Module 1 - 2

Question 1

What are QUOTATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS?

Answer 1

Sometimes a discourse can look like it contains
an argument when it is actually just describing
or quoting an argument.

This is the case where someone DOESN’T actually
ARGUE FOR A CONCLUSION BUT MERELY QUOTES OR DESCRIBES SOMEONE’S ELSE’S REASONING.

“author is merely telling us what Descartes said, not
arguing that Descartes was right when he said it”.

Question 2

Endorsing or using an argument …

Answer 2

author is endorsing Descartes’ original argument, that is, using Descartes’ original reasoning in order to argue the case himself.

— common fault in writing is not making clear whether you’ve just recounting what someone said or endorsing it too

Question 3

Explanations vs reasoning

Answer 3

Govier is right that there is an important distinction
between the two, but sometimes it is difficult to apply in practice.

The kinds of methods which we’ll be teaching you for
understanding and evaluating arguments will also work for explanations.

Question 4

Explanations vs reasoning …example and understanding

Answer 4

Since John suffered brain damage he finds fine control of his movements impossible.

What does this sentence say?

1. From the time that John suffered brain damage he has
   found fine control of his movements impossible.

Or

2. Because John suffered brain damage, he finds fine
   control of his movements impossible.

(i) John finds fine control of his movements
impossible because he suffered brain damage.
And

(ii) John has suffered brain damage; so he will
find fine control of his movements impossible.

(i) involves explanation of an acknowledged fact;

(ii) justification of a conclusion which the argument is meant to establish.

The distinction is genuine, and often the decision
between explanation and argument is easy.

For example, this sentence:
The cause of John’s lack of fine control of his
movements is brain damage.
doesn’t even look like reasoning, but it clearly offers and explanation, like this:

John lacks fine control of his movements. This is
explained by the fact that he has suffered brain
damage

Question 5

What are Conditional Sentences?

Answer 5

Conditional sentences have the form:

IF X, THEN Y. If X,

Where the X and Y indicate where statements go, as in
this example:
‘If he is at home, then the light will be on.’

— might be tempted to think that conditional sentences are themselves arguments: with this one, we seem to argue from his being at home to the light being on.

BUT CONDITIONAL SENTENCES ARE NOT ARGUMENTS.

Question 6

Why is a conditional sentence NOT
an argument?

Answer 6

In an argument, a justification is offered for a
conclusion, and both justification and conclusion are asserted (declared to be true)

Whereas

in a conditional, only the CONDITIONAL AS A WHOLE conditional as a whole is
asserted, not its components.

Question 7

explaining conditionals…

Answer 7

Remember compound statements?

Conjunction and disjunction, which use ‘and’ and
‘or’ to make the compounds.

CONDITIONALS ARE A THIRD WAY OF FORMING A COMPOUND STATEMENT, BY CONNECTING 2 SIMPLE STATEMENT WITH THE WORDS ‘IF’ AND ‘THEN’.

Question 8

CONDITIONALS …ANTECEDENT AND CONSEQUENT…

Answer 8

The bits after the ‘if’ and the ‘then’ are called the
antecedent and the consequent, so that the general form of a conditional is:

IF (ANTECEDENT), THEN (CONSEQUENT).

Thus, in our example the antecedent is ‘he is at home’
and the consequent is ‘the light will be on’.

—– In everyday English the word ‘then’ is often omitted,
and so is the comma, as in:
If he’s at home the light will be on.

Question 9

Conjunctions..AND Conditionals

Answer 9

conjunction, where the general form is: X & Y.

For instance: Grandad cooks the children’s pets and Grannie eats them.

Someone who declares this conjunction to be true, is asserting both

Conjunct 1: Grandad cooks the pets.
AND

Conjunct 2: Grannie eats the pets.

FOR THE WHOLE CONJUNCTION TO BE TRUE, EACH OF THE CONJUNCTS MUST BE TRUE INDEPENDENTLY.

Question 10

Conjunctions are similar to
arguments…

Answer 10

Someone who says: ‘Grandad cooks the pets, so
Grannie eats them.’…
is also asserting that both of the statements which
make up the argument are TRUE.

She is doing more than this, of course: she is saying
that there is a connection between them.

BUT as well as saying that there is a connection
between them, she’s saying that both elements of the
compound are true

Question 11

Conjunctions are NOT SO SIMILAR for conditionals…

Answer 11

Now both conjunctions and arguments are quite
different in this respect from conditionals.

What is asserted by someone who says this?

If Grandad cooks the pets, then Grannie eats them.

The person who says this has not said that Grannie eats the pets, nor has she said that Grandad cooks them.

The word ‘if’ cancels the assertion of the components;
ONLY THE CONDITIONAL AS A WHOLE IS ASSERTED.

Question 12

Conditionals allow us to consider….

Answer 12

Conditionals allow us to consider situations when we don’t know whether they exist or not, or even when we do know that they don’t exist.

So we may say, not knowing just where the Vice-Chancellor is just at the moment:

If the Vice-Chancellor is not in her office, she is at the Uni Club.

We can’t infer from this statement alone that the Vice-Chancellor is at the Club. To be able to do that, we’d need the further
information that she wasn’t in her office.

And the whole undivided statement could be true even if the ViceChancellor is in her office.

(It would be true, for example, if the Vice-Chancellor divides her
mornings between office and Club.)

Question 13

Conditionals are NOT arguments

Answer 13

Or again, knowing perfectly well that Germany did invade the Soviet Union and probably lost the second world war in consequence, we may still seriously claim:
If Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union, then she would have won the second World War.

So: IN CONDITIONALS - 2 COMPONENTS ARE “INDIVISIBLE” AS FAR AS ASSERTION GOES — YOU CANT’T DETACH THE CONSEQUENT ANS MAINTAIN IT ON YOUR OWN.

But in ARGUMENTS, THE COMPONENTS ARE SEPARATELY ASSERTED, AND THE CONCLUSION “CAN BE MAINTAINED ON ITS OW.

SINGLE CONDITIONALS ARE NOT ARGUMENTS.

Question 14

FACTORS THAT CAN MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS AN ARGUMENT WHEN THERE ISN’T.

Answer 14

1. Quotations and Descriptions
2. Endorsing or using an argument.
3. Explanations vs reasoning
4. Conditional sentences

Question 15

What are Modal expressions?

Answer 15

1. The presence in arguments of what are called ‘modal expressions’ can also lead you to make mistakes about
   what a particular argument actually shows.
2. They can lead you to suppose that reasoning is present when it isn’t.
3. Modal expressions are things like: ‘must’, ‘necessarily’,
   ‘possibly’, ‘may’, ‘can’, ‘must not’, ‘cannot’, ‘may not’,
   ‘probably’, and so on.
4. You can probably see the family resemblance among
   these words.

Question 16

Modal expressions are used…3

Answer 16

1. To say that certain statements are necessarily true or necessarily false.
2. To make statements concerning capacities
   and opportunities.
3. To act as inference indicators.

Question 17

Explain MODAL EXPRESSIONS…

1. To express necessary truth.

Answer 17

Here are some examples of necessary truth:

• A very young dog is a puppy
• A human being CANNOT BE in two places at the same time
• Different colours NECESSARILY exclude each
  other from the same area

Capitalised the modal expressions which
DRAWS ATTENTION TO THE NECESSITY.

Question 18

UNDERSTANDING Necessary truth…

Answer 18

Here’s another example of a necessary truth: 3 + 4 = 7

Again, it doesn’t just HAPPEN to be true. It HAS to be that way. 3 + 4 couldn’t possibly equal anything else.

So, the statement ‘3 + 4 = 7’ is necessarily true.

This necessity can be expressed in various ways:
* NECESSARILY, 3 + 4 = 7
* 3 and 4 MUST equal 7
* 3 and 4 HAVE TO BE 7
* The sum of 3 and 4 CANNOT be other than 7
* The sum of 3 and 4 CAN’T be other than 7

Question 19

Understanding Necessity and contingency

Answer 19

1. Now, to understand what “necessary” truths are, you have to understand what
2. they’re CONTRASTED WITH, and that is ‘contingent truths’.
3. NECESSARY TRUTH =is a true statement which couldn’t
   possibly have been false.
4. A CONTINGENT TRUTH= is a true statement which is, as a
   matter of fact, true, but could possibly have been false.

Similarly, there are
5. NECESSARY FALSEHOODS , things that COULDN’T POSSIBLY have BEEN TRUE,

as opposed to
6. CONTINGENT FALSEHOODs, things which AREN’T TRUE BUT which MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

Question 20

Examples of Contingent truths

Answer 20

• English is the international language of air traffic control.
• The Vice-Chancellor of The University of Western Australia is male.
• There wasn’t an earthquake in Perth yesterday

Question 21

examples of Necessary falsehoods

Answer 21

• 17 is greater than 21.
• Fish are mammals.
• Biological parents are younger than their children

Question 22

Examples of Contigent Falsehoods

Answer 22

• Apples are not grown in Tasmania.
• Australia’s smallest coin is now the $5 piece.
• Mozart composed his best music after the age of 50.

Question 23

Understanding Statements concerning capacities and opportunities.

Answer 23

The second use of modal expressions is to ALLOQ US TO MAKE STATEMENTS CONCERNING CAPACITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES.

That is, to EXPRESS WHAT WE ARE ABLE AND NOT ABLE TO DO; WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

Question 24

Examples of Statements concerning capacities and opportunities

Answer 24

1. It is both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY for you to attend tutorials.
2. Suzie CAN walk well in high heels but Jane CAN’T.
3. Murgatroyd COULD HAVE come to the meeting.
4. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to reach that shelf.
5. Aqua regia CAN dissolve gold.
6. An untrained human being CANNOT jump a two-metre bar.
7. If you want to keep within the law, you MUST NOT drive at more than 40 km/h in King’s Park.
8. I HAVE TO go to a meeting tomorrow.

THESE STATEMENTS OF CAPACITY AND OPPORTUNITY MAY THEMSELVES BE EITHER NECESSARY OR CONTINGENT.

Question 25

Explaining INFERENCE INDICATORS…

Answer 25

The third use of modal expressions is to INDICATE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CONCLUSION AND REASON WITHIN AN ARGUMENT.

Question 26

Inference indicators examples:

Answer 26

In these examples, some or all of the work of indicating the inferences is done by modal expressions appearing inside the conclusion:

1. John MUST be at home: I hear someone breathing behind the
   door.
2. What I have in my hand MUST BE a diamond, because I have
   just scratched my name on the window with it.
3. What I have in my hand CANNOT be plastic, because I have just scratched my name on the window with it.
4. Although Henry killed the other girls, he CAN’T have killed Jane, BECAUSE someone else’s fingerprints are on the murder weapon

These conclusions in the Examples are contingent.

Question 27

Modal inference indicators examples..

Answer 27

To see the contingency we replace the modal expressions with the non-modal ‘is’ or ‘is not’.

1. I hear someone breathing behind the door; therefore, John is at home.
2. I have just scratched my name on the window with
   what I have in my hand; therefore it is a diamond.
3. I have just scratched my name on the window with
   what I have in my hand; therefore it is not plastic.
4. Someone else’s fingerprints are on the murder weapon;
   therefore, Henry didn’t kill Jane.

Question 28

What is Relative necessity?

Answer 28

When modal expressions occur as inference indicators, they are NOT there to suggest that the conclusions are absolutely necessary truths.

They indicate that the conclusions are relatively
necessary, that is, they are necessary relative to the
premises – they are necessitated BY the premises.

But that does not mean that the conclusion is a necessary
truth in its own right. If the premises are not given, it
may not be necessary at all.

Speaking absolutely, the conclusions are still contingent.

Question 29

UNDERSTANDING MODAL INFERENCE INDICATORS

Answer 29

1. Modal words can do the job of reinforcing the
   conclusion, and indicating that, given the premises are
   true the conclusion must be true.
2. They emphasise that, given one contingent truth,
   another truth, equally contingent in its own right,
   follows logically from the first one.
3. Necessarily, IF the premise is true then the conclusion is
   true also.
4. That doesn’t mean that the conclusion is necessarily
   true in its own right, regardless of the truth of the
   premise.

Question 30

What is Modal confusion?

Answer 30

1. Sometimes it is easy to see what way a modal
   expression is functioning. Sometimes it can be very
   confusing.
2. The potential for confusion is enormous when one starts reasoning about necessities and contingencies or ABOUT capacities and opportunities.
3. This is because arguments about these matters are
   likely to involve modal words in their conclusions.
4. So, it may not be clear which of the three functions
   these words are performing.

Question 31

Why is MODAL CONFUSION …DANGER?

Answer 31

1. This and related phenomena are sources of
   some dangerous fallacies in more purely philosophical reasoning.
2. Consider the following example, an argument
   for scepticism, which begins from the plausible
   premise that, by the definition of the word
   ‘know’, you can’t know something that’s not
   true. (If it’s false, you can only think you know
   it.)

Question 32

Modal confusion Example…

Answer 32

“If you know something, you can’t be wrong about it

(by the definition of ‘know’).
But you can always be wrong about anything (after
all, we sometimes make mistakes even about very
obvious things).

So, you can never know anything.”
This argument is riddled with modal words.

—-It starts off from what looks like an obviously true
statement, adds a plausible premise, and ends up with
a very surprising conclusion.

Question 33

An analogous argument..example

Answer 33

“If you’ve kicked a goal, you can’t have missed (by the
definition of ‘kicking a goal’).

But you could always have missed (after all, even very
good players sometimes miss easy goals).

So, you can never kick a goal.”

—-The same fallacy seems to occur here, but it’s more
obvious that something has gone wrong, and the fallacy
isn’t tempting.

—-But the argument for scepticism is less obviously absurd.

Question 34

Some of the confusing factors arising from what we’ve looked at: 1

Answer 34

1. Although the conclusion of a valid argument can be a
   contingent truth, within the context of the argument it
   may be expressed using a modal phrase; and we can
   then mistake the conclusion for a necessary truth when
   really all the modal phrase is doing is acting as an
   inference indicator.

This is quite likely to happen if we would LIKE our
conclusion to be a necessary truth.

Question 35

Some of the confusing factors arising from what we’ve looked at: 2

Answer 35

In reasoning about freewill, we are likely to want
conclusions about capacities for action.

One may then mistake an inferential use of a modal
phrase for a conclusion attributing capacity or lack of
capacity

Question 36

Some of the confusing factors arising from what we’ve looked at: 3

Answer 36

In some arguments, a modal phrase may be doing
double duty, e.g. BOTH acting as an inference indicator AND attributing necessity (or capacity or probability) or lack of it.

And it may be impossible to be sure whether both duties are being done or not.

Here’s a simple example:
Henry couldn’t have killed Jane, because he’s incapable
of violenc

Question 37

The moral of the story….Watch out for modal expressions.

Answer 37

1. Remember that the modal words in argument may be
   doing no more than indicating the connection of
   inference between premises and conclusion.
2. Similarly, don’t automatically assume when you find a modal word in the consequent of a conditional, that the modality belongs within that consequent.
3. The word could just be indicating some connection
   between antecedent and consequent.

Question 38

MODULE 1 AND 2 SUMMARY

Answer 38

In this module on the recognition of reasoning, I’ve dealt with two kinds of barrier to that recognition.

1. There are factors which can make you overlook the presence of reasoning; and
2. There are factors which can make you mistakenly suppose that reasoning is present when it isn’t.

Under this second heading I’ve also discussed the problems posed by modal words.

But modal words can cause problems of both kinds and can also mislead you into getting wrong conclusions from your argument.

Modal words can be very serious barriers to the correct recognition of argument.