Module 9C Flashcards
Conducive Arguments
Conducive arguments are those containing multiple inferences, where each inference independently provides support for or against a specific conclusion.
It resembles the way clues in a murder mystery support various hypotheses about the perpetrator.
Premises in Conducive Arguments
In conducive arguments, premises act like clues in a murder mystery, individually supporting a conclusion.
The support is independent of how other premises may or may not contribute to the conclusion. Each premise provides its own contribution
Evidence in Conducive Arguments
Premises in conducive arguments support a conclusion similar to clues in a murder mystery.
Some evidence may favor the conclusion, while other evidence may work against it.
Each piece of evidence stands independently in providing support or counter considerations
Counterconsiderations
Statements that count against a particular conclusion, giving evidence that the conclusion is false, are termed counterconsiderations in conducive arguments.
These are considerations running counter to the conclusion.
Causal Inductive Argument
Causal inductive arguments, particularly those involving inferences to the best explanation, are common forms of conductive arguments.
They aim to provide the best explanation for a set of facts, often exemplified in scenarios like the investigation into President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
Example of Causal Inductive Argument
The hypothesis that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President John F. Kennedy was put forward by the Warren Commission as the best explanation for a wide range of facts.
Oliver Stone countered this hypothesis with a range of counter-considerations.
Counter-considerations
In conductive arguments, counter-considerations are statements that work against a particular hypothesis or conclusion.
Oliver Stone presented counter-considerations against the hypothesis of Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone in the Kennedy assassination
Cogency Assessment
Evaluating the cogency of a conductive argument involves assessing the significance of all relevant pro and con considerations.
This assessment considers both the supporting evidence (pro Considerations) and the opposing evidence (counter-considerations) to determine the argument’s strength.
Extended Example - Argument A and B
Description: Consider two inferences:
Argument A: (1) 30% of yacht-owners are multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3A) Roberta is a multi-millionaire.
Argument B: (1) 70% of yacht-owners are not multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3B) Roberta is not a multi-millionaire.
INITIAL ASSESMENT
Argument A appears weak, and Argument B seems strong on the surface.
However, background knowledge about the likelihood of yacht-owners being multi-millionaires alters the evaluation.
Extended Example - Argument A and B
Description: Consider two inferences:
Argument A: (1) 30% of yacht-owners are multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3A) Roberta is a multi-millionaire.
Argument B: (1) 70% of yacht-owners are not multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3B) Roberta is not a multi-millionaire.
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IMPACT
Considering the general population’s background knowledge that yacht-owners are more likely to be multi-millionaires, a randomized sample of non-yacht-owners supports a 30% chance of being multi-millionaires compared to 1%. This positive correlation strengthens Argument A.
Extended Example - Argument A and B
Description: Consider two inferences:
Argument A: (1) 30% of yacht-owners are multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3A) Roberta is a multi-millionaire.
Argument B: (1) 70% of yacht-owners are not multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3B) Roberta is not a multi-millionaire.
CONDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
The example illustrates a conductive argument, where multiple inferences (like Inference A) together make the conclusion (Roberta being a multi-millionaire) more probable.
Each inference adds to the weight of support, contributing to the overall strength of the argument.
Term: Extended Example - Argument A and B
Description: Consider two inferences:
Argument A: (1) 30% of yacht-owners are multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3A) Roberta is a multi-millionaire.
Argument B: (1) 70% of yacht-owners are not multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3B) Roberta is not a multi-millionaire.
Importance of Background Information
The example emphasizes the significance of background information in assessing inductive arguments.
Background knowledge can significantly impact the strength of inferences, making them more reasonable and robust.
Term: Extended Example - Argument A and B
Description: Consider two inferences:
Argument A: (1) 30% of yacht-owners are multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3A) Roberta is a multi-millionaire.
Argument B: (1) 70% of yacht-owners are not multi-millionaires, (2) Roberta owns a yacht, so (3B) Roberta is not a multi-millionaire.
Application in argument
Similar importance of background information was highlighted in the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.
Adding context, like efforts to find evidence for P and the likelihood of evidence if P were true, increases the reasonableness of the inference.
Conductive Arguments in Practical Reasoning
Conductive arguments are prevalent in practical reasoning, particularly in ethical arguments and practical decision-making.
Examples include arguments advocating against capital punishment, opposing the introduction of a goods and services tax, and encouraging personal behavior changes.
Conductive Arguments in Practical Reasoning
Practical Examples
(a) Argument against capital punishment.
(b) Argument against introducing a goods and services tax.
(c) Argument advocating for curbing alcoholic intake.
