How not to argue

8/7/2019 How not to argue

1/16

How Not To ArgueMuhammad Imran Mustafa

Saturday, 20 February 2010


2/16

Definitions

Definition: set of propositions (premises)which is followed by another proposition(conclusion)

Divided into:

1. Deductive2. Inductive



3/16

Deductive argument

Truth of the conclusion necessarily comes fromthe truth of the premises

E.g. a simply syllogism1. Premise 1: All men are mortal

2. Premise 2: Azad is a man

3. Conclusion: Azad is mortal

If premise 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion isnecessaril true.



4/16

Inductive arguments

The premises give support to the conclusion, butnot completely

Wikipedia: moving from a set of specific facts to ageneral conclusion

Example:

1. Premise 1: Most Malaysians eat nasi lemak2. Premise 2: Azad is a Malaysian

3. Conclusion: Azad eats nasi lemak



5/16

Of arguments

Validity: a valid argument is one where the truth of

it's premise entails the truth of the conclusion.invalid otherwise

Soundness: Argument is valid

All premises are true



6/16

Of arguments

Strong if argument:

is true

is directly related to the issue

is important, in view of the issue that is raised

Weak if

is false or ignores conditions in the issue

not directly related to the issue raised

it is not im ortant, in view of the issue raised



7/16

Common Mistakes



8/16

1. Hasty generalisation

"Making assumptions about a whole group

or range of cases based on a sample that isinadequate"

E.g. All my Chinese friends are rich. Rich

people dont need help. Therefore, theChinese people dont need help



9/16

2. Non sequiturs Conclusion are drawn that do not follow

E.g. The happenings in the world cannot beexplained by what we know. Therefore,there must be someone planning it i.e. a

conspiracy.



10/16

3. Ad hominem & tu

uo ue "Against the person" & "You too"

Arguments are not valid due to the person

E.g. Richard Dawkins is an atheist and is antireligion. Therefore, all his criticisms againstreligion is invalid



11/16

3. Appeal to authority Trying to get people to agree with us by

appealing to a (supposed) authority

E.g. 'Ustaz X kata begini. Oleh itu, ianya

mestilah betul! Takkan ustaz itu menipukot!'



12/16

4. Straw man

"Arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent'sposition and tries to score points by knocking itdown."

Can be thought of as: taking the best of atheoretical model and comparing it with the worstin reality

E.g. Democracy causes confusion and division. Thechaliphate during the prophet's time and the 4khulafa' is the best system. Therefore, we must



13/16

5. Appeal to ignorance

No one knows it, therefore, you shouldlisten to my argument

Absence of evidence - proving a negative

E.g. "People have been trying for years toprove that God does not exist. But no onehas yet been able to prove it. Therefore,God exists."



14/16

6. Weak analogy

The two things that are being comparedaren't really alike in the relevant respects

E.g. Metod da'wah



15/16

7. Begging the question

The proposition to be proved is assumed

implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

E.g. 1: The belief in God is universal. Afterall, everyone believes in God.

E.g. 2: If such actions were not illegal, thenthey would not be prohibited by the law.



16/16

Conclusion

Logical fallacies can easily be avoided

A bit of thought needed

S

Documents

How not to argue