TEST #3 Flashcards
principle of charity
we must interpret the author’s argument in a fair way
we must make the argument as strong as possible without twisting their word and staying consistent with what the speaker had in mind
when reconstructing an argument, make sure:
1) the premises are reasonable for the author
2) the argument is well-formed for the author
3) the argument is undefeated (in cogency cases)
principle of charitable interpretation
has to do with implicit premises
when adding implicit premises, add ones that are reasonable to believe rather than ones that are obviously false, and ones that are consistent with what the author had in mind
deductive strength
- argument is valid
- reasonable to believe all the premises are true, based on available evidence (doesn’t say anything about the truth-value)
it is unreasonable to disbelieve the conclusion.
recall principle of proportional belief
if the premises of a valid argument are known to be true, then the conclusion is also known to be true
the premises can fail to be reasonable to be true by the available evidence making it r/j/r to believe the claim is false or to suspend judgment.
falibilism still exists! an arg. can be deductively strong but the conclusion is false
inductive strength
- argument is cogent
- all premises are reasonable to believe, based on evidence
- argument is not defeated by persons total evidence
it is unreasonable to disbelieve the conclusion of an inductively strong argument
DEFEATED ARGUMENT: when some other evidence provides good reason to believe the conclusion is false or should suspend judgment about it
- if the current premises mixed with the additional premises/information doesn’t support the conclusion
conclusion indicators
therefore
thus
hence
entails
implies
… follows that
premise indicators
deductive/inductive weakness
when an argument doesn’t meet one or all the requirements for strength
e.g. can be valid but not reasonable
e.g. can be reasonable but not cogent
strength for one person but not for another
depends on the evidence available to each person. certain evidence makes it reasonable for one person to believe the premises to be reasonable, whereas other evidence makes the premises unreasonable to believe for another person.
strength at one time but not another
a person may gain/lose evidence overtime; at one time the evidence makes it reasonable to believe the premises, at another it does not
strength and proprotional belief
proportion the strength of your belief of the premises to be true to the evidence available:
the stronger the evidence for the premises, the mroe reasonable it is to believe them
if it is r/j/r to believe the premises of a valid argument are true, then it is r/j/r to believe that the conclusion is true as well
r/j/r comes in degrees. so the more r/j/r it is to believe the premises of a valid argument are true, the more reasonable it is to believe the conclusion is true as well
(if theres a lot of evidence that premises of a valid argument are true, then you should believe with great strength that the conclusion is true too)
sound arguments vs strong arguments
SOUND ARGUMENTS: valid arguments with true premises (independent of rational thought)
STRONG ARGUMENTS: valid arguments that depend on how reasonable it is to believe the conclusion
circular arguments
arguments with the same premise and conclusion
valid but weak since they’re unjustified
ways in which a valid/cogent argument can fail to be strong for you
the available evidence gives reason to suspend judgement or disbelieve the truth of the premises
reminder
in valid arguments, the premises provide CONCLUSIVE evidence for the conclusion (if the premises are reasonable, then so is the conclusion)
cogent arguments do not have conclusive evidence (the premises always leave some room for the conclusion to be false)
can a deductively strong argument be defeated?
no because the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion 100%,s o noa dditional evidence can sway that
reconstructing argument
putting it into standard form
purpose: to identify premises and conclusion and understand/evaluate the argument properly and deem them either good or poor and deem the truth
recognize arguments
look for conclusion (main point)
look for premises (reasons offered for the truth of a claim)
stay clear of rhetorical writing and descriptive writing.
if the author actually PROVIDES REASON for their argument, then it is argumentative writing
generalizations
premises that state facts about general categories/groups of people
UNIVERSAL generalization
“all As are Bs”
NONUNIVERSAL generalization
“most As are Bs”
WIDE GENERALIZATION
“all lawyers”
NARROW GENERALIZATION
“all female lawyers”
quantifiers
amount in a generalization
“all” “most” “some”
if you believe the author meant to us an “all” then use it, but if you think the author meant something more modest then use modest quantifiers!
cheap validity + adding a linking premise
turning an ill-formed argument into valid by adding a (conditional) linking premise
- this makes it valid not strong
LINKING PREMISE: premise that connects the stated premsie to the conclusion
remember, adding a premise doesn’t make it strong/good, just valid.
principle of faithfulness (same thign as principle of charity able interpretastion)
add implicit premises that are reasonable to accept rather than ones that are obviously false
generalization principle
when adding an implicit premise that is a generalization, add a TRUE WIDE GENERALIZATION rather than a true narrow generalization, and add a TRUE NARROW GENERALIZATION rather than a false wide generalization….
common mistakes in argument reconstruction:
- improper wording (shifts in wording makes it ill-formed, so make the wording consistent so that its well-formed)
- missing premises (include implicit/explicit premises + parenthetical justifications)
- unnecessary premises (non-argumentative material) (you can either use it to support the conclusion by adding an implicit premise or eliminate it)
steps of argument analysis
- decide if its an argument
- reconstruct the argument (identify conclusion + identify premises + if its ill-formed then add implicit premises)
- fine-tune the reconstruction (clarify wording + add missing premises + remove unnecessary premises)
