Module 5A

Question 1

Argument Construction and Refutation:

Answer 1

Argument construction often starts with attempting to refute someone else’s view, often using more elaborate methods than simple counterexamples.

Question 2

Common Refutation Method:

Answer 2

One common and powerful method of refutation involving argument construction is reductio ad absurdum.

Question 3

Reductio ad Absurdum:

Answer 3

Briefly described by Govier on pp. 248.

1. An argumentative technique that aims to demonstrate the falsity of a proposition by showing that its logical consequence leads to an absurd or contradictory result.
2. Reductio ad absurdum involves constructing a detailed argument to show that if a particular proposition were true, it would lead to absurd or contradictory conclusions.

Question 4

Power of Reductio ad Absurdum:

Answer 4

A powerful technique that goes beyond simple counterexamples and aims to expose inherent contradictions or absurdities in a given viewpoint.

Question 5

Argument by reductio relies on modus tollens and conditionalisation. The principle involves the following steps:

Answer 5

1. P [prem.: provisional assumption]
2. Q [prem.: any non-provisional assumptions, displayed as a conjunction]
3. Q & P [2 & 1, conjunction]
4. C [3, consequence of P and any other premisses Q]
5. If Q & P, then C [3 & 4, conditionalisation]
6. Not-C [obvious ex hypothesi]
7. Not-(Q & P) [5 & 6, modus tollens]
8. Not-Q or not-P [7, distributing the negation]
9. Not-not-Q [2, double negation]
10. Not-P [8 & 9, disjunctive syllogism]

Question 6

Role of ‘P’ and ‘C’:

Answer 6

‘P’ indicates the statement targeted for refutation (the first provisional premiss).

‘C’ indicates any obviously false conclusion derived from conjoining P with other non-provisional assumption[s] (Q).

Question 7

Unquestioned Truth of ‘Q’:

Answer 7

Truth of Q is unquestioned and meant to outweigh P in a choice between them.

A version of Revised Standard Form is used to display more information than in the notes Lecture 3A

Question 8

Risk in Reductio ad Absurdum

Answer 8

Reductio ad absurdum carries the risk that if someone accepts P but admits that C is obviously false, they might reject P and attribute the issue to one or more other assumptions labeled as ‘Q.’

The proponent of the reductio offers Q as outweighing P, but this offer may be rejected.

Question 9

Identifying the Cause of Trouble:

Answer 9

A reductio does not on its own indicate which premiss is the cause of the trouble.

Question 10

Broad vs. Narrow Sense of ‘Reductio’:

Answer 10

The argument-form uses a broad sense of ‘reductio’ where the derived consequence C only needs to be obviously false.

In the narrow sense used by Govier, C must be an explicit contradiction.

Question 11

Conclusiveness:

Answer 11

An argument leading to an explicit contradiction is more conclusive than one leading to an ‘obviously false’ statement.

Explicit contradictions are universally rejected, while opinions may differ on statements labeled as ‘obviously false.’

Question 12

Argumentum ad Hominem

Answer 12

Argumentum ad hominem refers to an argument that targets the person holding a particular view (‘P’) rather than addressing the view itself.

Question 13

Relation to Reductio: Argumentum ad Hominem:

Answer 13

The presentation of argument by reductio as a strategy against a person holding a view connects it to argumentum ad hominem.

Question 14

Ad Hominem Definition:

Answer 14

Ad hominem means ‘against the man,’ implying an attack on the person rather than engaging with the substance of their argument.

Question 15

Dependency on Conditionalisation and Modus Tollens:

Ad hominem

Answer 15

Ad hominem arguments can depend on the moves of conditionalisation and modus tollens

Question 16

Example in Plato’s Euthyphro:

Answer 16

Example: Sections 6D–9B of Plato’s Euthyphro contain a powerful ad hominem argument where Socrates demonstrates the inconsistency in Euthyphro’s action of prosecuting his father for impiety based on Euthyphro’s own definition of piety.

Question 17

Consequence for Euthyphro:

Answer 17

The consequence for Euthyphro is that, if he cannot find an objection to Socrates’s argument and wants to be consistent, he must either abandon the prosecution, abandon his account of piety, or face prosecution himself.

Question 18

Here is another powerful example:
Argumentum ad hominem

Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.

Answer 18

A .
Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.

B .
But you eat meat; and you never worry about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.

B’s argument, spelled out in somewhat non-standard form, goes as follows:

1. Foxhunting is cruel to victim and degrading to participants [accepted by A]
2. Killing of animals for food is not relevantly different from foxhunting [claim added by B]

So,

3. Both ought to be abolished [consistent with A’s original inference]

So,

4. If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 is true [conditionalisation]
5. But A cannot accept 3 [since A eats meat]

Hence,

6. A cannot consistently accept 1 and 2 [4 & 5, by modus tollens]

****Assuming that A is moved by the requirement of consistency, this leaves him with a difficult choice
of responses:
- A must abandon 1;
- or show that 2 is false;
- or accept 3 and (presumably) stop eating
meat

Question 19

Not all ad hominem arguments are equally powerful. Here’s an example of a weaker one:

Example of a Weaker Ad Hominem:
Argument: Disregard Hegel’s views on women because of his unsatisfactory breast relationship with his mother, influencing his perspective on women throughout his life.

Answer 19

1. Weakness of the Argument:
   – The degree of support for this ad hominem argument is weak, and it lacks completeness.
2. Not Entirely Negligible:
   – Despite its weak support, the argument is not entirely negligible.
3. Fair Warning:
   – The argument, if its premises are true, provides fair warning that there might be issues with Hegel’s views on women.
4. Separating Rationality and Correctness:
   – Acknowledges that even if Hegel’s views were irrationally formed, they could still be correct. The ad hominem doesn’t necessarily invalidate the correctness of the views but suggests caution due to potential biases.

Question 20

Ad Hominem in Standard Logic Textbooks:

Answer 20

Standard logic textbooks categorize argumentum ad hominem as a fallacy to be avoided.

Question 21

Variety in Ad Hominem Arguments:

Answer 21

Ad hominem covers a wide range of arguments with varying degrees of support.

Question 22

Focus of Ad Hominem:

Answer 22

Ad hominem arguments don’t prove a specific statement false; instead, they attack something about a person.

Question 23

Govier’s View on Ad Hominem:

Answer 23

Govier’s discussion (pp. 157–60) may suggest that she sees ad hominem as always fallacious, but upon closer examination, she acknowledges the diversity in ad hominem arguments.

Question 24

Degrees of Support:

ad hominem arguments

Answer 24

Govier shares the view that some ad hominem arguments are good, while others are bad, similar to how the quality of arguments in other forms varies.

Question 25

Circumstantial Ad Hominem:

Answer 25

Govier treats the circumstantial ad hominem as always fallacious, but this stance ignores the complexities revealed through examples like Euthyphro.

Question 26

Questioning Govier’s Interpretation:

Ad Hominem:

Answer 26

When reading p. 158, questions arise about Govier’s interpretation of Lowe’s argument against Szasz’s theory.

Was Lowe arguing that Szasz’s theory is false, or was he making a different point?

Question 27

Acknowledging Real Problems:

Answer 27

Govier’s stance on circumstantial ad hominem overlooks real problems concerning consistency, as evident in the Euthyphro example.

Question 28

Criticism as an Argumentative Process:

Answer 28

Criticism, whether starting with specific argument forms or not, is fundamentally an argumentative process.

Question 29

Response to Criticism:

Answer 29

Responding to criticism is also an argumentative process, implying that exercising critical skills involves constructive skills as well.

Question 30

Constructive Arguments:

Answer 30

Even purely constructive arguments, when well-presented, should include anticipations of likely objections

Question 31

Dialogue Nature of Arguments

Answer 31

An argument, even if conducted by a single individual, should effectively be a dialogue, considering potential objections and counterarguments.

Question 32

Philosophical Arguments in Dialogue Form:

Answer 32

Famous philosophical arguments, especially those of Plato, are often presented in overt dialogue form, even if the dialogues may seem one-sided at times.

Question 33

Starting Point for Constructing an Argument:

Answer 33

Often, the best starting point for constructing an argument is formulating the conclusion that seems most probable, defensible, attractive, or least implausible.

Question 34

Flexibility in Conclusion Formulation:

Answer 34

Formulating the conclusion doesn’t necessarily mean making up your mind in advance; you are free to change your conclusion as you proceed.

Question 35

Counterexamples and Conclusion Modification:

Answer 35

Immediate consideration of counterexamples may arise, prompting modification or abandonment of the initial conclusion.

Question 36

Announcing the Conclusion:

Answer 36

In argument presentation, it’s advisable to announce the conclusion at the outset to provide clarity and direction.

Question 37

Argumentation by Denying the Conclusion:

Answer 37

t’s possible to argue for a conclusion by denying it and then arguing against the denial, for example, through reductio ad absurdum

Question 38

Argument Against Not-C as Argument For C:

Answer 38

An argument against not-C serves as an argument for C.

Question 39

Next Stage of Construction: AFTER C

Answer 39

1. List every reasonable and serious idea relevant to proving or disproving the conclusion.
2. Data Gathering:
   Gather data, including information from books or journals, as needed.
3. Divide and Classify:
   Divide the ideas into considerations for and against the conclusion.
4. Argument Structures:
   Identify argument structures (see Lecture 3A) that capture the relations these considerations have to the conclusion.
5. Numbering for Clarity:
   Number considerations for easy reference and organization without constant rewriting.
6. Selection of Considerations:
   Choose only considerations that provide strong support for the conclusion or its denial.
7. Clear Assembly of Considerations:
   Assemble the remaining considerations to ensure a clear depiction of structures.
8. Argument Direction and Clarity:
   Ensure clear depiction by structuring the argument logically, avoiding jumbled premises and conclusions.
9. Considerations as Premises:
   Considerations that serve as premises must be acceptable, requiring thought about the intended audience and their perspectives.
10. Target Audience Consideration:
    Consider the kind of person your argument aims to convince, especially if defending a theory against holders of rival theories.

Question 40

Acceptable Premises:

Answer 40

Premises in your argument must be acceptable, requiring consideration of the intended audience, especially if defending a theory against holders of rival theories.

Question 41

Consideration for Target Audience:

Answer 41

When constructing premises, think about the kind of person your argument is aimed at convincing, particularly relevant when defending a theory

Question 42

Clear and Simple Language:

Answer 42

Present your argument using clear and simple language consistent with the subject matter.

Question 43

Definition of Key Terms:

Answer 43

Define key terms if they are used in an unusual or technical sense, though it’s unnecessary if they are not.

Question 44

Commonplace about Definitions:

Answer 44

The commonplace idea that arguments should begin with the definition of terms is considered false and pernicious.

Question 45

Misuse of Definitions:

Answer 45

Misuse of this commonplace leads to decorating opening paragraphs with definitions that are then ignored in the continuation of the argument, a common fault in essays.

Question 46

Obscurity in Definitions:

Answer 46

Often, definitions are more obscure than the terms being defined, and in philosophy, arguments may revolve around what the definition ought to be, making an initial definition question-begging.

Question 47

Use of Examples for Clarity:

Answer 47

One or two well-chosen examples of a term’s use are better aids to clarifying meaning than most definitions.

Question 48

Importance of Considering Opposition:

Answer 48

Careful consideration of the case for the opposition is crucial in argument construction, providing preparation for facing criticism and offering an opportunity to learn from it.

Question 49

Learning from Opposition:

Answer 49

In a finished and systematic deployment of arguments, like an essay, clear and sympathetic presentation of the case for the opposition is crucial to demonstrate that your opponent fails even on their best case.

Question 50

Consideration of Likely Objections:

Answer 50

Part of presenting the opposition involves considering the most likely objections to your own argument, promoting a thorough and well-rounded discussion.

Question 51

Govier’s Discussion:

Answer 51

Govier’s discussion on pp. 109–11 provides sensible insights into the importance of presenting the case for the opposition and considering likely objections.

Question 52

Consistency Requirement:

Answer 52

Consistency is a vital requirement for any argument, and an argument will be deficient if its conclusion is supported by mutually inconsistent premises

Question 53

Two Types of Inconsistency:

Answer 53

Statements can be inconsistent in two ways:

1. contradictories (either true or false) and
2. contraries (cannot both be true but may both be false).

Question 54

Example of Contraries:

Answer 54

Contraries may both be false, like ‘All cats eat fish’ and ‘Some cats will eat only Smarties.’

Question 55

Consistency in Presenting Both Sides:

Answer 55

Presenting both sides of an argument is not inconsistent; inconsistency arises when this is done without realization.

Question 56

“Ad hominem arguments are all fallacious.”

Answer 56

FALSE

Question 57

“The proper way to begin a serious argument is by first defining your terms.”

Answer 57

• refutation
  AND
• proof

Reductio ad absurdum can be used as a method of both proof and refutation.

Question 58

How should you begin an argument by reductio?

Answer 58

Take the statement you aim to argue against and make it your first premise

Question 59

If two statements are related in such a way that they can’t both be true but can both be false, then they are known as

Answer 59

contraries

Question 60

If two statements are related in such a way that they can’t both be true and can’t both be false, then they are known as

Answer 60

contradictories

Question 61

Which of the following principles and methods are standardly involved in constructing an argument by reductio?

Answer 61

1. disjunctive syllogism
2. conditionalisation
3. modus tollens
4. double negation
5. distribution

• Hypothetical Syllogism and modus ponens are not standardly used in constructing arguments by reductio.
• All of the other techniques listed are standardly used in constructing arguments by reductio.

Question 62

Narrow reductio & broad reductio:

Answer 62

In this narrow sense, the argument works by
producing a recognisable contradiction.

In the broad sense, an argument by reductio produces a consequence that is thought to be absurd because obviously false.

Such a consequence need not be a contradiction,
just something that the arguer supposes no one would believe

Question 63

General structure of a reductio argument
aiming to show that Not-P is true..

Answer 63

1. P [prem.: provisional assumption
2. C [1 (some consequence of P)]
3. If P, then C [1 & 2, conditionalisation]
4. Not-C [obvious ex hypothesi]
5. Not-P [3 & 4, modus tollens]

You must remember that, in practice, all the difficulty will come in getting from P to C.

There may be several steps needed to derive it, and
probably some auxiliary premises too, so that in a real case it probably wouldnʼt be step

Question 64

At a Philosophy Department meeting, a motion is passed if at
least 50% of those present vote in favour of it, and is not
passed if at least 50% of those present vote against it.

NARROW SENSE

Answer 64

1. At a Philosophy Department meeting, a motion is passed if at least
   50% of those present are in favour of it, AND is not passed if at least 50% of those present are against it [prem.; provisional
   assumption]
2. It is possible that at a Philosophy Department meeting, exactly 50% of those present vote in favour of a motion and exactly 50% vote against it. [prem.; non-provisional
   assumption]
3. 1 & 2 [1, 2 conjunction]
4. It is possible that, at a Philosophy Department meeting, the same motion should be both passed and not passed.
   [3]
5. If 1 & 2 are both true, then it is possible that, at a Philosophy Department meeting, the same motion should be both passed and not passed.

[3, 4 conditionalisation]
6. It is not possible that, at a Philosophy Department meeting, the same motion should be both passed and not passed.

[obvious; 4
involves a contradiction]

7. It is not the case that, both 1 & 2 are true. [5, 6 modus tollens]
8. Either 1 is not true or 2 is not true. [7 distributing the negation]
9. It is not the case that 2 is not true. [2 double negation]
10. 1 is not true. [8,9 disjunctive syllogism]

Question 65

BROAD SENSE: “ROCKS LACK WEIGHT”

Answer 65

1. Rocks lack weight (prem, provisional assumption)
2. Things that lack weight float in the air (prem, scientific knowledge)
3. Rocks float in the air (1 & 2, linked)
4. If 1&2 are true, then 3 is true (conditionalization)
5. 3 is false (common observation)
6. (1&2) is false (4, 5, MT)
7. Either 1 is false or 2 is false (Distribution)
8. It is not the case that 2 is false (2, double negation)
9. 1 is false (7, 8, Disjunctive Syllogism)