Reading: The Philosophical Argument

Argument
The word “argument” can be used to designate a dispute or a fight, or it can be used more
technically. The focus of this article is on understanding an argument as a collection of truth-
bearers (that is, the things that bear truth and falsity, or are true and false) some of which are
offered as reasons for one of them, the conclusion. This article takes propositions as the
primary truth bearers (definition of proposition: a statement one can accept or reject as true).
The reasons offered within the argument are called “premises”, and the proposition that the
premises are offered for is called the “conclusion”. Arguments, as understood in this article, are
the subject of study in critical thinking and informal logic courses in which students usually
learn, among other things, how to identify, reconstruct, and evaluate arguments given outside
the classroom.
The characterization of argument in the first paragraph requires development since there are
forms of reasoning such as explanations which are not typically regarded as arguments even
though (explanatory) reasons are offered for a proposition. Two principal approaches to fine-
tuning this first-step characterization of arguments are what may be called the structural and
pragmatic approaches. The pragmatic approach is motivated by the view that the nature of an
argument cannot be completely captured in terms of its structure. In what follows, each
approach is described, and criticism is briefly offered. Along the way, distinctive features of
arguments are highlighted that seemingly must be accounted for.
1. The Structural Approach to Characterizing Arguments
Not just any group of propositions qualifies as an argument. The starting point for structural
approaches is the idea that the premises of an argument are reasons offered in support of its
conclusion.
Typically in presenting an argument, a person will use expressions to flag the intended
structural components of her argument. Typical premise indicators include: “because”, “since”,
“for”, and “as”; typical conclusion indicators include “therefore”, “thus”, “hence”, and “so”. Note
well: these expressions do not always function in these ways, and so their mere use does not
necessitate the presence of an argument.
Suppose that a person we will call Robert offers [1] and [2] as reasons in support of [3]. The
argument is presented in what is called standard form; the premises are listed first and a solid
line separates them from the conclusion, which is prefaced by “∴”. This symbol means
“therefore”. Premises [1] and [2] are convergent because they do not support the conclusion
independently of one another. Which means that the two reasons need each other to lend
support to the conclusion. It is unreasonable to think that Robert offers [1] and [2] individually,
as opposed to collectively, as reasons for [3]. The following representation of the argument
depicts the convergence of the premises.

Combining [1] and [2] with the plus sign and underscoring them indicates that they
are convergent. The arrow indicates that they are offered in support of [3].

2. The Pragmatic Approach to Characterizing Arguments

The pragmatic approach is motivated by the view that the nature of an argument cannot be
completely captured in terms of its structure. In contrast to structural definitions of arguments,
pragmatic definitions ask us to look at the function of arguments. Different accounts of the
purposes arguments serve generate different pragmatic definitions of arguments. The following
pragmatic definition appeals to the use of arguments as tools of rational persuasion.
A collection of propositions is an argument if and only if there is a person Robert who puts
forward some of the propositions (the premises) as reasons in support of one of the
propositions (the conclusion) in order to rationally persuade an audience of the truth of the
conclusion.
One advantage of this definition over the previously given structural one is that it offers an
explanation for why arguments have the structure they do. In order to rationally persuade an
audience of the truth of a proposition, one must offer reasons in support of that proposition.
The appeal to rational persuasion is necessary to distinguish arguments from other forms of
persuasion such as threats. One question that arises is: What obligations does a person incur
by virtue of offering supporting reasons for a conclusion in order to rationally persuade an
audience of the conclusion? One might think that such a person should be open to criticisms
and obligated to respond to them persuasively. By appealing to the aims that arguments
serve, pragmatic definitions highlight the methods used by a person when presenting an
argument in addition to the arguments themselves.
For example, the acts of explaining and arguing—in sense highlighted here—have different
aims. Whereas the act of explaining is designed to increase the audience’s comprehension,
the act of arguing is aimed at enhancing the acceptability of a standpoint. This difference in aim
makes sense of the fact that in presenting an argument the person giving the reasons believes
that her standpoint is not yet acceptable to her audience, but in presenting an explanation the
person knows or believes that the conclusion is already accepted by her audience
3. Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Arguments are commonly classified as deductive or inductive A deductive argument is an
argument that Robert (as our example of a person presenting an argument) puts forward as
valid. For a valid argument, it is not possible for the premises to be true with the conclusion
false. That is, if the premises are true, then, by necessity, the conclusion is true. Thus we may
say that the truth of the premises in a valid argument guarantees that the conclusion is also
true. The following is an example of a valid argument: Tom is happy only if his favorite team
wins, the team lost; therefore, Tom is definitely not happy.
An inductive argument is an argument that Robert puts forward as inductively strong. In an
inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then
it would be unlikely, although possible, that the conclusion is false. If the truth of the premises
makes it unlikely (but not impossible) that the conclusion is false, then we may say that the
argument is inductively strong. The following is an example of an inductively strong
argument: 97% of the Republicans in town Z voted for McX, Jones is a Republican in town Z;
therefore, Jones voted for McX.
In an argument like this, Robert often will conclude "Jones probably voted for McX" instead of
"Jones voted for McX," because they are signaling with the word "probably" that they intend to
present an argument that is inductively strong but not valid.
In order to evaluate an argument it is important to determine whether or not it is deductive or
inductive. It is inappropriate to criticize an inductively strong argument for being invalid. Based
on the above characterizations, whether an argument is deductive or inductive turns on
whether the arguer intends the argument to be valid or merely inductively strong, respectively.
Sometimes the presence of certain expressions such as ‘definitely’ and ‘probably’ in the above
two arguments indicate the relevant intensions of Robert. Charity dictates that an invalid
argument which is inductively strong be evaluated as an inductive argument unless there is
clear evidence to the contrary.
4. Conclusion
A group of propositions constitutes an argument only if some are offered as reasons for one of
them. Two approaches to identifying the definitive characteristics of arguments are the
structural and pragmatic approaches. On both approaches, whether an act of offering reasons
for a proposition P yields an argument depends on what the person believes regarding both the
truth of the reasons and the relationship between the reasons and P. A typical use of an
argument is to rationally persuade its audience of the truth of the conclusion. To be effective in
realizing this aim, the person must think that there is real potential in the relevant context for
her audience to be rationally persuaded of the conclusion by means of the offered premises.
What, exactly, this presupposes about the audience depends on what the argument is and the
context in which it is given. An argument may be classified as deductive, or inductive. Its
classification into one of these categories is a prerequisite for its proper evaluation.

The material in this essay was excerpted from a much longer article written by Matthew
McKeon, Michigan State University
see http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

Reading: Elements of an Argument

The place of logic in our thinking. How to build a simple argument.

Building a Better Argument

Finding Premises and Conclusions
Key Terms:

 Argument: a conclusion together with the premises that support it

 Premise: a reason offered as support for another claim
 Conclusion: the claim being supported by a premise or premises
 Explanation: a statement or set of statements designed to show why something is the case
rather than that it is the case

Example:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates was a man.
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
The three lines taken together constitute an argument. Line 3 is the conclusion. Lines 1 and 2
are premises.
Tips for picking out premises and conclusions:
• You can look at the text for clues like these:
Premise Indicators

 As indicated by
 The reason is that
 May be inferred from
 May be derived from May be deduced from
 Given that

Conclusion Indicators

 Therefore
 Hence
 So
 Accordingly
 Consequently
 Proves that
 As a result
 Thus Since
 Because
 For
 As Follows from
 As shown by
 Inasmuch as
 For this reason
 For these reasons It follows that
 I conclude that Which shows that
 Which means that Which entails that
 Which implies that

• You can also try acting like a 3-year-old:

1. Read a sentence and ask, “Why should I believe that?”
2. Look at the rest of the passage and see if you can find anything that looks like an answer to
the why question.
3. If you find an answer, then the answer is a premise and the original claim (the sentence
about which you asked why) is a conclusion.
4. Repeat the process for each claim.

Reading: How to Write a Philosophy Paper

How to Write a Philosophy Paper (for Beginners)


With philosophy papers, simply having an opinion or presenting some information is not
enough. Instead you must present an argument. That is, you must have a clear thesis that you
support with reason.

Step 1
Become familiar with the material, as well as somewhat familiar with your own view before
writing on it. Can you state your thesis and can you give reasons in support of it?

Step 2
Diagram your argument by writing out reasons and connecting them to the thesis with arrows
which represent the support relation.
Example: Suppose the thesis is that there is no free will and a reason you offer in support of it
is that we are governed by the laws of physics. The diagram will have an arrow running from
"We are governed by the laws of physics" to the thesis "There is no free will". There, of course,
may be other reasons in support of the thesis but let's keep it simple.

Step 3
Play the role of self-critic. Is each reason independently plausible or is there room for someone
to raise doubts about it? Also (looking at the arrows), would each reason provide strong
support for the thesis or is this support not so strong?

Step 4
Write objections in red ink. An objection to the plausibility of a reason will have a red arrow
going from the objection to the reason. An objection that the reason doesn't offer good support
for the thesis will have a red arrow going from the objection to the reason's arrow.

Example of an objection to plausibility: The objection "We have minds and minds are not
physical" may be an objection to the claim "We are governed by the laws of physics". It is itself
a controversial issue (one that may deserve attention in its own right) but do not let that cloud
the fact that anyone that accepts this objection will have less reason to believe that we are
governed by the laws of physics. This objection would have a red arrow going from it to the
reason "We are governed by the laws of physics".

Step 5
Example of an objection to the support a claim offers: The objection "The laws of physics are
not determinate" is meant to undermine the support that "We are governed by the laws of
physics" is supposed to give to the main thesis that there is no free will. The idea is supposed
to be that you can accept that we are governed by the laws of physics and still believe in free
will since you believe that the laws are not determinate. This objection's arrow would hit the
arrow that ran from "We are governed by the laws of physics" to "There is no free will".
Defend your argument from criticism by presenting objections to these objections. These are
called 'counter-objections' or simply 'counters' and they work the same way as reasons and
objections do; each statement has an arrow running from it to some other statement or arrow.
However, since you are now playing for your own team again, do not use the red ink.

Step 6
Do not try to carry out this process too far. Life and college is too short. One set of objections
with one set of counters in your defense may be enough. However, if there are any obvious
replies you should note them. Do not ignore any strong points in the criticism against your
argument. (The grader will easily spot them and see the fact that you ignored them as a fault in
your paper.)
Step 7
Outline your paper based on this diagram. Decide whether you will (i) present your entire
argument first, then the objections, then your counters or (ii) present your argument with
objections as you go. If there are many objections to deal with, go with (i).

Step 8
Write your paper according to this outline.

Step 9
Clearly state your thesis in the first paragraph or on the first page. (A dramatic alternative is to
reveal your thesis at the end, but this is generally not advisable in a college paper.)

Step 10
Clearly indicate whether you are offering a reason, an objection, or a counter-objection. And
clearly indicate whether that claim (whatever it is) attacks the plausibility or support of another
claim.

Step 11
Use examples and analogies to illustrate where needed. For example, a line of dominoes
falling over is a pretty clear example of what is supposed to be a determinate process. Likening
human behavior to your car's engine is a powerful analogy regarding the issue of free will.

Reading: Fun with Fallacies

Fun With Fallacies
15 ways we all fail to make sound arguments

Ad hominem/genetic - "I don’t care if she is the governor of the state! Her taxation ideas are
far too extreme. How can we trust anything she says if she advocates taxes of that nature?"

Wishful thinking - "Sure, I’ve heard that it’s better to not eat cheeseburgers every day, but it’s
extra protein and protein is good for you."

“Argument” from popularity - “Come on, everyone knows that the government has lied to us
in the past. This case isn’t any different.”

Hasty generalizing - "My friend, who goes to college online, said students from that online
college are ignorant about life. That girl we just met, Tracy, goes to that college, so I don’t trust
anything she says."

“Argument” from outrage - From one mom to another: “I can’t believe Shelia lets her kids go
online and watch that garbage! I always knew she wasn’t very strict. Now our kids will be over
there watching that junk, too!”
Straw man - From one politician about another: “He’s a two-faced, liberal, anti-family, and anti-
God liar!”

Post hoc - "If it weren’t for the president’s energy policy, we wouldn’t be dealing with these oil
spills."

Red herring/smokescreen - From a teenager confronted by his parent about wrecking the
family vehicle: “Why do we have to keep harping on this accident thing? Let’s talk about that A
grade I’m getting in algebra.”

Group think - "It’s disgraceful that a member of our church would go out to fast food
restaurants every night. Christians believe in family values, including home-cooked meals."

Scare tactics - On a radio ad: "Have you been fatigued, irritable, moody? If these symptoms
are ignored, you might become depressed or even suicidal! Ward off the blues by taking a pill
proven to cheer you up. Millions of people have, and they’re glad they did!"

Poisoning the well - "You’re having lunch at the market? Well, that is OK, but I hear the
market has been targeted by a terrorist. I’d be careful if I were you."

Apple polishing - "It takes someone with a really big heart to give to our charity, and you
seem like someone who cares more than most."

Guilt trip - "Stomachache or not, how could you not eat your dinner after I spent all that time
making it!"

Perfectionist fallacy - About an already-attractive home interior: "I don’t know why we started
this home renovation if we’re only doing two of the rooms. Either way, it won’t look right unless
we redo the entire house."

Inconsistency ad hominem - From a Bible study group member: “I just don’t get it. One
minute she says she’s coming, and then the next, she calls to cancel. I wonder if we can even
trust the ideas she offers us here at our Bible study.”

There are many more fallacies we could look at. This gives you a little taste of how readily we
all can fall into making arguments that do not hold up well under scrutiny. May you all become
very good writers whose thoughts cannot be challenged!!

Reading: Logic and the Christian Faith

Logic and Christian faith
Logic maintains that one can move from premise a to premise b and draw conclusion c. Is that
possible with the content of our faith as Christians? So far this week, nothing we have looked
at is specifically Christian. But we need to determine if faith is a logical thing to pursue, or is it
readily objected to? Does the presentation of any objection simply nullify the truth of a
statement of faith which has been drawn out of our faith experience?
For example, a person I know is very ill. The doctors have done all they know how to do in
order to bring about healing, but to no avail. Then a fellow Christian comes alongside the
person I know and prays for him. In a few days, he begins to show improvement and later he
has recovered completely. The ill person attributes this to the hand of God which his fellow
Christian prayed might touch his life. Is that logical? Or does logic automatically exclude any
reference to God since God is outside of our common experience?
In the following, you will find several quotes from one of the 20th Century’s best apologists for
the Christian faith. As such, C.S. Lewis embodied the very character of a Christian deeply
committed to logic and its meaning for life in general and Christianity in particular. I thought I
would simply present this to you as a written document rather than presenting it in a
PowerPoint presentation. These are wonderful thoughts to let ramble around in your mind from
time to time. You will find Lewis to be a significant tutor in how to think logically as a Christian.

You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream.
Affection is responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is
in our lives.
Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is
one of those things that give value to survival.
It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn
to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on
indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad.
Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.
Failures, repeated failures, are finger posts on the road to achievement. One fails
forward toward success.
If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not
get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end,
despair.
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but
because by it I see everything else.
The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts.
God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there.
There is no such thing.
Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever
devil.
A man who is eating or lying with his wife or preparing to go to sleep in humility,
thankfulness and temperance, is, by Christian standards, in an infinitely higher state
than one who is listening to Bach or reading Plato in a state of pride.
Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary
competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the
deserts that our lives have already become.
Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.
Has this world been so kind to you that you should leave with regret? There are better
things ahead than any we leave behind.
The future is something which everyone reaches at the rate of 60 minutes an hour,
whatever he does, whoever he is.
We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-
turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is
the most progressive.
Part of every misery is, so to speak, the misery's shadow or reflection: the fact that you
don't merely suffer but have to keep on thinking about the fact that you suffer. I not only
live each endless day in grief, but live each day thinking about living each day in grief.
You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me.
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can
put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.
Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the
whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to
whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'
If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world
were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely
ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no
meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with
eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Read more
at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/c_s_lewis.html#3ojHyOBU7L6DpUvQ.99

Reading: Advice to Christian Philosophers by Alvin Plantinga

1.Introduction
Christianity, these days, and in our part of the world, is on the move. There are many signs
pointing in this direction: the growth of Christian schools, of the serious conservative Christian
denominations, the furor over prayer in public schools, the creationism/evolution controversy,
and others. There is also powerful evidence for this contention in philosophy. Thirty or thirty-
five years ago, the public temper of mainline establishment philosophy in the English speaking
world was deeply non-Christian. Few establishment philosophers were Christian; even fewer
were willing to admit in public that they were, and still fewer thought of their being Christian as
making a real difference to their practice as philosophers. The most popular question of
philosophical theology, at that time, was not whether Christianity or theism is true; the question,
instead, was whether it even makes sense to say that there is such a person as God.
According to the logical positivism then running riot, the sentence "there is such a person as
God" literally makes no sense; it is disguised nonsense; it altogether fails to express a thought
or a proposition. The central question wasn't whether theism is true; it was whether there is
such a thing as theism -a genuine factual claim that is either true or false- at all. But things
have changed. There are now many more Christians and many more unabashed Christians in
the professional mainstream of American philosophical life.
For example, the foundation of the Society for Christian Philosophers, an organization to
promote fellowship and exchange of ideas among Christian philosophers, is both an evidence
and a consequence of that fact. Founded some six years ago, it is now a thriving organization
with regional meetings in every part of the country; its members are deeply involved in
American professional philosophical life. So Christianity is on the move, and on the move in
philosophy, as well as in other areas of intellectual life. But even if Christianity is on the move,
it has taken only a few brief steps; and it is marching through largely alien territory. For the
intellectual culture of our day is for the most part profoundly non- theistic and hence non-
Christian- more than that, it is antitheistic.
Most of the so-called human sciences, much of the non-human sciences, most of non-scientific
intellectual endeavor and even a good bit of allegedly Christian theology is animated by a spirit
wholly foreign to that of Christian theism. I don't have the space here to elaborate and develop
this point; but I don't have to, for it is familiar to you all. To return to philosophy: most of the
major philosophy departments in America have next to nothing to offer the student intent on
coming to see how to be a Christian in philosophy, how to assess and develop the bearing of
Christianity on matters of current philosophical concern, and how to think about those
philosophical matters of interest to the Christian community. In the typical graduate philosophy
department there will be little more, along these lines, than a course in philosophy of religion in
which it is suggested that the evidence for the existence of God -the classical theistic proofs,
say- is at least counterbalanced by the evidence against the existence of God -the problem of
evil, perhaps; and it may then be added that the wisest course, in view of such maxims as
Ockham's Razor, is to dispense with the whole idea of God, at least for philosophical purposes.

Reprinted from Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers vol. 1:3,
(253-271), permanently copyrighted October 1984. Used by permission of the Editor. New
preface by author. Journal web site: www.faithandphilosophy.com
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This article is the sole property of Faith and Philosophy. It may not be altered or edited in any
way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All
reproductions of this data file must contain this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice.
This data file may not be used without the permission of Faith and Philosophy for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold