Module 4 A PDF

Module IV: Criteria of a Good Argument  Module Objectives: At the end of the module, students will be able to: 1.Recognize the criteria of a good argument. 2.Critique examples of arguments based on the criteria. 3.Compose effective arguments CRITERIA OF A GOOD ARGUMENT (from T....

Module IV: Criteria of a Good Argument  Module Objectives: At the end of the module, students will be able to: 1.Recognize the criteria of a good argument. 2.Critique examples of arguments based on the criteria. 3.Compose effective arguments CRITERIA OF A GOOD ARGUMENT (from T. Edward Damer. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Reasoning) A good argument must meet the five following criteria: 1. a well-formed structure, 2. premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, 3. premises that are acceptable to a reasonable person, 4. premises that together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, 5. premises that provide an effective rebuttal to all anticipated criticisms of the argument. A fallacy is a violation of a criterion of a good argument. 1. THE STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE One who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well- formed argument. Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, contradict the conclusion, or explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. It neither draws any invalid deductive inferences (Ibid., 62). Violations of the Structural Principle are: Begging-The-Question Fallacies Fallacies of Inconsistency and Fallacies of Deductive Inference. 1.1 Begging-The-Question Fallacies An argument structure that uses “begging the question” provides no independent reason for accepting the conclusion. 1.1.1) The Arguing-In- A-Circle fallacy uses its own conclusion as one of its premises. Instead of offering supporting evidence for the conclusion, it simply asserts the conclusion as its “evidence.” Example: “To use textbooks with profane and obscene words in them is immoral because it is not right for our children to hear vulgar, disrespectful, and ugly words.” Since “not right” means the same thing as “immoral” and “vulgar, disrespectful, and ugly” means the same things as “profane and obscene,” the form of the argument is clear: “A because A.” 1.1.2) The Question-Begging Language fallacy refers to discussing an issue using language that assumes a position on the very question at issue in order to direct the listener to that same conclusion. Example: You are engaged in a dispute about the moral permissibility of abortion, and the main issue is whether the fetus is to be considered a human being. If one of the discussants constantly refers to the fetus as “the baby,” he or she has begged the question on the very point at issue. The argument, in effect, says that “since the fetus is a baby human being, the fetus is a human being.” A form of this fallacy is one in which an arguer “plants” a proposed answer to a question at issue by how s/he asks the question. (Leading Question) Example: I ask a fellow instructor: “You aren’t serious about nominating Professor Cruz as ‘Teacher of the Year,’ are you?” The question involves a negative slant against Professor Cruz as ‘Teacher of the Year.’ This would not be the case if the question posed were: Is Professor Cruz a worthy nominee for ‘Teacher of the Year’? 1.1.3) The Complex Question refers to formulating a question in a way that inappropriately presupposes that a definite answer has already been given to an unasked question about an open issue. Example: Being asked, “What did you do with my watch after you stole it?” The question assumes that I stole the watch, which, however, I didn’t and never admitted to. The question of whether I stole the watch should have first been asked of me.  1.1.4) The Question-Begging Definition fallacy refers to using a highly questionable definition disguised as an irrefutable empirical premise, which makes the empirical claim at issue true by definition. This fallacy rests on a confusion between an empirical and definitional premise (2009, 69). A definitional premise is a claim about what an essential term in a discussion means. A questionable definition must conform to the common usage of the term and the thinking of relevant authorities. An empirical premise, on the other hand, makes an observational or factual claim. One who uses the fallacy of the Question- Begging Definition substitutes a questionable definitional premise for what is intended in the argument to be an empirical premise. Example: Suppose that Eric maintains the empirical claim that “true love never ends in separation or divorce.” When presented with examples of true love followed by divorce, he insists that such cases were not genuine cases of true love. His evidence that they were not cases of true love is that they ended in divorce. Eric is hereby settling the issue by definition, for his judgment is that any marriage that ends in divorce could not have been a case of true love. In standard form, Eric’s argument involves a questionable definitional rather than an empirical premise. Since true love is defined as a love that will never end in divorce or separation (premise) Therefore, true love will never end in divorce or separation. (Conclusion) The definitional premise is questionable since true love may happen though a marriage ends in separation or divorce. FALLACIES OF INCONSISTENCY One who attempts to advance a self-contradictory argument commits a fallacy of inconsistency. If an argument is self-contradictory, its parts have an inconsistency or incompatibility, and the argument is structurally flawed (Ibid., 72). The fallacy of Incompatible Premises refers to conclusions from inconsistent or incompatible premises. The structural flaw can be seen in the argument’s form: Since A, (premise) and not-A, (premise) [No acceptable conclusion can be drawn.]  An argument with two contradictory premises cannot be a good one because one of the premises must be false. Example: A politician asks for our vote and promises to increase all present governmental services and lower taxes. If the politician also promises no major change in the tax or revenue structure, the first two claims appear incompatible. Either taxes are lowered (A) or services are maintained at the present level, which entails not lowering taxes (not-A). However, it cannot be the case that both A and not-A are true. Contradiction Between Premise and Conclusion fallacy refers to drawing a conclusion incompatible with at least one of the premises. Example: Some arguments in the abortion debate contain a conclusion that contradicts a premise. “All human life is sacred (A), and we have an obligation not to destroy it, and abortion destroys it; therefore, abortion is wrong, except in cases of rape (not-A). By making an exception for rape, the conclusion contradicts the first premise. One would probably not want to deny that the child of rape is a sacred human life; therefore, if she wants to correct the FALLACIES OF DEDUCTIVE INFERENCE The fallacy of Denying The Antecedent is defined as denying the antecedent of a conditional statement and then inferring the denial of the consequent (2009, 77). In a conditional or “If-Then” statement, what comes after the “If” is named the antecedent, while what comes after the “Then” is named the consequent. An example of a good conditional argument is named affirming the antecedent or modus ponens (Ibid.). It has the following form: If A, then B. A Therefore, B. If the two premises are true, we can be assured that the conclusion is true as well. Denying The Antecedent fallacy takes the following form in this example: If it rains, then the streets get wet. If A, then B. It didn’t rain. Not-A So, the streets aren’t wet. Therefore, Not- B. Even if the two premises are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true. It remains possible that the streets are wet due to other reasons. The fallacy of Affirming the Consequent refers to affirming the consequent of a conditional statement and then inferring the affirmation of the antecedent (Ibid., 78). Example: If you get a high score in your CSAT, you can get into a good school. You got into De La Salle University, which is a good school. Therefore, you got a high score in your CSAT. Since other reasons besides your high CSAT score may get you accepted into a good school, the above conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises. 2. THE RELEVANCE PRINCIPLE One who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. (Ibid., 92) A premise or appeal is relevant if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in favor of, or has some bearing on the merit of the conclusion. A premise or appeal is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no connection to the merit of the conclusion. Fallacies that violate the relevance criterion FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANT PREMISE The fallacies of irrelevant premise are those arguments that use premises that have no connection to or fail to give support to their conclusions. The Genetic Fallacy consists in evaluating a thing in terms of its earlier context and then carrying over that evaluation to the thing in the present while ignoring relevant changes that may have altered its character in the interim (Ibid., 93). EXAMPLE: I WOULDN’T VOTE FOR DON YABANGSKI FOR ANYTHING. I GREW UP WITH HIM. WE WENT TO GRADE SCHOOL TOGETHER. HE WAS JUST ONE BIG ‘GOOF-OFF.’ YOU COULDN’T DEPEND ON HIM FOR ANYTHING. I SHUDDER TO THINK OF HIM BEING MAYOR OF ANY CITY. THE EXAMPLE OVERLOOKS POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT EVENTS THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED TO DON BETWEEN THE YEARS AFTER GRADE SCHOOL AND DON’S PRESENTLY RUNNING FOR MAYOR. The fallacy of Rationalization refers to using plausible-sounding but usually fake reasons to justify a particular position that is held on other, less respectable grounds (Ibid., 95) Example: A senior philosophy major tells Professor Cruz: “I didn’t do well in the Law School Admission Test. I don’t do well on tests. Tests don’t show my real ability. Besides, the day before I took the LSAT, I had bad news from home. I’ll do better next time.” The excuses offered do not justify his low LSAT score. As a senior, he must have passed several tests already. He probably also coped with bad situations while preparing for and/or taking tests or other academic requirements. His reasons excluded more significant, relevant information. The fallacy of Using The Wrong Reasons refers to attempting to support a claim with reasons other than the reasons appropriate to the claim (Ibid., 99). Example: A conversation between Will, a philosophy major, and his critic, Sara: Sara: Studying philosophy is a waste of time. Do you think philosophy will solve our problems? Will: Some of them, but not all of them. Sara: Aren’t philosophers still trying to solve the same problems Socrates was attending to twenty-four hundred years ago? Will: Yes, Socrates identified quite some problems, but he didn’t solve many of them. Sara: Then why are you wasting your time studying a discipline that doesn’t do anything? Our problems are varied. Indeed, philosophy alone will not solve all of them. This, however, does not deny that philosophy can contribute to solving our problems. To show that studying philosophy is a waste of time, you would have to show how self-reflection on one’s worth, on why we are here rather than not, on the nature of fairness and living a good life, among others, is a waste of time. The arbitrary goal Sara sets in doing philosophy makes her set the wrong reasons why philosophy is a waste of time.