A Brief Introduction To Logic and Argumentation

What is an argument? A series of claims, known as premises, that are arranged to compel agreement with a conclusion.

Two basic ways of criticizing an argument (Keep these in mind): 1) Question the truth of the premises 2) Question that the conclusion follows from the premises

Two basic kinds of arguments:

1) Deductive
a. Strongest kind, when done right they guarantee their conclusion if premises are true. b. Quality is either/or, black and white, strong or weak, no degrees. c. Also really hard to do well.

Two basic kinds of arguments:

2) Inductive
a. Weaker kind, when done right the best they do is make their conclusion highly likely. b. Quality is a matter of degree, never absolutely air-tight (can be absolutely flawed.) c. To an extent, quality is a matter of interpretation. d. Thankfully, easier to do well.

Deductive arguments and Validity:

When a deductive argument guarantees that the conclusion follows from the premises it is called valid; otherwise, it is invalid. Example of a valid argument:

1) If the moon is made of green cheese then God exists. 2) The moon is made of green cheese. 3) Therefore, God exists.

The fact that premises (1) and (2) are false doesnt matter. Validity is a matter of the FORM or STRUCTURE of an argument.

Deductive arguments and Validity:

Notice the structure of the above argument:

1) If A then B. 2) A. 3) Therefore B.

This structure will ALWAYS be valid, (that is, 3 will always follow from 1 and 2) regardless of what you plug in for A and B.

Truth and Soundness

But what about truth? In a valid deductive argument true premises will entail a true conclusion. If a deductive argument has a valid structure AND all of its premises are true, then it is a sound argument. A sound argument guarantees the truth of its conclusion because (1) the premises are true and (2) its valid. Soundness = valid structure + true premises. Example of a sound argument:

1) All men are mortal 2) Socrates is a man 3) Therefore Socrates is mortal

Truth without Validity

But just because an argument has true premises/ conclusion doesnt mean its sound; it may not have a valid structure. Consider:

1) If you are in Kingwood, then you are in Texas. 2) You are in Texas. 3) Therefore you are in Kingwood.

Even though all three are true (3) doesnt follow from (1) and (2). The conclusion is not guaranteed by the premises, so it is not valid and it is not sound.

Invalid Structure

Note that the structure of the above argument will ALWAYS be invalid

1) If A then B 2) B 3) Therefore A.

The If Then operator only gets you validity when it goes forward (from the first term to the second term), not when it goes backward.

Inductive Arguments and Inductive Strength:

Four Types of Inductive Arguments:

1) Inductive Generalization 2) Argument from Analogy 3) Inference to the Best Explanation 4) Reductio ad Absurdum

Inductive Generalization

In science this is basic hypothesis formulation

1) All/most of the observed Xs have been Y. 2) Therefore all/most of Xs are Y.

Two questions to ask:

(a) How representative is the sample? (b) How reasonable is the conclusion, given the evidence?

Argument from analogy

1) X is like Y in certain relevant ways 2) Y has feature Z 3) Therefore X has feature Z

Two questions to ask: (a) are the relevant ways really relevant? (b) are there any relevant dissimilarities?

Inference to the best explanation

1) X explains/accurately predicts A, B & C. 2) Y explains/accurately predicts A, B & C, plus D, E & F. 3) There isnt anything that X explains/accurately predicts that Y doesnt. 4) Y doesnt make more false predictions than X. 5) Y is more simple and graceful than X. (Occams razor) 6) Therefore Y (or rather, therefore Y over of X.)

Inference to the best explanation

Two questions to ask:

(a) Are there any other alternatives besides X and Y? (b) How, exactly, does Y explain/predict A, B, C, D, E and F?

Reductio ad absurdum

Can be deductive or inductive:

1) Assume P for the sake of argument 2) If P, then Q 3) But clearly ~Q (Q is absurd/false/unacceptable, etc.) 4) Therefore not P

Two questions to ask:

(a) Does Q really follow from P? (b) Is Q really absurd, false, unacceptable, etc?

A Few Common Fallacies:

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning. Examples:

Begging the question Appeal to authority Equivocation False analogy False dilemma Ad hominem Straw Man Arguments from ignorance Correlative fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)

Begging the question:

Assuming the very thing youre trying to prove, smuggling the conclusion into the premises. Also called circular reasoning.
1) George says hes an honest man. 2) An honest man doesnt lie. 3) Therefore, I can trust George when he says hes an honest man.

Appeal to Authority

No substantive argument can ever be settled by simply invoking an expert. Experts can establish the truth of certain premises, but whether or not the conclusion follows is an open question. Frequently we dont have the time to investigate the evidence for an argument ourselves, so we have no choice but to (provisionally) accept the appeal to authority.

1) Tom says global warming is real.

Equivocation

Changing the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument.

1) My money is in a bank. 2) A bank is the slope of land adjacent to a river. 3) Therefore my money is in a slope of land adjacent to a river.

False Analogy

A failed argument from analogy; an argument that analogizes two things which are not relevantly similar, but instead are only superficially or apparently similar.

1) Women are like tornados: they tear your life apart when they enter it and take your stuff with them when they leave. 2) Tornados are meteorological phenomena. 3) Therefore, women are meteorological

False Dilemma

Presents only two alternatives for consideration when other alternatives exist.

Either youre with us or youre with the terrorists.

Ad hominem:

Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

Sometimes this can be vicious (of course youd think that, youre bleeding heart liberal!) But other times it can be more subtle (Plato only rejected democracy because he grew up in Hellenic Greece.)

Important to note: ad hominem CAN be a legitimate response when were being asked to believe a CLAIM; its only inappropriate as a rebuttal to an ARGUMENT.

Straw Man:

Mischaracterizing an opponents position/ argument so that it can be easily rebutted.

1) X thinks animals should have equal rights with humans. 2) This entails that animals should have the right to vote. This is absurd. 3) Therefore X is wrong; animals shouldnt have equal rights with humans.

The converse of this is the principle of charity: always make your opponents arguments as strong as you can before trying to rebut them.

Arguments from ignorance:

Assuming the lack of evidence FOR something constitutes evidence AGAINST something. I.E.-Even though there is no proof Aliens exist, this doesnt count as proof that they DONT exist. Note, sometimes this isnt a fallacy: Theres no proof Unicorns exist, but this DOES seem to count as evidence that they DONT exist (if there were any unicorns, we would have found evidence.) It depends if weve looked in the right places.

Correlative fallacy:

Assuming a correlation is a cause.

1) The Supreme Court outlawed prayer in public schools in 1962 2) The crime rate, divorce rate and teen pregnancy rate have all drastically increased since 1962. 3) Therefore the lack of prayer in public schools has been detrimental to society.

The conclusion MIGHT be true, but the correlation alone does little to prove this or make it plausible.

Pirates cause Global Warming

Its time to play Name That Fallacy!!!!

How many fallacies can YOU spot in this clip?