Class Notes (835,581)
Canada (509,259)
Philosophy (1,299)
Lecture 9

Lecture 9

37 Pages
117 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
Philosophy 1200
Professor
Eric Desjardins
Semester
Fall

Description
Welcome to lecture #9! I Review I Some of chapter 4 Review: Reconstructing arguments I Four steps: 1. Identify all inference indicators I e.g. thus, hence, so, therefore, consequently, this being so, which proves that, given that, as a result of, due to, assuming that, seeing that, the reason is, as shown by, granted that, as implied by ... 2. Identify the conclusion 3. Identify the premises 4. Write the argument in standard form Review: Reconstructing arguments I Standard form: I P1: blahblahblah I P2: blahblahblah... I MP3: blahblahblah I .. I C: Conclusion I The premises can be in any order, but the conclusion comes last I Premises are numbered. Premises that are explicitly stated are labeled “P”. Premises that are missing in the text are labeled “MP”. I The conclusion is labeled “C” if explicitly stated, “MC” otherwise. I If there are intermediary conclusions, they are labeled “IC1”, “IC2”, etc. No need to add “M” for missing intermediary conclusions. Note that Hughes and Lavery use “P” for intermediary conclusions. Review: Reconstructing arguments I How far should we go in adding missing premises? I It depends. I If you are trying to reconstruct the argument as someone thought of it, that’s your guide: what they might reasonably have been thinking. I If you are trying to make the force (or weakness) of the evidence offered as clear as possible, fill in missing premises until the argument is almost deductive. I This helps clarify where the burden of the argument lies and simplifies the assessment of the argument to one question: are the premises true? I In general Hughes and Lavery want you to do the first thing. Things that look like arguments but aren’t I Reports of arguments: I According to an editorial in The Chronicle, standardized, nation-wide scholastic achievement testing will improve the quality of education because it will enable us to learn what works and what doesn’t work in the classroom. Things that look like arguments but aren’t I Reports of arguments: I According to an editorial in The Chronicle, standardized, nation-wide scholastic achievement testing will improve the quality of education because it will enable us to learn what works and what doesn’t work in the classroom. I This text reports an argument but does not necessarily make it. Things that look like arguments but aren’t I Reports of arguments: I According to an editorial in The Chronicle, standardized, nation-wide scholastic achievement testing will improve the quality of education because it will enable us to learn what works and what doesn’t work in the classroom. I This text reports an argument but does not necessarily make it. I But sometimes an argument is reported in order to make it. Things that look like arguments but aren’t I Reports of arguments: I According to an editorial in The Chronicle, standardized, nation-wide scholastic achievement testing will improve the quality of education because it will enable us to learn what works and what doesn’t work in the classroom. I This text reports an argument but does not necessarily make it. I But sometimes an argument is reported in order to make it. I Just be careful not to take every reported argument as made by the person writing/speaking. Explanation I Explanations and argument can look identical: I When politicians are perceived as corrupt, they tend to lose votes. Explanation I Explanations and argument can look identical: I When politicians are perceived as corrupt, they tend to lose votes. I An argument to the effect that politician X will lose vote: I P1: X is perceived as corrupt I C: X will lose votes Explanation I Explanations and argument can look identical: I When politicians are perceived as corrupt, they tend to lose votes. I An argument to the effect that politician X will lose vote: I P1: X is perceived as corrupt I C: X will lose votes I An explanation of why X lost votes. Explanation I Explanations and argument can look identical: I When politicians are perceived as corrupt, they tend to lose votes. I An argument to the effect that politician X will lose vote: I P1: X is perceived as corrupt I C: X will lose votes I An explanation of why X lost votes. I The difference: I When arguing for a claim, we try to convince an audience that it is true. I When explaining a fact, we try to show how it came to be a fact. Explanation I Explanations and argument can look identical: I When politicians are perceived as corrupt, they tend to lose votes. I An argument to the effect that politician X will lose vote: I P1: X is perceived as corrupt I C: X will lose votes I An explanation of why X lost votes. I The difference: I When arguing for a claim, we try to convince an audience that it is true. I When explaining a fact, we try to show how it came to be a fact. I Test: I Does the audience already believe the apparent conclusion of the argument? If so, it might well not be an argument but an explanation of the apparent conclusion. Diagramming arguments I Diagrams can help understand the structure of an argument Simple arguments I Simple argument: an argument with just one premise supporting its conclusion Simple arguments I Simple argument: an argument with just one premise supporting its conclusion
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 1200

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit