themselves instead of their families.

2 ☺

1 I’ll bet that the premise is true, and I think it would be rationally acceptable to the argument’s audience. The inference, however, is horrid. It would be both harsh and unwarranted to conclude 1 from 2, and so the argument is bad. Because this is a bad argument, we shouldn’t believe or disbelieve that some poodles are selfish little cowards on its basis.


10

21) “It doesn’t make sense to apply our moral concepts to dogs. Thus, no poodle can really be a selfish coward.” This passage contains an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “thus.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. No poodle can really be a selfish coward. 2. It doesn’t make sense to apply our moral concepts to dogs.

2 ☺

1 I’m not so sure about this premise. Many people would think it’s true. Many others would think it’s false. For exactly this reason, we can’t assume that this premise is acceptable to the argument’s audience, making it a bad premise. The inference, however, is very strong. Because “coward” is a moral concept, if Bob believed 2 he’s be forced to believe 1. Because this argument is bad, we should form no opinion about the truth of its conclusion on the basis of this argument. 22) “If poodles can’t be heroes then they can’t be cowards either. The reason is that both heroism and cowardice are moral concepts.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “the reason is that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like so: 1. If poodles can’t be heroes then they can’t be cowards either. 2. Both heroism and cowardice are moral concepts.

2 ☺

1 The premise is true and probably acceptable to the argument’s audience. The inference, however, is mediocre. Bob could believe 2 and not quite believe 1. Couldn’t some, but not all, moral concepts apply to dogs? Because this is a mediocre argument, it may give us some reason to believe the ultimate conclusion, but we shouldn’t be entirely convinced. 23) “In view of the fact that our moral concepts don’t apply to dogs, the poodle that bit you isn’t really bad. Stop complaining.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “in view of the fact that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. The poodle that bit you isn’t really bad. 2. Our moral concepts don’t apply to dogs.


11

2 ☺

1 I’m unhappy with this premise. Many people would think it’s true. Many others would think it’s false. For exactly this reason, we can’t assume that this premise is acceptable to the argument’s audience, making it a bad premise. The inference, however, is very strong. Because “bad” is a moral concept, if Bob believed 2 he’s be forced to believe 1. Because this argument is bad, we should refrain from believing or disbelieving its conclusion on the basis of this argument. 24) “Assuming that the poodle that bit you isn’t really bad, you shouldn’t punish it.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the reason indicator expression “assuming that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. You shouldn’t punish the poodle that bit you. 2. The poodle that bit you isn’t really bad.

2

1 I’m not sure that the premise would be acceptable to the argument’s audience. I’m also not sure that the inference is good. Whether or not things that aren’t really bad should be punished depends upon your theory of punishment. As a bad argument, this shouldn’t affect our opinion about punishing the poodle one way or the other. 25) “Well-trained dogs are less likely to bite people, so you should take your poodle to obedience school.” This passage does contain an argument. It uses the conclusion indicator expression “so.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. You should take your poodle to obedience school. 2. Well-trained dogs are less likely to bite people.

2 ☺ ☺ ☺

1 Premise 2 is true an acceptable to the argument’s audience (assuming, as is reasonable, that we’re not talking about training a dog to bite). The inference is okay since Bob would be inclined to believe 1 on the basis of believing 2. The entire


12

argument, therefore, is good. Since this is a good argument, we should believe that we ought to take our poodles to obedience school. Extra-Terrestrial Life 1) “Many people believe in alien life and there is an apparently endless supply of videos on the subject. My best friend owns many of them, and they’re very funny.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 2) “There are videos about alien abductions and UFO sightings, which means that there must be life on other planets.” This is an argument, containing the conclusion-indicator expression “Which means that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. There must be life on other planets. 2. There are videos about alien abductions and UFO sightings.

2 ☺

1 It seems to me that the premise is okay, but the inference is pretty bad. Bob could easily believe that there are videos about alien abductions and UFO sightings without believing that those videos are about anything real. This bad inference makes the entire argument bad. Because bad arguments give us no information about the ultimate conclusion, we should neither believe nor disbelieve the ultimate conclusion on the basis of this argument. 3) “Many people believe in life on other planets, but many others don’t. Undoubtedly, your opinion about the existence of life on other planets will affect the way you view many things.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 4) “Since God created life on earth, we have reason to think that God could create life on other planets. Don’t be closed-minded.” This is an argument containing the reason-indicator expression “since.” I diagram and evaluate this argument like so: 1. God created life on earth. 2. God could create life on other planets.

2 ☺


13

1 Although the inference is good, I think (It seems to me that Bob would believe 1 if he believes 2), I’m not so sure about the premise. It might be true, but it probably isn’t the sort of thing we can expect everyone in the argument’s audience to accept. Because this argument is only mediocre, it doesn’t give us any compelling reason to believe the ultimate conclusion. Epistemology 1) “Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which considers questions related to knowledge, including ‘What is knowledge?’ and ‘What, if anything, can we know?’” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. It does, however, give us a basic understanding of epistemology. 2) “The only reason Linda believes that she’ll get the job is that her Magic 8 Ball told her so. It follows that she doesn’t really know that she’ll get the job.” This passage contains an argument. I can see this, in part, by noting the conclusion indicator expression, “It follows that.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. She doesn’t really know that she’ll get the job. 2. The only reason Linda believes that she’ll get the job is that her Magic 8 Ball told her so.

2 ☺ ☺ ☺

1 I think we can accept that the premise is okay. And the inference is strong because if Bob believes 2, he’ll believe 1. This means that the argument as a whole is good and we have good reason to believe that Linda doesn’t really know she’ll get the job. This argument shows us that in order for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be justified. If we believe something for crazy reasons, then even if the belief happens to be true, we’ll just have gotten lucky. Philosophers tend to think that knowledge shouldn’t be a matter of luck like this. 3) “Did anyone ever know that the earth is flat? Think about it for a minute. Since the earth isn’t flat, nobody can know that it is.” This passage contains an argument, using the reason-indicator expression “since.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument as follows:


14

1. Nobody can know that the earth is flat. 2. The earth isn’t flat.

2 ☺ ☺ ☺

1 The premise is okay (both true and acceptable to the argument’s audience). I also think that the inference is fine. I think that Bob will believe 1 if he believes 2, and if he understands what the word “know” means, from a philosophical point of view. (For philosophers, knowledge isn’t just a matter of believing something particularly strongly; instead, knowledge is justified, true belief. Even if we have good reasons to believe something, and even if we believe it quite intensely, if that belief turns out to be false, we didn’t have knowledge - although we probably thought we did). This means that the argument is good and we have good reason to believe that nobody can know that the earth is flat. 4) “Philosophers usually take knowledge to be justified true belief, even thought there is some reason to suppose that a belief can’t be justified and true without counting as knowledge. This passage doesn’t contain an argument. It does, however, allude to one important definition of knowledge: knowledge is justified true belief. Artificial Intelligence 1) “Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which considers the ultimate nature of reality. One of the issues examined by metaphysics is the nature of mind. What exactly is a mind? And could a computer ever have one?” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. It does, however, introduce us to an important subdiscipline of philosophy. 2) “If computers are ever able to think, we’ll have to consider whether or not we’re treating them ethically. Conceivably, computers could even strike for better wages.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 3) “Computers won’t ever be able to think. After all, nothing that’s just a physical thing will ever be able to think.” This passage contains the conclusion indicator expression “after all,” and is an argument. I’d diagram and evaluate it like this: 1. Computers won’t ever be able to think. 2. Nothing that’s just a physical thing will ever be able to think.


15

2

☺ 1

This argument depends upon a philosophy of mind known as dualism. Dualism maintains that minds are nonphysical. This has been an important position, although there are reasons to doubt its truth. How, for instance, is your mind supposed to interact with your body, if your mind is nonphysical and your body is physical. Because dualism is questionable, and because the premise is an expression, or consequence, of dualism, I don’t think the premise is very good. The inference is okay, because if Bob believed 2, he’d believe 1, but the argument as a whole is bad due to the premise, and gives us no reason to believe that computers won’t ever be able to think. 4) “Computers won’t have brains that evolved in response to environmental pressures. Hence, they won’t be able to think.” The passage contains an argument and uses the conclusion indicator expression “hence.” I’d diagram and evaluate it like this: 1. Computers won’t ever be able to think. 2. Computers won’t have brains that evolved in response to environmental pressures.

2 ☺

1 The premise here is okay, it seems to me, but I don’t see that the inference is good. Couldn’t Bob believe 2 and still think that computers might be able to think? Why should we suppose that only things that evolved in response to environmental pressures can think? The inference makes this argument bad, and so the argument gives us no reason to believe that the ultimate conclusion is true. 5) “Of course computer will be able to think. After all, eventually computers will be able to carry on a conversation indistinguishable from that of a human being.” This passage contains an argument, and uses the conclusion indicator expression “after all.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. Computers will be able to think. 2. Eventually computers will be able to carry on a conversation indistinguishable from that of a human being.

2


16

1 I’m not sure if 2 is true or false, so I’ll give it neither a smile nor a frown. The inference, however, is more interesting. It expresses, or depends on, the Turing Test, advanced by the logician Alvin Turing. The Turing Test is rather behaviorist in the sense that it identifies the possession of a mind with the exhibition of mind-like behaviors, such as conversation. Many people doubt the validity of the Turing Test, though, and if Bob is one of these people, he could believe 2 without believing 1. For this reason, I think that the inference is bad and the argument fails. This argument gives us no good reason to believe that computers will be able to think. The Existence of God 1) “As the branch of philosophy which considers the ultimate nature of reality, metaphysics is concerned with the existence of God. Does God exist? And if so, what is God like?” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. It does, however, acquaint us with metaphysics. 2) “Have you heard the news? God told Linda that he exists. It follows that God must exist.” This passage is an argument, containing the conclusion indicator expression “It follows that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like so: 1. God exists. 2. God told Linda that he exists.

2 ☺!

1 Can you see how this argument is circular? Only people who already believe that God exists will believe that God told Linda that he exists. Others will say that Linda had an auditory hallucination. This means that the premise is bad. The inference, of course, is fine. Exactly because believing 2 involves believing 1, anyone who believes 2 will believe 1. This doesn’t matter, however. The bad premise is enough to ruin the argument. The argument is bad and gives us no reason to believe that God exists.


17

3) “Sometimes people believe in God because they think that they’ve directly experienced him. There are many kinds of religious experiences, and the philosopher William James wrote a very interesting and influential book about them.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 4) “Fish have gills that enable them to breathe in the water. Giraffes have long necks that allow them to eat leaves in the trees. Isn’t this amazing?!” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 5) “Just look around you. The universe is very well ordered. This goes to show that God exists.” This passage contains an argument, using the conclusion indicator expression “this goes to show that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. God exists. 2. The universe is very well ordered. 2 ☺ A 1 This is a very simple version of the Teleological Argument for God’s existence, otherwise known as the Argument from Design. The teleological argument is one of the three major arguments for the existence of God. (The other two are the Cosmological and Ontological Arguments.) The problem with this version of the argument is that although the premise might be okay, the inference is weak. Couldn’t the universe be very well ordered for some other reason? This argument doesn’t give us good reason to believe that God exists. 6) “Have you ever wondered how the universe got started? You were caused by your parents, and your parents were caused by their parents. Scientists think that the universe was caused by the Big Bang, but have you ever wondered what caused the Big Bang?” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 7) “In view of the fact that there must have been a first cause to start the universe going, God must exist.” This argument contains an argument and uses the reason indicator expression “in view of the fact that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this:


18

1. God must exist. 2. There must have been a first cause to start the universe going.

2

1 This is a very simple version of the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence. The Cosmological Argument is one of the three major arguments for the existence of God. (The other two are the Teleological and Ontological Arguments.) The problem with this version of the argument is that both the premise and the inference are bad. Couldn’t the universe be eternal? And even if it did have a first cause, why does that first cause need to be God? This argument doesn’t give us good rason to believe that God exists. 8) “God is commonly considered to be a perfect being, all powerful, all knowing and all good. Historically, this idea of God comes from the attempt of the Catholic Church to incorporate ancient Greek philosophy.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 9) “Inasmuch as we have an idea of God as a perfect being, God must exist in actuality! Can you see why? Think about it for awhile.” This passage contains an argument, using the reason indicator expression “inasmuch as.” (It’s hard to see that this is an argument, perhaps, because so many steps are missing. There’s a lot that needs to be filled-in between “We have an idea of God as a perfect being,” and “God must exist.”) I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. God must exist in actuality. 2. We have an idea of God as a perfect being.

2 ☺

1 This is a very simple version of the Ontological Argument for God’s existence. The Ontological Argument is one of the three major arguments for the existence of God. (The other two are the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments.) The problem with this version of the argument is that even though the premise might be okay, the inference is weak. Why would the fact that we have an idea of a perfect being show that this being must actually exist? This argument gives us no reason to think that God exists.


19

10) “How can you believe in God in the face of all of the evil and suffering in the world? Since evil and suffering occur, God can’t possibly exist.” This passage contains an argument, using the reason indicator expression “since.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this:

2 ☺

1 This is a very simple version of the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is by far the most influential argument for atheism. The problem with this version of the argument is that although the premise is fine, the inference is weak. Why couldn’t God exist in the face of evil and suffering? 11) “Some people believe that they will be reincarnated after they die. Other people believe that they will go to Heaven or Hell.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 12) “There is no reason to believe that God exists. Therefore there is no reason to believe in life after death.” This passage contains an argument, using the conclusion indicator expression “therefore.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. There is no reason to believe in life after death. 2. There is no reason to believe that God exists.

2 ☺

1 It seems to me that the premise is bad; it might not be true and the argument’s audience might not have reason to think that it is. I also think that the inference is bad. Even if there aren't reason to believe that God exists, we might have reason to believe in some sort of “nontheistic” form of afterlife – like reincarnation. This argument shouldn’t convince us that we don’t have reason to believe in an afterlife. Ethical Theories 1) “We often make value judgments about actions, people, and things. We call some actions ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical.’ We call some people ‘virtuous’ or ‘vicious.” We praise some objects by calling them, ‘art.’ But what are we doing when we make such value judgments? And what is it about an action, person, or thing that makes it deserve a


20

particular assessment? These are some of the questions addressed by the philosophical subdiscipline of value theory.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. It does, however, introduce us to value theory, a major branch of philosophy. 2) “Only people who believe in God can be truly ethical, since morality depends upon religion. Remember that.” This passage contains an argument and uses the reason-indicator expression “since.” I diagram and evaluate this argument as follows: 1. Only people who believe in God can be truly ethical. 2. Morality depends upon religion.

2

1 I don’t think that the premise is good because I’m not sure it’s true. It also seems to me that the argument’s audience might not believe it, or have good reason to do so. Furthermore, I suspect that the inference is weak, although the problem there might be harder to see. I’m thinking about physics. Gravity depends upon the size of the masses involved, but it certainly isn’t the case that only people who believe that gravity depends upon mass can be bound by gravity. Mightn’t the same thing be true of the relationship between morality and religion? Because this argument is bad, it doesn’t give us reason to think that only people who believe in God can be truly ethical. 3) “Have you ever heard anyone say that only theists can be ethical? Don’t believe them! Many very ethical people don’t believe in God, so you don’t need to believe in God in order to be ethical.” This passage contains an argument and uses the conclusion-indicator expression “so.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. You don’t need to believe in God in order to be ethical. 2. Many very ethical people don’t believe in God.

2 ☺!

1 I think that this premise is bad because the only people who can believe it are people who already believe the ultimate conclusion. That very fact makes the inference good (If only people who believe 1 can believe 2 then anyone who believes 2 will believe 1) but


21

that doesn’t matter. The argument is still bad and gives us no reason to believe its ultimate conclusion. 4) “Fundamentally, everyone wants to be happy. Therefore, an action is ethically good if it maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people.” This passage contains an argument and uses the conclusion indicator expression “therefore.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. An action is ethical if it maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. 2. Everyone wants to be happy.

2

1 This argument gives us the beginnings of Utilitarianism, one of the two major ways of thinking about ethics. (The other is Deontology, or rule-based ethics.) I think that the premise and the inference in this argument are both subpar. Does everyone want to be happy? And even if everyone does want to be happy, why does it follow that the production of happiness is the source of moral value? What if everyone wanted power or wealth. Would it follow from that that action is ethical if it maximizes power or wealth? Surely not. Because this argument is bad, it gives us no reason to accept utilitarianism. 5) “In view of the fact that all rational beings value themselves as ends in themselves, we should treat all people as ends in themselves and never as means only.” This passage contains an argument and uses the reason indicator expression “in view of the fact that.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. We should treat all people as ends in themselves and never as means only. 2. All rational beings value themselves as ends in themselves.

2

1 This argument is loosely taken from Kant - one of the most important, and difficult, philosophers of the modern period - and it expresses his deontological, or rule-based, ethics. (Deontology is one of the two main ways of thinking about morality. Utilitarianism is the other.) There’s a lot to be said about Kant, but it’s enough for us to note that the premise and inference are both bad in this simplified argument. Is it really true that everyone value themselves as ends in themselves? And even if that is true, how does it prove that we


22

should never treat people exclusively as a means to our ends? This argument gives us no reason to believe that we should treat all people as ends in themselves and never as means only. Animal Rights 1) “Have you ever wondered if animals should have rights? They should have rights. The reason is that they are able to think.” This passage contains an argument, using the conclusion indicator expression “the reason is that.” I diagram and evaluate it like this: 1. Animals should have rights. 2. Animals are able to think.

2 ☺ ☺ ☺

1 It seems to me that the premise is true, and that most people have good reason to think that it’s true. Furthermore, it seems to me that the inference is good. Believing that animals can think gives us some reason to believe that they have rights – that we can’t treat them with complete disregard for their wellbeing. Because I think this is a good argument, I think it gives us good reason to think that animals have rights. 2) “Animals don’t have souls, which implies that they shouldn’t have rights.” This passage contains an argument, and uses the conclusion indicator expression “which implies that.” I diagram and evalaute this argument as follows: 1. Animals shouldn’t have rights. 2. Animals don’t have souls.

2

1 Personally, I’m not sure that the premise is true, and even if it is true, I’m not sure that the ultimate conclusion follows. Because I think this is a bad argument, I don’t believe that it gives us any reason to think that animals shouldn’t have rights. 3) “Animals shouldn’t have rights, assuming that they can’t vote.” This passage contains an argument and uses the reason indicator expression “assuming that.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. Animals shouldn’t have rights.


23

2. Animals can’t vote.

2 ☺

1 I think that the premise is fine: it’s true that animals (except for human animals) can’t vote and we can reasonably expect people to know this. The inference, however, is pretty bad. Mightn’t things that can’t vote have rights? Children can’t vote, but they have rights. Because this argument is bad (thanks to the inference) it doesn’t give us reason to believe that animals shouldn’t have rights. 4) “Descartes believed that animals were little automatons, or machines. This might not seem reasonable to us today.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument, although it does tell us about Descartes’ opinion of animals. Capital Punishment 1) “The death penalty has the potential to be an effective deterrent. As a result, we should have the death penalty.” This passage contains an argument, using the conclusion indicator expression “as a result.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument like so: 1. We should have the death penalty. 2. The death penalty has the potential to be an effective deterrent.

2 ☺

1 It seems reasonable to think that the death penalty has the potential to be an effective deterrent, whether or not it’s a deterrent now, so I’d say that the premise is okay. I’m less sure, however, about the inference. Is the fact that the death penalty has the potential to be effective deterrent enough to prove that we should have the death penalty? Presumably not. Torture has the potential to be a deterrent to, but this doesn’t mean we should implement it. Because this is a bad argument, it doesn’t give us reason to think that we should have the death penalty. 2) “Because the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, it should be abolished.” This passage contains an argument, using the reason indicator expression “because.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. The death penalty should be abolished.


24

2. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

2 ☺

1 I’m not sure the argument’s audience would believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, so I don’t think that this premise is good. The inference, however, is probably okay. If Bob believes that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, he’ll probably believe that the death penalty should be abolished. Because this argument isn’t good, it doesn’t give us reason to believe the ultimate conclusion. 3) “Different states have different policies toward the death penalty, and people who feel strongly about the death penalty sometimes consider this when they decide whether or not to take a job in a certain location.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. Censorship 1) “Censorship is the practice of suppressing ideas and images which are considered to be obscene, dangerous, offensive or otherwise objectionable.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. It simply gives a definition of censorship. 2) “The only alternative to censorship is a society without moral values. That’s why censorship is a necessary evil.” This passage contains an argument, using the conclusion indicator expression “that’s why.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument like so: 1. Censorship is a necessary evil. 2. The only alternative to censorship is a society without moral values.

2 ☺

1 It seems to me that the premise is false – Can’t a society without censorship be moral? – so I think that the premise is bad. The inference is fine, insofar as I suspect that anyone who believes 2 will justifiably believe 1, but that isn’t enough to save the argument. Because this argument is bad, it doesn’t give us good reason to think that the censorship is a necessary evil. 3)“Since the free-exchange of ideas is necessary if the best ideas are going to flourish, censorship dooms a society to intellectual mediocrity.”


25

This passage contains an argument and uses the reason indicator expression “since.” I diagram and evaluate the argument as follows: 1. Censorship dooms a society to intellectual mediocrity. 2. The free-exchange of ideas is necessary if the best ideas are going to flourish.

2 ☺

1 What do you think of premise 1? Is it true? Does the argument’s audience have good reason to believe it? I’m not sure, so I’ll give it a straight face. What do you think of the inference? It looks pretty good to me. If 2 is true, it seems as though 1 would follow. Because this argument is mediocre, it gives us some, but not decisive, reason to believe the ultimate conclusion. Critical Thinking 1) “Critical thinking classes try to teach the basic thinking skills that are common to most disciplines. Some colleges require everyone to take a critical thinking class.” This passage doesn’t contain an argument. 2) “Critical thinking teaches people how to think more clearly. Hence, it won’t affect anyone’s emotional life.” This passage contains an argument, using the conclusion indicator expression “hence.” I’d diagram and evaluate the argument like this: 1. Critical thinking won’t affect anyone’s emotional life. 2. Critical thinking teaches people how to think more clearly.

2 ☺

1 I think that the premise is true and acceptable to most people, so I think that the premise is fine. The inference, however, is questionable at best. According to some versions of psychotherapy, many distressing emotions are caused by distorted thought patterns. Presumably, then, we can feel better by thinking better. Because this argument is bad, it doesn’t give us reason to believe that the ultimate conclusion is true. 3) “Not all important questions can be answered logically. Therefore, logic isn’t important.” This passage contains an argument and uses the conclusion-indicator expression “therefore.” I diagram and evaluate the argument like this:


26

1. Logic isn’t important. 2. Not all important questions can be answered logically.

2 ☺

1 I’m willing to grant that the premise is okay: both true and acceptable to the argument’s audience. But the inference isn’t. Just because some questions can’t be answered logically, it doesn’t mean that logic isn’t important. We can’t drive from New York to England, either. That doesn’t mean that cars aren’t important. Logic isn’t important because it can do everything. It’s important because it can do many things. Since this argument is bad, it doesn’t give us reason to doubt the importance of logic. Questions 1) Truth vs. Reason to Believe: If an argument has premises that are actually true, but that are not believed by the audience, then that argument might establish the truth of the ultimate conclusion even though it doesn’t give its audience good reason to believe that the ultimate conclusion is true. If an argument has premises that the actually false, but that are believed (with good reason) by the audience to be true, then the argument might give its audience good reason to believe that the ultimate conclusion is true even thought it doesn’t establish that the conclusion actually is true. I think that the primary goal of an argument is to establish that its conclusion is actually true. Convincing its audience that its conclusion is true is still a legitimate goal, but a secondary one. Accordingly, I think that problems with an argument which prevent it from proving its conclusion (for example, false premises) are more serious than problems with an argument that prevent it from persuading its audience (for example, premises that are true but not believed), although ideally an argument should be free from either kind of problem. 2) Evaluating Premises: the Three Questions I) Suppose that we’re on a jury, and a witness for the defense claims to have seen the defendant at a location distant from the crime at the time that the crime was taking place. It would be reasonable for us to conclude that the defendant didn’t commit the crime. Now suppose that the witness was simply mistaken; she didn’t see the defendant at all, but somebody else who happened to resemble the defendant. The defense’s argument rests upon a false premise, so it can’t establish that the defendant didn’t commit the crime. II) Suppose that we’re on a jury, and a witness for the defense claims to have seen the defendant at a location distant from the crime at the time the crime was taking


27

place. And this time suppose that the witness is absolutely right. As a matter of fact, the defendant was sitting with her at the movies at the time of the robbery. This proves that the defendant could not have been the man in the mask at the bank. But now suppose that we don’t believe this witness. We suspect her of lying, of being involved in the crime herself or, at the very least, of protecting her friend. Although the defense’s argument has succeeded in establishing that the defendant is innocent, it hasn’t succeeded in getting us to believe that the defendant is innocent. III) Suppose that we’re on a jury, and a witness for the defense claims to have seen the defendant at a location distant from the crime at the time the crime was taking place. And suppose that the witness is absolutely right. As a matter of fact, the defendant was sitting with her at the movies at the time of the robbery. This proves that the defendant could not have been the man in the mask at the bank. Furthermore, suppose that we believe this witness, thereby believing that the defendant wasn’t at the bank when it was robbed. So far so good, we have, on the basis of the defense argument, acquired a true belief. But now suppose that the prosecution demonstrates that the defense witness has a generally questionable character. She has a criminal history herself and has lied on the stand in the past. There is no reason to think that she isn’t lying now, and, indeed, her friendship with the defendant and her possible role in the crime would give her some motivation to lie about his whereabouts. In the jury room, however, we decide that we believe this witness anyway. She was so well dressed. Her grammar was impeccable. She reminds us of our first-grade teacher, so we simply believe what she says and conclude that the defendant is innocent. What should people think about us, if they learned why we trusted the witness and why we acquitted the defendant? It seems to me as though they would be correct to conclude that we did something wrong, or intellectually sub-standard. Because we didn’t have any good reason to believe that the defense witness was telling us the truth, we didn’t have any good reason to think that defendant was innocent. 3) Evaluating Inferences: Validity a) “If elephants can fly then pigs can fly. Elephants can fly. Therefore pigs can fly.” Here’s why this argument is valid. Remember, “an argument is valid if and only if it’s impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.” So, can the premises (“If elephants can fly then pigs can fly,” and “Elephants can fly,”) be true and the conclusion (“Pigs can fly,”) false? Well, if the premises were true and the conclusion false, we’d have a situation where, i) if elephants can fly then pigs can too, ii) elephants can fly, but iii) pigs can’t fly. But this is impossible, so the premises of this argument can’t be true while the conclusion is false and this argument is valid. b) “Elephants can fly and elephants can’t fly. Therefore pigs can fly.” Here’s why this argument is valid. Remember, “an argument is valid if and only if it’s impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.” So, can the premise (“Elephants can fly and elephants can’t fly,”) be true and the conclusion (“Pigs can fly,”) false? No, because the premise can’t be true at all! It’s a contradiction. So the premises of this argument can’t be true while the conclusion is false and this argument is valid. Tricky, eh?


28

c) “Elephants can fly. Therefore either pigs can fly or pigs can’t fly.” Answer. Here’s why this argument is valid. Remember, “an argument is valid if and only if it’s impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.” So, can the premise (“Elephants can fly,”) be true and the conclusion (“Either pigs can fly or they can’t fly”) false? No, because the conclusion can’t be false at all! It’s a truth of logic, or a “tautology.” So the premises of this argument can’t be true while the conclusion is false and this argument is valid. Clever! 4) Conclusions of Good Arguments a) The “Opponents Can Make Good Points” Objection: In real life, there are arguments that I think are good even though I don’t believe the conclusion. If I’m talking with someone who disagrees with me about the death penalty, for example, I can see where that person is coming from, and acknowledge that he makes some good points, even though I continue to disagree with him. So isn’t this a case where I can think that an argument is good but still not believe the ultimate conclusion? In many ways, this is my favorite objection, because it shows that the person who levels it is doing something importantly right: she’s looking for the good points in her opponent’s position. This is definitely a practice to be encouraged! However, it’s one thing to think that someone who disagrees with you is making some good points and it’s another to think this person is leveling a good argument. You can (and should) note points of agreement between yourself and someone who disagrees with you. And you can (and should) note when someone who disagrees with you is thinking rationally based on his or her starting assumptions. But all this is consistent with thinking that the argument your opponent advances is in some way flawed – perhaps through no fault of her own. I, for example, happen to be opposed to the death penalty. There are people I respect and know well who disagree with me. We agree about many things relating to the death penalty. We agree that it’s important to protect society from certain individuals, for example, and that nobody should be made to suffer needlessly. I can acknowledge these many points of agreement while being aware that we differ on other points; I, for example, think that the death penalty is not necessary to protect society, and some people who support the death penalty disagree with me on that. So I can say to myself “This person shares many of my assumptions, or premises, but doesn’t share others. And given the premises he holds, his view about the death penalty is exactly the one he should have.” This isn’t thinking that the person is giving a good argument, though. Because I think that some of his premises are false (I don’t think that the death penalty is necessary to protect society) I don’t think that the argument is good, although I can see why he might think that it’s good and why the premises look good to him. I can, so to speak, have empathy for the argument without endorsing it. b) The “I Can’t Find the Problem” Objection: I’ve seen arguments for ultimate conclusions that I think are false but I haven’t been able to find anything wrong with the arguments. Sometimes, for example, I talk to someone who disagrees with me about


29

the existence of God. I can’t find anything wrong with her arguments, but I don’t change my mind to agree with her conclusion about God. So isn’t this a case where I can think that an argument is good but still not believe the ultimate conclusion? This is a very good objection because it draws our attention to an important, but little-appreciated and under-discussed, fact of our intellectual lives: sometimes someone presents us with a case, or argument, for a position and we just don’t buy the conclusion, even though we can’t identify anything wrong with the argument itself. This is especially true, I think, with fairly abstract matters. Someone might present us with an argument against free-will, for example, and we might continue to believe in free-will even though we can’t find anything wrong with the argument against it. What are we to make of this? In particular, is this a case where we think that an argument is good even though we disagree with the ultimate conclusion of the argument? I don’t think so. What’s going on in a case like this, it seems to me, is that we think there’s a problem with the argument even though we can’t put our finger on it. Something, we feel, is going wrong somewhere. We’re being tricked, bamboozled, perhaps by someone enormously clever who’s constructed a very tricky argument containing a problem that we can’t find. And sometimes this is exactly the thing we should think. If we have greater confidence in the falsity of the conclusion than we do in the goodness of the argument, then we should think that there’s something wrong with the argument even if we can’t find the problem ourselves. Naturally, if persistent efforts on our part and on the parts of others fail to expose the weakness in the argument we might be forced to reconsider our conviction that the conclusion is the false, but we don’t need to think that an argument is good simply because we can’t, right away, find the problem with it. If you present me with a very clever argument for the conclusion that I am actually a robot, I have very good cause to think that there’s something wrong with you argument even if I can’t immediately isolate the flaw in your reasoning. I am not a robot, after all, so if you have an argument to show that I am, there must be a mistake in it somewhere. c) The “Don’t Tell me What to Think” Objection: I don’t like being told what I should believe. If I accept that I should believe the conclusions of good arguments, doesn’t that mean that someone else will be telling me what to believe? No. It’s not as though someone else is assessing the arguments and telling you what to believe. You are assessing the arguments and deciding, on the basis of your assessment, what to believe, so there’s no coercion here. d) The “I Don’t Know / Maybe I’m Wrong” Objection: Sometimes I don’t know if an argument is good or bad. And what if I think that an argument is good or bad, and it turns out that I’m wrong? Ignorance and error are our lot. Sometimes we don’t know if an argument is good or bad, in which case we might not know if we should believe the conclusion. Sometimes we might think we know, adjust our beliefs accordingly, and find our later that we’re wrong.


30

All this is okay. Being rational isn’t a matter of having a beliefs about everything, and it’s not about being right. It’s a matter of thinking as well as you can on the basis of the evidence you have. Put otherwise, it’s a matter of having your beliefs, be they true or false, fit with each other. This means that you can be wrong and rational as long as your mistakes “match,” so to speak. If you think that an argument is good, but it isn’t, you’re mistaken. If you conclude from this mistake that the ultimate conclusion is true, you might be mistaken again. Big deal. Given your first mistake you would be to blame if you didn’t make the second! You can’t be held responsible for having false beliefs, since the truth or falsity of a belief can depend upon facts to which you might not have access. You can only be held responsible for how well you reason given your beliefs. 5) Common mistakes when it comes to evaluating arguments

“Do you think that drugs should be legalized? Drug use will probably hurt society. That’s why it should be illegal. Vote for tough drug laws.” 1. Drug use should be illegal. 2. Drug use will probably hurt society. 2

A 1

a) “I don’t think that drug use should be illegal, but I guess it’s a pretty good argument.” Can you tell what’s wrong with this argument evaluation? As we’ve seen, a good argument must have a true conclusion, so if the evaluator thinks that the argument is good then she should agree with the ultimate conclusion, too. It doesn’t make sense to say “I think that this is a good argument but I don’t believe the conclusion.” Actually, the person who gave this evaluation is probably trying to be polite, disagreeing with the conclusion while acknowledging that people who advance this argument aren’t immoral, ignorant or feeble-minded. Let me be clear and emphatic: It’s good to be polite! We just need to make sure that we politely object to the argument whenever we politely disagree with the conclusion. For instance, this person could have said “I don’t think that drug use should be illegal, but I can understand why some people think that it should be. Looking at this argument, I guess I just don’t think that we should make laws against everything that can harm people, so that’s why I’m not persuaded.” That’s polite. b) “I think this is a bad argument! The world would be better off if drugs were legalized.”

Can you see what’s going wrong here? If not, ask yourself “What part of the argument is this evaluation discussing?” It’s evaluating the conclusion. And, as we’ve seen, an evaluation of an argument is not the same thing as an evaluation of the ultimate conclusion. In fact, we should never evaluate the ultimate conclusion when


31

evaluating the argument; any evaluation of an argument should stem from only from an assessment of its premises and inferences. c) “This is a bad argument because it tries to tells me how to vote and that makes it sound really pushy.”

Take a moment to compare this objection both to the original passage and to the diagram of the argument. Do you see how it focuses on aspects of the argument that appear in the passage but not in the diagram? This means that the objection centers on rhetorical features that vanish when the argument is diagrammed. Since the evaluation should focus on the diagram, those rhetorical features can’t make the argument good or bad, although they may affect how well the argument is written. d) “This is a bad argument because it doesn’t give me any facts. It’s just the author’s opinion that drug use will probably hurt society.”

This evaluation criticizes the premise, which is a good place to look for problems in an argument. Unfortunately, the way that it criticizes the premise is bad. This evaluation takes the author to task for trafficking in opinion rather than fact, but if “fact” means “scientifically established truth,” then many good and interesting arguments don’t deal with facts. In particular, since facts and values might be different things, there’s reason to think that most of the arguments concerning ethics won’t deal with facts. Nonetheless, arguments about ethics can be good arguments, so good arguments don’t need to deal with facts.

e) “This is a bad argument because it uses the word “probably,” which weakens the premise.”

People often criticize arguments for using qualifications like “probably” and “many.” Ironically, people also criticize arguments for using unqualified expressions, like “certainly” and “all.” In fact, it’s okay to use both kinds of terms because we want our premises to be true. Sometimes, all we can truthfully say is that something is probably the case or that many members of a group have a certain property. Sometimes we can truthfully say that something is certainly the case or that all members of a group have a certain property. All we need to ask ourselves when evaluating a premise is “Is this premise true and acceptable to the argument’s audience?” We don’t need to worry about the strength of what’s asserted, or whether it uses words like “probably.” f) “This is a bad argument because it’s totally one-sided and doesn’t talk about why it might be good idea to legalize drugs.”

This objection is absolutely correct in thinking that we should be fair, but

mistaken, I think, in its assessment of what being fair involves. Arguments, in particular, are neither fair nor unfair. They’re only good or bad. And in order to be good, an argument only needs to prove that it’s own side is true. It doesn’t need to address the opposing point of view.


32

Fairness enters the picture when we’re trying to decide what to believe, what conclusion to argue for. When making up our minds about an issue, it’s a good idea to examine arguments on all sides and then adopt the position that’s supported by the best reasoning.

Fairness is also an important consideration when we’re writing position papers. For our purposes, a position paper will be anything, from a letter to the editor to a doctoral dissertation, that contributes to an on-going debate or conversation. In that case, it’s important to address relevant competing views in addition to building your own case.

EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My … Thinking, Chapter 1 - Premise / Ultimate Conclusion...

Documents

Transcript of EXERCISES, QUESTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES My … Thinking, Chapter 1 - Premise / Ultimate Conclusion...