ARGUMENT

Argument in philosophy, describes a set of claims, statements or reasoning otherwise referred

to as premises which in turn affirm another statement known as the conclusion. Most
disciplines resort to arguments for justification of their claims. What this implies is that
by permeating scientific inquiries, legal procedures, education, and political institutions,
argumentative practices are pervasive everywhere.

SOUNDNESS AND VALIDITY

Both are standards for assessing a deductive reasoning.

VALIDITY
validity points at how premises interdepend on each other to authenticate the conclusion. As a
property of an argument, validity holds that truthfulness of premises logically guarantees that
the conclusion will be true. In other words, if an argument’s conclusion must stand valid and
accepted as being true, at least one premise must be true. Some arguments that fail to be
valid are acceptable on other grounds different from the fact that the premises preceding that
same conclusion must be true. Basically, validity is a property of deductive reasoning or
argument. When some arguments fail their validity tests, they may be acceptable on different
grounds that are not formal logic (inductively strong arguments are an instance). When this
becomes the case, their conclusions are supported with less than logical necessity.

Again, a “valid” argument demands that the conclusion must necessarily draw from the
premises. Where the premises are true, it becomes utterly IMPOSSIBLE to arrive at a false
conclusion.

Valid argument: Example

1. All philosophy lecturers super intelligent.
2. All lecturers of logic are philosophy lecturers.
3. Therefore, all logic lecturers are super intelligent.

Note #1: IF (1) and (2) WERE true, then (3) would also HAVE to be true. Note also that
Validity is silent on whether or not any of the premises ARE true. It only emphasis is that IF
both premises are true, then the conclusion must stand true. Therefore, validity interests itself
more with the FORM of an argument, rather than the TRUTH of an argument. Therefore, an
argument with the right form is deemed valid.

Nonetheless, an argument can possess the right form, but stand entirely false. An instance is
seen below

1. Daphne is a girl.

2. All girls are witches.

3. Therefore, Daphne is a witch.

Whereas the above argument stands valid, premise 2 and the conclusion hold false. It is
crucial to reemphasise that WHERE the premises ARE true, then the conclusion would also
BE true. This is all that is required for validity. A valid argument need not have true premises
or a true conclusion.

SOUNDNESS

A sound argument on the other hand, MUST have true premises and a true conclusion.
Soundness in an argument REQUIRES two criteria: (1) Valid. (2) True premises. In other
words, a sound argument possesses rightness of form AND it is true. A sound argument must
be followed by a true conclusion, an outcome that occurs whenever both criteria for
soundness are met.

Register the fact that a sound argument is both valid AND has true premises. If you
remember our initial definition of validity, you should be able to understand that where the
premises for all valid arguments are true, then the conclusion MUST also be true. Therefore,
all sound arguments have true conclusions. On revisiting our argument instance about
Daphne, the argument is valid, but NOT sound. It lacks soundness since all its premises are
not true. That “All girls are witches” is not true. Hence, the argument about Daphne is valid,
but NOT sound. Below is an instance of a valid, YET sound argument:

1. All sheep are mammals.

2. Pie Mollie is a sheep.

3. Therefore, Pie Mollie is a mammal.

In the argument above, the premises are true, therefore the conclusion is necessarily true (and
of course valid). It turns out also, that both premises ARE true (All sheep are ARE factually
speaking, mammals, and Pie Mollie IS in fact a sheep)— thus, the conclusion must also be
true (and the argument adjudged as sound).

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT/REASONING

In philosophy, the two recognised categorisations of argument are deductive and inductive.
Although argument assumes a complicated nature in formal systems of logic as well as in the
many forms of non-classical logic.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT/REASONING
In deductive reasoning, an argument is progressed from a general idea to a specific
conclusion. It is totally different from starting and progressing a reasoning from a specific
observation through a general conclusion. Other names for deductive reasoning, are
deductive logic and top-down reasoning. Conclusions rely on premises to be either valid or
invalid in a deductive argument. A premise is a universally known idea, fact, or rule. It is a
statement that sets the tone for a theory or general idea. Conclusions on the other hand, are
statements reinforced by premises.

A simple deductive argument often begins with a premise, then a second premise, both of
which a conclusion can be formed. Logicians refer to it as a “premise-premise-conclusion.”

Examples: Deductive logic arguments

Premise All insects are six legged.

Premise Spiders are eight legged.

Conclusion Therefore, spiders are not insects.

Premise Blue litmus paper reddens in the presence of acid.

Premise The blue litmus paper reddened after I dropped some liquid on it.

Conclusion Therefore, the liquid is an acid.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMEENT/REASONING
Inductive arguments/reasoning draw general conclusions from specific, limited
observations. In other words, where deductive argument adopts a top-down
approach— gliding from a general premise to a specific conclusion — inductive
reasoning does otherwise. It uses a bottom-up approach to generate new
premises, or hypotheses. To achieve reliability from a conclusion in inductive
logic, one has to probe the completeness of observations. For instance, let's say
one has a carton of apples. After extracting three apples from the carton and
each apple comes out rotten, an inductive logic user might then propose that
every single apple in that carton is rotten.
But then, the reasoning is faulty— despite each apple taken from the carton
coming out rotten, inductive reasoning does not guarantee that the conclusion
will be true. The next apple taken out of the carton could be fresh and without
blemish.

More instances:

Malaria is a disease.
Malaria kills.
Therefore, all disease kill.

Penguins are birds.

Penguins can't fly.
Therefore, no birds can fly.

The conclusion for both instances above do not follow logically from the
statements, since the only disease included in the sample is malaria, and
the same goes for penguins. It is important to note that its inherent
limitations notwithstanding, inductive reasoning enjoys a certain level of
patronage in scientific methods. Scientists adapt it to form hypotheses
and theories. Researchers then use deductive reasoning to apply the
theories to specific situations.

More Instances of Inductive Reasoning

Data: I’ve seen wicked folks drop by for five summers to say hello.
Hypothesis: This summer, they will probably drop by for their normal
hellos

Data: I tend to have convulsions when people around me are sick.

Hypothesis: Convulsions are infectious.

Data: Every dog I meet is friendly.

Hypothesis: Most dogs are usually friendly.