Upload
lezaj-goodvibes
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
1/25
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
2/25
Consider, for example, what happens when we construct a truth-table that lists each of the four combinations
of truth-values that the component statements could exhibit in the simple argument form that we identified at the top
of this page.
p q
p_______
q
This truth-table shows that (no matter what statements we substitute
for p and q ) both of the premises of the argument will be true
only on the first line (when both component statements are true). But
on that line, the conclusion is also true, so the inference is valid. Whenever we come across an argument that shares
this basic structure, we can be perfectly certain of its logical validity. In fact, arguments of this form are so common
that the form itself has a name,Modus Ponens, which we will usually abbreviate as M.P.
On the other hand, consider what happens when we construct a truth-table for testing the validity of a distinct,
though superficially similar, argument form:
p q
q_______
p
In arguments of this form, both premises are true on the first and on
the third lines of the truth-table. While the conclusion is true on the
first line, on the third line it is false. Since it is therefore possible for
the premises to be true while the conclusion is false, the inference is invalid. This unreliable argument form is called
the fallacy ofaffirming the consequent. Although it might be mistaken for M.P. at a casual glance, the fallacy
unlike its valid cousin
does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion.
Modus Toll ens
Another common argument form with a valid inference isModus Tollens(abbreviated as M.T.), which has the
form:
p q
~ q
_______
~ pAs the truth-table shows, the premises are true only when both of the
component statements are false, in which case the conclusion is also
true. There is no line on which both premises are true and the
conclusion false, so the inference is valid, as are all substitution-instances of this argument form.
As with M.P., there is an argument form superficially similar to M.T. that yields entirely different results.
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q pq p q
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q pq q p
T T T T T
T F F F T
F T T T F
F F T F F
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q pq ~ q ~ p
T T T F F
T F F T FF T T F T
F F T T T
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mphttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mphttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mphttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm#affchttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mthttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mthttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mthttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mthttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm#affchttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mp7/27/2019 Argument Forms
3/25
p q
~ p
_______
~ q
This is the fallacy ofdenying the antecedent. As the truth-table to the
right clearly shows, it is an unreliable inference, since it is possible
(on the third line) for both of its premises to be true while its
conclusion is false. Substitution-instances of this argument form may not be valid.
Hypothetical Syllogism
A larger truth-table is required to demonstrate the validity of
the argument form called Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.), since it
involves three statement variables instead of two, and we must
consider all eight of the possible combinations of their truth-
values:
p q
q r
_______
p r
Despite its greater size, this truth-table establishes validity in
exactly the same way as its more compact predecessors: both
premises are true only on the first, fifth, seventh, and eighth lines, and the conclusion is also true on each of these
lines. It follows that all arguments sharing in thisgeneral form must be valid.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Finally, consider the argument form known as Disjunctive
Syllogism or D.S.
p q
~ p
_____
q
The truth-table demonstration of its validity should look familiar by
now. Whenever the premises are true (on the third line of the truth
table), so is the conclusion.
Once again, however, there is a similar form that embodies an invalid inference, the fallacy of affirming the
alternative:
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q pq ~ p ~ q
T T T F F
T F F F T
F T T T FF F T T T
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q r pq qr pr
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
p q pq ~ p q
T T T F T
T F T F F
F T T T T
F F F T F
1st Premise 2nd Premise Conclusion
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d2.htm#denahttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/h9.htm#hshttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#dshttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#dshttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm#afflhttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm#afflhttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm#afflhttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm#afflhttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#dshttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d9.htm#dshttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/h9.htm#hshttp://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d2.htm#dena7/27/2019 Argument Forms
4/25
p q
p
_____
~ q
In this case, the first line of the truth-table shows that (with ourinclusive sense of the ) it is possible for the premises to be true
and the conclusion false.
p q pq p ~ q
T T T T F
T F T T T
F T T F F
F F F F T
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
5/25
Constructing a Logical Argument
Introduction
There is a great deal of argument on Usenet. Unfortunately, most of it is of very poor quality. This document
attempts to provide a gentle introduction to logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.
Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of
reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we determine whether the
reasoning is valid or invalid.
One does not need to study logic in order to reason correctly. However, a little basic knowledge of logic is often
helpful when constructing or analyzing an argument.
Note that I am not claiming that logic is universally applicable. That issue is very much open to debate. This
document only explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the job.
Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic. Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy
logic, obey different rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though, they generally mean the type being
described here.
Basic concepts
The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also called statements. A proposition is a statement
which is either true or false; for example:
"The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge."
"Dogs cannot see colour."
"Berlin is the capital of Germany."
Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technicalmeaning of "deny", not the everyday meaning.
The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular arrangement of words used. So "A God exists"
and "There exists a God" both express the same proposition.
What is an argument?
An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite
proposition". There are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.
Stage one: Premises
One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They
are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its
conclusions.
Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
6/25
(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious
premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question it. You can always say "Oh, yes,
you're right, it is obvious" when you've heard the explanation.)
Stage two: Inference
The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. Ininference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition.
There are various forms of valid inference.
The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases
such as "implies that" or "therefore".
Stage three: Conclusion
Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the
final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions
are often indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.
Types of argument
There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A deductive argument provides conclusive
proof of its conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either
valid or invalid.
A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive
arguments are not valid or invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other arguments. We
can also discuss how probable their premises are.
There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive nor inductive. However, this
document concentrates on deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.
Here is an example of a deductive argument:
Every event has a cause (premise) The universe has a beginning (premise) All beginnings involve an event (premise) This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference) Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)
Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another argument. A proposition can only becalled a premise or a conclusion with respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.
Recognizing an argument
Sometimes an argument will not follow the order described above. For instance, the conclusions might be stated
first, and the premises stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid, if sometimes a little
confusing.
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#stageshttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#stages7/27/2019 Argument Forms
7/25
Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Many people shower their writing with assertions
without ever producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some statements look like
arguments, but are not.
For example:
"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar, or the Son of God."
The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does not assert the premises which are necessary to
support what appears to be its conclusion. (Even if we add the assertions, it still suffers from a number of other
logical flaws -- see the section on this argument in "Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions".)
Another example:
"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."
The phrase "do your duty to God" is neither true nor false. Therefore it is not a proposition, and the sentence is
not an argument.
Causality is important. Suppose we are trying to argue that there is something wrong with the engine of a car.
Consider two statements of the form "A because B". The first statement:
"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."
The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong with the engine; it is an explanation of why the
car will not start. We are explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot argue from A to B using a statement
of the form "A because B".
However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:
"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not start."
Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement "A because B" is then an argument.
To make the difference clear, note that "A because B" is equivalent to "B therefore A". The two statements then
become:
"There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will not start."
And:
"My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the engine."
If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is something wrong with the engine, it is clear that
only the second statement is a valid argument.
Implication in detail
There is one very important thing to remember: The fact that a deductive argument is valid does not imply that its
conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now
consider more carefully.
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/faq.html#LLLhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/faq.html#LLL7/27/2019 Argument Forms
8/25
Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an argument may be entirely valid even if it
contains only false propositions.
For example:
All insects have wings (premise) Woodlice are insects (premise) Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)
Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false. If the argument's premises were true,
however, the conclusion would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.
More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises, as in:
All fish live in the sea (premise) Dolphins are fish (premise) Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)
However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid inference from true premises.
We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise,
"B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
Premise Conclusion Inference
A B A=>B----------------------------
F F T
F T T
-- If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false.
T F F-- If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.
T T T
-- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true.
A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound argument therefore arrives at a true
conclusion. Be careful not to confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.
Of course, we can criticize more than the mere soundness of an argument. In everyday life, arguments are almost
always presented with some specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the argument itself, one can criticize the
apparent intent of the argument. Such criticism is outside the scope of this document, however!
Further reading
For a readable introduction to logic, try Flew's "Thinking Straight", listed in the atheist resources document. The
document also lists LOGIC-L, a LISTSERV mailing list devoted to discussing the teaching of elementary logic.
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#validhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/resources.html#flewhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/resources.html#logic-lhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/resources.html#logic-lhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/resources.html#flewhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#valid7/27/2019 Argument Forms
9/25
Fallacies
To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require lengthy discussion of linguistics and
philosophy. It is simpler and probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when
constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.
In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads
to those beliefs. This is fair enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of technically incorrect
argument, especially if the argument appears valid or convincing.
So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical argument which appears to be correct, but
which can be seen to be incorrect when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being misled
by them.
Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical devices often used in debate. The list is not
intended to be exhaustive.
Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force
The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push
the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". The
force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.
For example:
"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".
The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an
assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an
assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.
For example:
"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."
Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by showing, for example, that he is a
known perjurer. This is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not
Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude
otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person argues that his opponent ought to
accept the truth of an assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances. For example:
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear
leather shoes?"
This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing the opponent's argument.
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#ignorantiamhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#ignorantiam7/27/2019 Argument Forms
10/25
This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion. For example:
"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's adversary is rationalizing a
conclusion formed from selfish interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that
something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that
something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."
Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred,
the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.
For example:
"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The
earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore
no such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with
certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof
Argumentum ad misericordiam
This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity
for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:
"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through
being an orphan."
Argumentum ad populum
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win
acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by
emotive language. For example:
"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#shiftinghttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#shifting7/27/2019 Argument Forms
11/25
"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken
fools?"
Argumentum ad numerum
This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who
support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
Argumentum ad verecundiam
The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example:
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a
particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly
between:
"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and
"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed.
Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine
intelligence.
The fallacy of accident
The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular case whose "accidental"
circumstances mean that the rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the
specific. For example:
"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."
This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide every moral and legal question by
mechanically applying general rules.
Converse accident / Hasty generalization
This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when one forms a general rule by examining only a
few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. For example:
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."
Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#populumhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#accidenthttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#accidenthttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#populum7/27/2019 Argument Forms
12/25
A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of
that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty
generalization.
Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc
These are known as False Cause fallacies.
The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the cause of an event but it has not
actually been shown to be the cause. For example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."
The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely
because it happened before the event. For example:
"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts that because two events occur together, they must be
causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.
Petitio principii / Begging the question
This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.
Circulus in demonstrando
This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the
proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:
"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to
be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to
blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office."
Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above
has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees.
Another example is the classic:
"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word
of God."
Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition
This is the interrogative form ofBegging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#posthochttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#begginghttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#begginghttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#posthoc7/27/2019 Argument Forms
13/25
The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often
used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like:
"Where did you hide the money you stole?"
Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:
"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"
or
"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"
Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.
Ignoratio elenchi
The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it
is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.
For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably
true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he
will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.
Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse emotions which cause others to view the
supposed conclusion in a more favourable light.
Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For
example:
"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what
they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."
Amphiboly
Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical
phrasing.
Accent
Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which
parts of a statement are emphasized. For example, consider:
"We should not speak ill of our friends"
and
"We should not speak ill of our friends"
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
14/25
Fallacies of composition
One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts of something must apply to the
whole. For example:
"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight."
The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a number of individual items is shared by a
collection of those items. For example:
"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than
buses."
Fallacy of division
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The
first is to assume that a property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:
"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."
The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. For example:
"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."
The slippery slope argument
This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the
harmful events are caused by the first event.
For example:
"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-
addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."
"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way similar without actually specifying in
what way they are similar. Examples:
"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of history?"
"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of Christianity?"
"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so
aren't dogs a form of cat?"
Affirmation of the consequent
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#compositionhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#composition7/27/2019 Argument Forms
15/25
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy,
examine the truth table for implication given earlier.
Denial of the antecedent
This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false". The truth table for
implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa. The
latter has the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all. Here, the
problem is not that the implication is invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce
anything about B.
Converting a conditional
This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old, or because "that's the way
it's always been."
Argumentum ad novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the fallacy of asserting that something is more
correct simply because it is new or newer than something else.
Argumentum ad crumenam
The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be
right.
Argumentum ad lazarum
The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is
wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.
Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad
nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.
Bifurcation
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only
two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
Plurium interrogationum / Many questions
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#truthtablehttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#truthtablehttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#truthtablehttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#posthochttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#antiquitatemhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#antiquitatemhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#posthochttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#truthtablehttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#truthtablehttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#truthtable7/27/2019 Argument Forms
16/25
This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex question.
Non sequitur
A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which are not logically connected
with it.
Red herring
This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's
attention is diverted away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.
Reification / Hypostatization
Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a
special case ofArgumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies
or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless
proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
Straw man
The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, then to
knock down that misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
The extended analogy
The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The
fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a
claim that those situations are analogous to each other.
This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about anti-cryptography legislation:
"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"
Tu quoque
This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to be acceptable because the other party
has performed it. For instance:
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#ignorantiamhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/intro.html#assertionshttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/intro.html#assertionshttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#ignorantiam7/27/2019 Argument Forms
17/25
"You're just being randomly abusive."
"So? You've been abusive too."
This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case ofArgumentum ad Hominem.
Audiatur et altera pars
Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera
Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all
of one's assumptions; however, it is often viewed with suspicion.
Ad hoc
There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as
evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because
B" is not an argument, it is an explanation.
The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which does not apply to other situations. Often this ad
hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people
equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:
"I was healed from cancer."
"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."
"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"
"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."
Argumentum ad logicam
This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false merely on the grounds that it has been presented
as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true
conclusions.
mathew
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#hominemhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#causalityhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#causalityhttp://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html#hominem7/27/2019 Argument Forms
18/25
Philosophical Terms and Methods
Vocabulary Describing Arguments
Contents
Valid Arguments Sound Arguments Persuasive Arguments Conditionals
o Necessary and sufficient conditions Consistency
Most of the arguments philosophers concern themselves with are--or purport to be--deductive arguments.
Mathematical proofs are a good example of deductive argument.
Most of the arguments we employ in everyday life are not deductive arguments but rather inductive arguments.
Inductive arguments are arguments which do not attempt to establish a thesis conclusively.Rather, they cite evidence
which makes the conclusionsomewhat reasonable to believe. The methods Sherlock Holmes employed to catch
criminals (and which Holmes misleadingly called "deduction") were examples of inductive argument. Other
examples of inductive argument include: concluding that it won't snow on June 1st this year, because it hasn't
snowed on June 1st for any of the last 100 years; concluding that your friend is jealous because that's the best
explanation you can come up with of his behavior, and so on.
It's a controversial and difficult question what qualities make an argument a good inductive argument. Fortunately,
we don't need to concern ourselves with that question here. In this class, we're concerned onlywith deductive arguments.
Philosophers use the following words to describe the qualities that make an argument a good deductive argument:
Valid Arguments
We call an argument deductively valid (or, for short, just "valid") when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically
follows from, the premises.
Validity is a property of the argument'sform. It doesn't matter what the premises and the conclusion actually say. It
just matters whether the argument has the right form. So, in particular, a valid argument need nothave true premises,
nor need it have a true conclusion. The following is a valid argument:
1. All cats are reptiles.2. Bugs Bunny is a cat.3. So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.
Neither of the premises of this argument is true. Nor is the conclusion. But the premises are of such a form
that ifthey were both true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Hence the argument is valid.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.htmlhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#validhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#soundhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#persuasivehttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#conditionalshttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#necsufficienthttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#consistencyhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#consistencyhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#necsufficienthttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#conditionalshttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#persuasivehttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#soundhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html#validhttp://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html7/27/2019 Argument Forms
19/25
To tell whether an argument is valid, figure out what the form of the argument is, and then try to think of some other
argument ofthat same form and having true premises but a false conclusion. If you succeed, then every argument of
that form must be invalid. A valid form of argument can neverlead you from true premises to a false conclusion.
For instance, consider the argument:
1. If Socrates was a philosopher, then he wasn't a historian.2. Socrates wasn't a historian.3. So Socrates was a philosopher.
This argument is of the form "If P then Q. Q. So P." (If you like, you could say the form is: "If P then not-Q. not-Q.
So P." For present purposes, it doesn't matter.) The conclusion of the argument is true. But is it a valid form of
argument?
It is not. How can you tell? Because the following argument is of the same form, and it has true premises but a false
conclusion:
1. If Socrates was a horse (this corresponds to P), then Socrates was warm-blooded (this corresponds to Q).2. Socrates was warm-blooded (Q).3. So Socrates was a horse (P).
Since this second argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it must be invalid. And since the first argument
has the same form as the second argument (both are of the form "If P then Q. Q. So P."), both arguments must be
invalid.
Here are some more examples of invalid arguments:
The Argument Its Form
If there is a hedgehog in my gas tank, then my car will not start.My car will not start.
Hence, there must be a hedgehog in my gas tank.
If P then Q.Q.
So P.
If I publicly insult my mother-in-law, then my wife will be angry
at me.
I will not insult my mother-in-law.
Hence, my wife will never be angry at me.
If P then Q.
not-P.
So not-Q.
Either Athens is in Greece or it is in Turkey.
Athens is in Greece.
Therefore, Athens is in Turkey.
Either P or Q.
P.
So Q.
If I move my knight, Christian will take my knight.
If I move my queen, Christian will take my knight.
Therefore, if I move my knight, then I move my queen.
If P then Q.
If R then Q.
So if P then
R.
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
20/25
Invalid arguments give us no reason to believe their conclusions. But be careful: The fact that an argument is
invalid doesn't mean that the argument's conclusion is false. The conclusion might be true. It's just that the invalid
argument doesn't give us any good reason to believe that the conclusion is true.
If you take a class in Formal Logic, you'll study which forms of argument are valid and which are invalid. We won't
devote much time to that study in this class. I only want you to learn what the terms "valid" and "invalid" mean, and
to be able to recognize a few clear cases of valid and invalid arguments when you see them.
Exercise
For each of the following arguments, determine whether it is valid or invalid. If it's invalid, explain why.
Either Colonel Mustard or Miss Scarlet is the culprit.
Miss Scarlet is not the culprit.
Hence, Colonel Mustard is the culprit.
Your high idle is caused either by a problem with the transmission, or by too
little oil, or both.
You have too little oil in your car.
Therefore, your transmission is fine.
If the moon is made of green cheese, then cows jump over it.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Therefore, cows jump over the moon.
Sometimes an author will not explicitly state all the premises of his argument. This will render his argument invalid
as it is written. In such cases we can often "fix up" the argument by supplying the missing premise, assuming thatthe author meant it all along. For instance, as it stands, the argument:
1. All engineers enjoy ballet.2. Therefore, some males enjoy ballet.
is invalid. But it's clear how to fix it up. We just need to supply the hidden premise:
1. All engineers enjoy ballet.2. Some engineers are male.3. Therefore, some males enjoy ballet.
You should become adept at filling in such missing premises, so that you can see the underlying form of an
argument more clearly.
Exercise
Try to supply the missing premises in the following arguments:
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
21/25
If you keep driving your car with a faulty carburetor, it will eventually
explode.
Therefore, if you keep driving your car with a faulty carburetor, you will
eventually get hurt.
Abortion is morally wrong.Abortion is not a constitutional right.
Therefore, abortion ought to be against the law.
Sometimes a premise is left out because it is taken to be obvious, as in the engineer argument, and in the
exploding car argument. But sometimes the missing premise is very contentious, as in the abortion argument.
Sound Arguments
An argument is sound just in case it's valid andall its premises are true.
The argument:
1. If the moon is made of green cheese, then cows jump over it.2. The moon is made of green cheese.3. Therefore, cows jump over the moon.
is an example of a valid argument which is not sound.
We said above that a valid argument can never take you from true premises to a false conclusion. So, if you have a
sound argument for a given conclusion, then, since the argument has true premises, and since the argument is valid,
and valid arguments can never take you from true premises to a false conclusion, the argument's conclusion mustbe
true. Sound arguments always have true conclusions.
This means that if you read Philosopher X's argument and you disagree with his conclusion, then you're committed
to the claim that his argument is unsound. Either X's conclusion does not actually follow from his premises--there is
a problem with his reasoning or logic--or at least one of X's premises is false.
When you're doing philosophy, it is never enough simply to say that you disagree with someone's conclusion, or that
his conclusion is wrong. If your opponent's conclusion is wrong, then there must be something wrong with his
argument, and you need to say what it is.
Exercise
Here are some sample arguments. Can you tell which ones are valid and which of the valid arguments are also
sound? (There are 5 valid arguments and 2 sound arguments.)
I. If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man. So,
Socrates is mortal.
II. If Socrates is a horse, then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a horse. So,
Socrates is mortal.
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
22/25
III. If Socrates is a horse, then Socrates has four legs. Socrates is a
horse. So, Socrates has four legs.
IV. If Socrates is a horse, then Socrates has four legs. Socrates doesn't
have four legs. So, Socrates is not a horse.
V. If Socrates is a man, then he's a mammal. Socrates is not a mammal. So
Socrates is not a man.
VI. If Socrates is a horse, then he's warm-blooded. Socrates is warm-blooded.
So Socrates is a horse.
VII. If Socrates was a philosopher then he wasn't a historian. Socrates
wasn't a historian. So, Socrates was a philosopher.
Persuasive Arguments
Unfortunately, merely having a sound argument is not yet enough to have the persuasive force of reason on your
side. For it might be that your premises are true, but it's hard to recognize that they're true.
Consider the following two arguments:
Argument A Argument B
1. Either God exists, or 2+2=5.2. 2+2 does not equal 5.3. So God exists.
1. Either God does not exist, or 2+2=5.2. 2+2 does not equal 5.3. So God does not exist.
Both of these arguments have the form "P or Q. not-Q. So P." That's a valid form of argument. So both of these
arguments are valid. What's more, at least one of the arguments is sound. If God exists, then all the premises of
Argument A are true, and since Argument A is valid, it must also be sound. If God does not exist, then all the
premises of Argument B are true, and since Argument B is valid, it must also be sound. Either way, one of the
arguments is sound. But we can't tell which of these arguments is sound and which is not. Hence neither argument is
very persuasive.
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
23/25
In general, when you're engaging in philosophical
debate, you don't just want valid arguments from premises that happen to be true. You want valid arguments from
premises that are recognizable as true, or already accepted as true, by all parties to your debate.
Hence, we can introduce a third notion:
Apersuasiveargument is a valid argument with plausible, or obviously true, or
antecedently accepted premises.
These are the sorts of arguments you should try to offer.
Conditionals
A claim of the form "If P then Q" is known as a conditional. P is called the antecedent of the conditional, and Q is
called the consequent of the conditional.
In this class, you can take all of the following to be variant ways of saying the same thing:
If P then Q P implies Q P -> Q P is sufficient (or: a sufficient condition) for Q If you've got P you must have Q A necessary condition for having P is that you have Q Q is necessary for having P It's only the case that P if it's also the case that Q P only if Q
http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=516http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=5167/27/2019 Argument Forms
24/25
Note the terms sufficient condition and necessary condition.
To say that one fact is a sufficient condition for a second fact means that, so long as the first fact obtains,
that's enough to guarantee that the second fact obtains, too. For example, if you have ten children, that is
sufficient for you to be a parent.
To say that one fact is a necessary condition for a second fact means that, in order for the second fact to be
true, it's required that the first fact also be true. For example, in order for you to be a father, it's necessary
that you be male. You can't be a father unless you're male. So being male is a necessary condition for being
a father.
When P entails Q, then P is a sufficient condition for Q (if P is true, that guarantees that Q is true, too); and
Q is a necessary condition for P (in order for P to be true, Q also has to be true).
Exercise
Consider the following pairs and say whether one provides sufficient and/or necessary conditions for the other.
1. a valid argument, a sound argument
2. knowing that it will rain, believing that it will rain
Now, just because P entails Q, it doesn't follow that Q entails P. However, sometimes it's both the case that P
entails Qandalso the case that Q entails P. When so, we write it as follows (again, all of these are variant ways of
saying the same thing):
P if and only if Q P iff Q P just in case Q P Q if P then Q, and if Q then P P is both sufficient and necessary for Q P is a necessary and sufficient condition for Q
For example, being a male parent is both necessary and sufficient for being a father. If you're a father, it's required
that you be a male parent. And if you're a male parent, that suffices for you to be father. So we can say that someone
is a father if and only if he's a male parent.
Consistency
When a set of propositions cannot all be simultaneously true, we say that the propositions are inconsistent. Here
is an example of two inconsistent propositions:
1. Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy.2. Oswald did not act alone when he shot Kennedy.
When a set of propositions is notinconsistent, then they're consistent. Note that consistency is no guarantee of truth.
It's possible for a set of propositions to be consistent, and yet for some or all of them to be false.
7/27/2019 Argument Forms
25/25
Sometimes we say that a proposition P is incompatible with another proposition Q. This is just another way of
saying that the two propositions are inconsistent with each other.
A contradiction is a proposition that's inconsistent with itself, like "P and not-P."
Sometimes it's tricky to see that a set of propositions is inconsistent, or to determine which of them you ought to
give up. For instance, the following three propositions all seem somewhat plausible, yet they cannot all three be true,for they're inconsistent with each other:
1. If a person promises to do something, then he's obliged to do it.2. No one is obliged to do things which it's impossible for him to do.3. People sometimes promise to do things it's impossible for them to d