COMPILED PHL 104 Notes

By

HON. EXPONENT

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

Table of Contents
By ............................................................................................................................................... 1
General Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
MODULE 1 ........................................................................................................................... 5
USES OF LANGUAGE ........................................................................................................... 5
MODULE 2 USE AND MENTION/ SCARE QUOTES ................................................... 8
Module 3: Theories of Meaning (Part 1).............................................................................. 11
Module 3: Theories of Meaning (Part II) ............................................................................ 13
Module 4: Definitions (Part I) ............................................................................................... 16
Module 4: Definitions (Part II) ............................................................................................. 19
ARGUMENTS (I) .................................................................................................................. 23
DR. O.O. BADEJO & DR. A.O. ALADE........................................................................ 23
ARGUMENTS (II) ................................................................................................................. 27
DR. O.O. BADEJO & DR. A.O. ALADE........................................................................ 27
ARGUMENTS (III) ............................................................................................................... 31
DR. O.O. BADEJO & DR. A.O. ALADE........................................................................ 31
Topic: Disagreements. ........................................................................................................... 35
Prepared by: Dr. N. Okorie .................................................................................................. 35
Topic: Types of Disagreements (Contd.) ............................................................................. 37
Topic: Types of Disagreements (Contd.) ............................................................................. 40
Prepared by: Dr. N. Okorie ...................................................................................................... 40
Topic: Types of Disagreements (Contd.) ............................................................................. 43

*** Click on any part of the “automated” TABLE OF CONTENTS to take you directly
to the page you want to go.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
General Introduction
By
Dr. J.O. Famakinwa
This general introduction was unintentionally omitted in the course outline earlier sent to the
class. However, it is important to do a brief introduction of the course in order to appreciate
the current academic terrain. It is equally necessary to inform the class that PHL 104 is a
continuation of PHL 101. The class will recall that the latter focused on Ethics, Metaphysics
and Epistemology. However, the current class focuses on Logic. What then is logic?
Logic, as a branch of Philosophy, could be defined thus:
i. Logic is one of the core branches of Philosophy. It sets standards and rules for
correct reasoning.

ii. Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen define logic as “the study of the methods and
principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning.”1
According to Chakraborti, logic is a branch of Philosophy that is “dedicated to the
study of reasoning.2

iii. Logic, through its methods and principles, provides structures that enable correct
thinking or reasoning.

iv. Logic is a special branch of philosophy because it provides the solid foundation
upon which all other branches of philosophy rest. Arguments and debates in Ethics,
Metaphysics, Epistemology and even all disciplines outside Philosophy, are
expected to be logical. Engaging in correct reasoning is almost a duty not only in
Philosophy but in all human endeavours.

v. The methods and principles of logic are good tools for analysis across various
disciplines. This explains the constant and eternal relevance of logic in all human
endeavours. As a matter of fact, when the physical structures of the whole world
collapse, in case they collapse, it is only the logical structures or forms that would
remain because logical structures are everlasting and indestructible. The methods
and principles of logic will outlive the current physical world.

vi. The methods and principles of logic are universal. Such methods and principles are
universal in the sense that no human society denies them. A denial would lead to an
obvious contradiction. The class will learn about contradiction before the end of the
current semester.

1
Copi I. M. & Cohen C. 2000. Introduction to Logic New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India. p.2
2
Chakraborti C. 2007. LOGIC: Informal, Symbolic and Inductive New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India. p.1

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 vii. Again, the methods and principles of logic are not only universal but rigid and
flexible. As mentioned in (vi), the principles of logic cannot be denied without
obvious contradictions and this partly explains the rigidity. However, the rigidity
also permits flexibility. The principles of logic are flexible because they provide
abundant opportunities for creativity. For example, a thinker or a reasoner, for the
best reason known to him or her, might decide to provide argument in support of
illogicality (Reasoning that does not follow the minimum rules of logic). However,
the proviso is that arguments in support of illogicalities (whatever they are) can only
be carried out logically. Logic does not allow anyone to support illogicalities
illogically. Therefore, head or tail, the methods and principles of logic win.

viii. Finally, the flexibility of logic is allowed in order to create room for creativity,
which could lead to new material and non-material inventions. New inventions
could lead to different species of development; political, economic, social,
scientific, technological, cultural and even intellectual. 3 The next section briefly
explains the two kinds of logic.

2. Kinds of Logic
Logic is not only a branch of Philosophy but also a branch of Mathematics. Today, the
applications of logic “are well known in the area of artificial intelligence” especially in
computer science and technology.4 Traditionally, there are two kinds of logic:
i. FORMAL Logic: This is also known as classical logic or classical first order logic.
Formal logic rests on the discovery that “statements in natural language have
underlying logical forms.” 5Experts in Formal logic are of the view that behind
observable statements in natural language, there are un-observables. The study of
formal logic reveals such un-observables. You will learn more about Formal Logic
from Dr. (Mrs) O.O. Badejo in PHL 201/204 in Part Two.

ii. INFORMAL Logic: This kind of logic focuses on the quality of reasoning that
occurs in every day conversations or “exchange of words in media reports, in
advertisement, in legal briefs, political debates…”6
In the current semester, the class will focus on INFORMAL Logic. All issues listed in the
course outline earlier sent come under informal logic. The next class will start to look at
Theories of Meaning. You are all welcome on board. Please enjoy your flight to the world of
Critical or Reflective Thinking.

3
Famakinwa J.O. 2012. “Is the Unexamined Life Worth Living or Not” in Think: Philosophy for Everyone (A
Journal of The Royal Institute of Philosophy), Number 31, pp.97-103.
4
Chakraborti C. 2007. LOGIC: Informal, Symbolic and Inductive New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India. p.8
5
Ibid. p.8
6
Ibid. p.8

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 MODULE 1
USES OF LANGUAGE
BY
PROFESSOR Y.K. SALAMI
1. What is Language?
Language can be defined in several ways. In one sense, it is the audible, articulate,
meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs. In another sense, it can be
seen as a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of
conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings.
2. Importance of Language
Language is a great tool of thought, and it plays important roles in the process of rational
thought and rational problem- solving activities.
(a). Language makes communication easier and enlarges it. This has made a search for truth
to become a genuinely cooperative enterprise. With the aid of language, no one needs
discover all things for himself. The major part of what he knows he can learn from others, for
example, parents, teachers, friends, and associates, among others. It also makes collaborative
efforts possible.
(b). Language makes preservation and discoveries of thoughts easier. This preservative
feature of language makes possible more long-range, deliberate, leisurely, discontinuous, and
critical attacks upon problems. One may interrupt his thought by a meal, a night, sleep, or
other responsibilities without finding his entire train of thought disappeared in thin air. Also
he may review, for purposes of further criticism and correction, points he had worked out
before. Hence, larger and more complex problems may be attacked and solved because of the
preservative value of language.
(c). Finally, language provides us with calculus, a tool which can do much of our thinking
for us. By a calculus we should understand any system of signs whose rules for combination
and re-arrangement reflect legitimate movements of thought. The correct use of any such
system of signs, thus simplifies and ensures correctness in calculating the solutions of
problems that belong to specific types.
3. What is a Sentence?
A sentence is a word, clause, or phrase or a group of clauses or phrases forming a
syntactic unit which expresses an assertion, a question, a command, a wish, an exclamation,
or the performance of an action, that in writing usually begins with a capital letter and
concludes with appropriate end punctuation, and that in speaking is distinguished by
characteristic patterns of stress, pitch, and pauses. A sentence is often, in summary, defined
as the unit of language that expresses a complete thought.

4. Grammatical Forms of Sentences

Sentences are commonly divided into four categories, called Declarative, Interrogative,
Imperative, and Exclamatory.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 (a). Declarative form of sentence states or declares a view that can be true or false. For
example, ‘it is raining outside’.
(b). Interrogative form of sentence asks question that demands answer. For example,
‘Where is your pen?’
(c). Imperative form of sentence gives order or passes commands. For example, ‘shut the
door.’
(d). Exclamatory form of sentence expresses excitement or surprise. For example, ‘Oh
God!’

5. Different Uses of Language

In his Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein maintains that there are
countless different kinds of use of what we call language. Among such are giving orders,
describing the appearance of an object or giving its measurements, reporting an event,
speculating about an event, forming and testing a hypothesis, presenting the results of an
experiment in tables and diagrams, making up a story,, play-acting, singing catches, guessing
riddles, … These uses are often capured under three main categories.
(a). Cognitive Use: The cognitive use of language covers the three importance of language
as already discussed above, viz. (i) enlargement of the possibilities of communication, (ii)
preservation of thought, and (iii) provision of calculus. In addition to these three above, we
also have the fourth, which is the informative use of language.
(iv). Informative Use of Language: this occurs when we use language to state or declare
our beliefs or opinions. Here, we use language to communicate information. This can be in
terms of formulating and affirming, or denying, propositions. Language is used informatively
when it is used to affirm or deny propositions, or to present arguments. Here, the word
‘information’ may also include ‘misinformation’, false as well as true propositions, and
incorrect as well as correct arguments. Informative discourse is used to describe the world,
and to reason about it. Whether the alleged facts are important or unimportant, general or
particular, does not matter. The description or reporting of such facts is informative.
Language is used informatively when what we express is capable of being either true or false.
Examples of informative use of language abounds in science. E.g. ‘The biggest natural
diamond ever found was 3,106 carats’, ‘Water boils at 100 degree Celsius’, ‘Professor
Ogunbodede is the current Vice-Chancellor of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife’.

(b). Pragmatic Use of Language: Language is used pragmatically when it serves the
directive function or it is used to cause or prevent an overt action. The clearest examples are
commands and requests. When a parent tells a child to wash up for dinner, the intention is not
to communicate any information or to express or evoke any particular emotion. The language
is intended to get results, to cause action of the indicated kind. When a theatregoer says to the
ticket seller, “Two please”, the language is being used directively to produce action. Between
commands and requests, the differences may be subtle. Almost any command can be
converted into a request with suitable changes in the tone of voice, or merely by the addition
of the word ‘please’. A question may also be classified as directive discourse when, as
ordinarily, it is posed in order to request an answer.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 In its nakedly imperative form, directive discourse is neither true nor false. A command
such as ‘close the door’ cannot be either true or false. We may disagree about whether a
command has been obeyed or disobeyed, but we never disagree about whether a command is
true or false, because those terms simply do not aplly to it. However, commands and requests
have other attributes such as reasonableness or impropriety. We may ask or disagree about
whether a command is reasonable or unreasonable, morally desirable or not morally
desirable.
(c). Aesthetic Use of Language: Aesthetic use of language is not meant to inform us of any
facts or theories concerning the world, but to manifest, or express, or communicate our
feelings, emotions and attitudes. They are not intended to communicate information but to
express emotions, feelings, or attitudes. This is commonly found in poetry, and it can be
found in expression of sorrow, joy, love, hatred, or excitement. We express sorrow with
‘that’s too bad’ or ‘what a pity?’ We can express excitement with ‘Terrific’, or ‘fantastic’.
Intense passion may be expressed by lovers murmuring private words of endearment. A
worshipper’s feeling of awe and wonder at the vastness and mystery of the universe may be
expressed by reciting the Lord’s Prayer, or Arabic ‘Subuhanallahi’.
While the speaker uses language to express his or her feelings, emotions, and attitudes, he
also expects the language to arouse the same feeling, emotion, and attitudes in the hearer.
Truth or falsity, correctness or incorrectness are not applicable to expressive use of language.
Generally, then, language is used expressively either to manifest the speaker’s feelings or to
attempt to arouse or evoke certain feelings on the part of the auditor or hearer. This is the
language of the creative arts. This type of language use is mostly found in poetry and some
other creative artistic works.
(d). Language Serving Multiple Functions
The examples of Cognitive, pragmatic, and aesthetic uses of language are pure
specimens. This three-fold division of the kinds of communication is illuminating and
valuable, but it cannot be applied mechanically, because almost any ordinary communication
will probably exhibit, to a greater or lesser extent, all three uses of language. Thus a poem,
which may be primarily aesthetically expressive discourse, also may have a moral and thus
also direct the reader or hearer to lead a different kind of life, and of course, a poem may
contain a certain amount of information as well. On the other hand, although a sermon may
be predominantly pragmatically directive, seeking to bring about certain appropriate actions
by members of the congregation, it may evoke sentiments and manifest them, thus serving the
expressive function, and may also include some information, such as the glad tidings of the
Gospels. A scientific treatise, although essentially cognitively informative, may express the
writer’s intellectual enthusiasm and may also, at least implicitly, bid the reader to verify
independently the author’s conclusion.
FURTHER READINGS
Copi I.M., and Cohen C.G. Introduction to Logic 10th Edition New Jersey:Prentice Hall, 1994. pp.89-106

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 PHL104 MODULE 2 USE AND MENTION/ SCARE QUOTES
BY
PROFESSOR YUNUSA KEHINDE SALAMI

1. Introduction
The aim and objective of this module is to introduce students to different ways in which they
can use inverted commas to achieve clarity in the presentation of their thoughts. Apart from
the usual use of inverted commas to indicate that you are quoting the ideas under inverted
commas verbatim from another source, this module will teach you how you can use inverted
commas to distinguish between when you are using a word and when you are simply
mentioning it. It will also teach you to know when inverted comma is used as scare quotes to
warn you that a particular word or phrase is being used in a particular way to convey some
special meaning.
2. Use and Mention
In Use and Mention, inverted commas are used to distinguish a word from what it names.
It is often convenient to have a way to make it certain when we are using a word and when
we are talking about the word itself. We use words to talk about, refer to, or mention some
things in the world. We use the word “dog” to talk about, refer to, or mention some canine
creature that walks on four legs, sometimes kept as pets or for security. The word “sin” refers
to, or mentions some sort of religious or moral failing. “Love” refers to or mentions the
emotional state of attraction to other being. According to this convention, the name of a word
is formed by putting inverted commas or what you call quotation marks around the word
itself. A word in quotation marks or inverted commas is the name of a word that is mentioned
or talked about.
It is this that makes it possible to say “Love” has four letters. Love which “Love”
mentions is an emotional state in human beings in the world, it cannot have four letters. What
has for letters is the word “Love” which mentions Love which is an emotional state. The
same thing goes for “Dog” has three letters. Dog is an animal in the world which is
mentioned or referred to by the three letters “Dog”.
Consider these statements and the use of inverted commas:
(a) The word “” Ibadan”” is the word we shall use to refer to the word “Ibadan” which refers
to Ibadan, the capital of Oyo state in Nigeria.
Here, you can see that the first Ibadan has two sets of inverted commas because it refers to
the second Ibadan which is also a word that refers to or mention Ibadan a city in Nigeria.
That is why the second Ibadan has only one set of inverted commas, and the third Ibadan has
no inverted comma because it is a city which actually exists in the world.
(b) The word “””Ibadan””” refers to “”Ibadan”” which refers to “Ibadan” which is a name
that refers to Ibadan a city in Nigeria.
The difference between (a) and (b) is in the number of the words Ibadan and that determines
the number of sets of inverted commas. In (a) Ibadan appears three times and only one
appearance refers to the city, while in (b), Ibadan appears four times and only one out of four

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

is the city. That is why the first Ibadan in (a) has two sets of inverted commas and in (b) the
first Ibadan has three sets of inverted commas.
With this it makes sense to say :
(c) We saw “Obafemi Awolowo University” hanging on the wall. The inverted commas show
that it is not the university itself that is hanging on the wall but the words that mentions it.
(d) “French” is not really French, but “English” is English”
(d) “Long” is not really long, but “short” is short.
Practice Questions
How will you handle these? Try your hands on them:
(e) Western Civilization begins with a W
(f)Bertrand Russel died on February2, 1970, is a sentence that we accept as true.
(g) Anyone who can spell well can certainly spell Wellington
(h) Awkward is awkward to write, but sex is pleasurable
(i) Christianity begins with Christ, according to Christians and many others
(j) The Cow was scrawled at the bottom of the page

3. SCARE QUOTES OR WARNING QUOTES

Inverted commas are used as scare quotes or warning quotes when they are used to call
our attention to the fact that the author is employing an ordinary word in a special sense.
(a) Technical Use
Here, our attention is called to the fact that the author is using a word in a technical or
restricted sense.
(i) To philosophers, “materialism” is the metaphysical view that the universe is ultimately
made of matters (It is not an undue rush after material wealth).
(ii) To Ricardo and his followers, “Savings” are the money that is reinvested in the business.
It is not money held back from investment. This rules out money kept in bank or under
pillows and mattresses
(iii) To philosophers, “Metaphysics” is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the
questions of first principles or the ultimate constituent of the universe.
This is not in the ordinary usage where metaphysics is associated with occultism or magic.
(b) Indication of a Use of Word to Indicate Analogy
We can use inverted commas to indicate that a word is used in terms of an analogy, that is,
we use an example of what we already know to explain another one that we do not know but
which shares some similarities with that which we already know:
(i) The brain is the best “Computer” we have access to.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

We should know that the author is not saying that the brain is in actual fact a computer
machine. He is probably saying that if we compare it with computers in certain respects, the
brain comes off well.
(ii) The bicycle is a “metallic horse”
(c) Indication that a word is meant only loosely
We can use inverted commas to indicate that a word is being used only loosely:
(i) Everyone who thinks is a “Philosopher”
In the professional sense, to be a philosopher requires some training and it is more than
an ability to just think.
(ii) There are some judges in our villages who knew very little about law
Judges are qualified lawyers who are later appointed from the Bar to the Bench and so
professionally they required some high level of the knowledge of law.
(d) Indication of Ironic Effect
We can use inverted commas to indicate ironic effect. This is when we use words to
convey meaning, which are generally satirical. In this case, words are used in a way that the
literal meaning is the opposite:
Today’s “patriots” seem to believe that an uncritical acceptance of every government policy
is required.
(This is to tell us that this is not a feature of patriotism, because patriotism is actually
commitment to the interest of the society rather than sycophancy which is commitment to
people in power.
REFERENCES
1. Carroll Lewis Alice’s Adventure in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass (New
York: American Library, 1960
2. Mill John Stuart A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive (London: Longman,
1965)

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
Module 3: Theories of Meaning (Part 1)
By
Dr. J.O. Famakinwa
In the last class, we briefly talked about the primary concerns of logic as a branch of Philosophy
and Mathematics. The current class will focus on Theories of Meaning. The first information
the class is needed to be provided with is that language is the primary weapon in the hand of a
good philosopher. Philosophy requires a good command of language. In view of this initial
observation, Philosophy of language is the root of Philosophy and, as a matter of fact, the root
of analytic Philosophy. The qualifier ‘Analytic’ is from the word ‘Analysis/Analyses’.
Philosophy analyzes and interprets words, concepts, statements, sentences and thoughts etc,
with a view to knowing their meanings. To analyze is to break words, statements, sentences
and specific thoughts into their various parts, just the way a roadside mechanic could break or
dismantle a car into its various parts. The need to know the meaning of certain words and
expressions became a central issue in the analytic and Continental Philosophy of the 20th
Century. Without the knowledge of the meaning of a word or expression, it is difficult, if not
totally impossible, to know how they are used or should be used in human communication.
In his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Ludwig Wittgenstein emphasizes the centrality of
language to philosophy. According to Wittgenstein, major problems in Philosophy arise due
the misuse and mismanagement of language. Wittgenstein says that endless disagreements,
debates, and arguments among Philosophers persist because “the logic of our language is
misunderstood.”7 In his view, all controversial problems in Philosophy would end once the
language in which such controversies are carried out is analyzed just the way a watch-repairer
dismantles a faulty wrist-watch in order to restore the wrist-watch back to its functional state.
Now, it is time the class addressed specific questions in order to make relevant issues about the
centrality of language to Philosophy clearer. However, before the questions, check the
following group of words and expressions below:
Group 1: Table, Lion, Fire, Cup,
Group 2: Good, Bad, Right, Wrong
Group 3: 2+2=4,
Group 4: God, Angel, Spirit (either holy or unholy)
Group 5: There is a table in the room, There are two cars in from of the house
Group 6: Killing is bad, It is good
Group 7: Spirit is spiritual, God exists, God does not exist
Group 8: Abuja is the capital of Oyo State

7
Wittgenstein L. T 1969. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul) p. 3

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

Group 9: 37
Questions
i. Which of these groups of words or expressions do you consider meaningful or
meaningless?

ii. How did you arrive at their meaningfulness or meaninglessness of those you
consider meaningful or meaningless? Briefly explain
Your response to the question is being expected.
Anyway, in order to know the meaning of words, statements and expressions such as in groups
1-9 above, Analytic Philosophers have formulated different Theories of Meaning. For instance,
under the influence of Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivist School
emerged around 1924 under the leadership of Moritz Schlick and Mathematician Hans Han.
The Logical Positivist School is also known as Logical Empiricist School or Scientific
Empiricist School or simply the Vienna Circle.8 The primary aims of the Vienna Circle are:
1. To protect science and its methodology. Members of the Vienna Circle are of the view
that the method of science is the best method for understanding the physical world you
and I currently occupy.

2. To develop theories of meaning that will promote science and eliminate all
metaphysical, ethical and religious claims through the analysis of language.

3. To develop Philosophy of empiricism. Empiricism says that true knowledge is obtained

through human five senses. We see through the eyes, taste with tongue, smell through
the nose, feel by touch and hear through ears.

The current class will end at this point. The second part of the current class will look at major
theories of meaning. Among theories of meaning to be considered are:
1. The Picture Theory of Meaning/
2. Referential Theory of Meaning
3. The Use Theory Meaning
4. The Emotive Theory of Meaning
5. The Prescriptivist Theory of Meaning
Thank you.

8
Blackburn S. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) p. 214

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

P PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
Module 3: Theories of Meaning (Part II)
By
Dr. J.O. Famakinwa
The Part I of the current class addressed the centrality of language to Philosophy. The focus
was the analytic orientation in Philosophy, especially that of Ludwig Wittgenstein and some
of his disciples in the Vienna Circle. On page 37 of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Wittgenstein declares:
‘All Philosophy is a Critique of Language…’9
Meaning that in any disagreement between two philosophers, each philosopher is only
responding to the way other philosopher uses language. The current class will briefly address
specific theories of meaning. Among such theories are: the Picture Theory of Meaning, the
Use Theory of Meaning and the Referential Theory of Meaning. Let us start with the
Picture Theory of Meaning.
The Picture Theory of Meaning is formulated by Ludwig Wittgenstein. It says that a word or
proposition or statement is meaningful if it pictures reality. In Wittgenstein view, ‘to picture
reality’ is to state fact(s) about the only physical world you and I currently occupy because ‘the
world is the totality of facts and not of things.’10 Any word or proposition or statement that
does not fulfill this condition is meaningless. For examples:
1. All human beings are biped (beings with two feet)
2. Birds fly
3. Any Unsupported object in space falls

Propositions 1, 2 and 3 are meaningful because they state facts about human beings, birds and
direction of any unsupported object in space. Besides, Wittgenstein formulates three kinds of
propositions:

i. Propositions with Sense: these are propositions that fulfill the conditions of
meaningfulness stated in the Picture Theory of Meaning above. They are
propositions with sense because they are verifiable through any of the human five
senses. Now, try and identify propositions with sense among Group 1 to 9 in the
previous class. Write down other examples of propositions that will qualify as
propositions with sense.

ii. Propositions without Sense or Senseless Propositions: According to

Wittgenstein, there are propositions that are meaningful in view of their capacity to
measure the physical world or any part of it accurately. For example, propositions
such 2+2 = 4 is a senseless (not derived from any of the human five senses)
proposition. The knowledge of numbers such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc is not derived
9
Wittgenstein L . Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969) p.37
10
ibid p.7

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 from any of the human five senses because numbers are not part of the structures of
the physical world. Have you ever met the number ‘2’ on the street? I am not sure
you have. What then are numbers? What are the sources of human ideas of numbers
such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc? Although propositions in mathematics, Arithmetic, Algebra
and in symbolic logic are not part of the physical structures of the universe, they are
still meaningful because they could be used to measure the physical world or any
part of it with accuracy. Finally, although 2+2=4 is a senseless propositions (not
derived from any of the human five senses), it is not non-sensical (meaningless).
This leads us to the third kind of propositions mentioned by Wittgenstein.

iii. Non-Sensical Propositions: these are propositions that neither state facts about the
physical world nor measure reality accurately. Non-sensical propositions are also
senseless because they are neither part of the physical structures of the Universe nor
derived from any of the five senses or verifiable through any of such senses. For
example, propositions such:

• Heaven helps those who help themselves

• God exists,
• God does not exist
• Witches fly at night with four unequal wings
• Spirits elevate spirituality etc
Try and think of more examples of nonsensical propositions.
Interestingly, the Picture Theory of Meaning was rejected by some scholars. The theory was
rejected on at least two grounds:
1. A word or statement or proposition could be meaningful even if such a word or
statement or proposition does not picture reality. In another way, a word or proposition
or statement needs not picture reality to be meaningful. For example, definite article
‘the’ and indefinite article ‘an’ do not picture reality and yet meaningful. Prepositions
such as ‘in’, ‘from’ ‘to’ do not picture reality are yet meaningful. We usually say ‘The
boy’, ‘An orange’, ‘The car’ etc

2. In view of 1 above, it is argued that the Picture Theory of Meaning is too narrow a
theory of meaning.11
Major criticisms of the picture theory of meaning are so strong and convincing to the point that
Ludwig Wittgenstein himself drops the theory and replaced it with what is known as The Use
Theory of Meaning in another book of his, Philosophical Investigation published in 1953.
According to Wittgenstein, Language is like a game and there is no game that does not have
its own rules. Do you agree with the last point or not? If you do not agree then provide an
example of a game without any rule or set of rules.
Just like a game, every language has its own rules that must be followed by speakers of the
language. Communication would breakdown if rules of a language are not followed by
language speakers. In view of this observation, The Use Theory of Meaning states:

11
For more criticisms of the Picture Theory of Meaning see Honderich T. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). P. 719

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 The Meaning of a word or proposition or statement is defined by the
way such a word or proposition or statement is used in particular
linguistic community. 12
On page 220 of Philosophical Investigation, Wittgenstein declares:
Let the use of words teach you their meaning.
For examples, the Yoruba word for come ‘wa’ would be meaningless to Europeans who use
the word ‘come’ for ‘wa’. Similarly, to a non-English speaker among Yoruba language
speakers, the word ‘come’ would be meaningless. Therefore, the meaningfulness or
meaninglessness of ‘come’ or ‘wa’ depends on the linguistic environment in which it is used.
Neither a European nor a Yoruba person could declare ‘wa’ or ‘come’ meaningless. The
meaning of ‘wa’ or ‘come’ depends on the linguistic environment in which the two words are
used.
Finally, try and apply the Use Theory of Meaning to Group 1 to 9 in the previous class and
declare those that would be meaningful or meaningless.
The next class will briefly consider DEFINITIONS
Enjoy Your Weekend.

12
Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigation 3rd edition G.E. Anscombe (Trans) (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1959) p.220

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

P PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
Module 4: Definitions (Part I)
By
Dr. J.O. Famakinwa
The last class addressed the concluding part of Theories of Meaning. The current Module
provides a detailed explanation of Definitions. Three key issues will be addressed:
1. Definitions/ what are they?

2. Kind of Definitions

3. Bad Definitions/ how do definitions go bad?

Definitions
A definition is a form of explanation of a word with a view to knowing the meaning of such a
word. Definitions become inevitable in order to avoid ambiguity and vagueness in the use of a
word.13 A definition clarifies the correct meaning of a word in order to guide language speakers
on how to use the same word. Usually, a definition states the sense in which a word is used by
language speakers.
Basically, a definition has two parts:
i. Definiendum: refers to the word being defined.

ii. Definiens: it refers to what defines the word that is being defined14
Try and identify definiendum and definiens in the following examples:
1. A triangle is a three-sided figure (True)

2. A human being is a featherless biped animal (True)

3. A father is a male parent (True)

4. Six is half of ten (False)

5. 4 is 3+5 (False)

6. A spinster is an unmarried male human being (False)

7. Water is two molecules of hydrogen and a molecule of oxygen (True)

13
Copi I. M. & Cohen C. 2000. Introduction to Logic New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India. p.169
14
Ibid. p.169

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 8. Abuja is the capital of Oyo state (False)

The following points could be made from definitions listed in 1-8 above:
i. True and false definitions are definitions

ii. True and false definitions are meaningful. You need to note that the very fact that
someone offers a false definition does not make the definition meaningless. A false
definition is as meaningful as a true definition. A factually false statement or
proposition is a meaningful statement or proposition.

iii. Is it possible to have a definition that is neither true nor false? Although there could
be such definitions, I cannot think of one because definitions are usually in form
of a statement. In logic, any statement is either true or false.

The Difference between a Statement and a Sentence

NOTE: *Every statement is a sentence but not every sentence is a statement e.g.
Abuja is the Capital of Nigeria - It is a statement and a sentence
* Any statement is either true or false. This means that sentences that are statements are
either true or
false.
*Not every sentence is a statement. It means that there are sentences that are neither true nor
false e.g.
Questions: What is your name? How old are you? Where are you going? etc All these are
sentences but not statements. Questions are neither true nor false
Imperative Sentences (Commands): Get out! Sit down! Go away! A command is not a
statement but a sentence. Therefore, imperatives are neither true nor false
Exclamatory Sentences: Sentences such as: Hurrah! Wow! etc are sentences but neither true
nor false because they are not statements.
The conclusion is that there are sentences that are either true or false (statements) and there are
sentences that are neither true nor false e.g Questions, Commands and Exclamations. The next
section explains various kinds of definitions.
Kinds of Definitions
1. Stipulative definition

2. Reportive Definition i.e. Lexical definition, Technical definition and Historical

Definition

3. Enumerative definition

4. Synonyms

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 5. Definition by Mentioning examples

All these kinds of definitions will be considered in the next class.

Thank you

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
Module 4: Definitions (Part II)
By
Dr. J.O. Famakinwa
In Part I of Module 4, the class defined a definition, definiendum, definien and the difference
between a statement and a sentence. The current class will provide a detailed explanation of
different kinds of definitions, and how definitions go bad. Among the kinds of definitions to
be considered are Stipulative, Reportive (Lexical, Technical and Historical), Enumerative,
Synonyms and Definition by Mentioning Examples (Ostensive and Mentioning an Example).
Let us start with the Stipulative Definition.
1. Stipulative Definition: the primary goal of a stipulative definition is creativity and the
expansion of knowledge. A stipulative definition is a definition that announces a
deliberate decision to use a word or an expression in a particular way. For example, an
author of a book or a writer of an article or essay can make a pronuncement at the
beginning of his or her book or essay thus:

‘In this book, by ‘blue’ I mean ‘love’/or/ In this essay, by ‘OA’ I shall mean ‘objective
assessment’ /or/ In this article, by ‘Christmus’ I shall mean someone who is neither a
Christian nor a Muslim.
Basically, a stipulative definition clearly states a special sense in which a word is going to be
used or actually used in a piece of work, in order to notify and guide readers about its special
meaning.
2. Reportive Definition: Unlike stipulative definition, Reportive definition clearly states
how a word is generally used among language speakers. There are three types of
Reportive Definition; Lexical, Technical and Historical Definitions. Let us consider a
brief explanation of each.

(a). Lexical Definition: It is a definition that states or describes the ordinary or general
meaning of a word as used by language speakers. A good example of lexical definition
is the dictionary meaning, e.g. Table (a piece of furniture), Father (A male parent) etc

(b). Technical Definition: refers to a definition of a word in a special sense, especially

as stated by professionals in a particular discipline or field. For example, the word
‘water’ is lexically or generally defined as colourless, tasteless and odourless liquid.
However, the technical definition of water is H2o (two molecules of Hydrogen and a
molecule of Oxygen). The latter provides a technical definition of water.

(c). Historical Definition: refers to the meaning of a word in the past. For example, the
word ‘Bougeoisie’ used to mean ‘a gentleman’. Today, the same word means ‘a man
or a woman with a lot of economic power or wealth that enables him or her to own and
control the basic means of production and the labour power of others’.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 3. Enumerative Definition: An enumerative definition presents a complete list of what
the definiendum (the word being defined) refers to. For example, if you are asked to
define a word enumeratively, then you are expected to provide a complete list of all
items named or referred to by the word being defined. The list must be complete without
remainder. Consider the following examples:
Define African countries, States in Nigeria, former President of Nigeria, and
Universities in Lagos, enumeratively. In each of these cases, you are expected to list all
the items the definiendum refers to.

Note: Not all words can be defined by enumeration. There are some words that are not
definable by enumeration e.g. Water, Salt, Sand etc

4. Synonyms: A definition by synonym occurs when the definiendum is defined by a word

that shares the same meaning with it. For example; the following are synonyms;
Wise/Sagacity, Bachelor/Unmarried Male, Defective/Faulty. The claim ‘Socrates is
wise’ and ‘Socrates is sagacious’ have the same meaning.

5. Definition by Examples: To define by example is to define by using a paradigm case.

A paradigm case suggests the use of a typical example (concrete object) the definiendum
refers. Anyway, there are at least two types of Definition by Examples:

i. Ostensive Definition: The word ‘Ostensive’ is derived from the word ‘Ósten’
which means “display’ or ‘to display’. A word is defined ostensively by pointing
at or exhibiting the concrete object the word refers to among language speakers.
If you are asked to define a word ostensively, what you need to do is to point at
the object or raise the same object and make a verbal pronouncement. To define
the word ‘cup’ ostensively, you only need to point at a cup and say ‘cup’ or you
raise the cup and make a verbal pronouncement, ‘cup’.

ii. Definition by Mentioning an Example: This is different from Enumerative

Definition. In the definition by Mentioning an Example, it is expected that an
example of the definiendum is provided or mentioned, not a complete list of
what the definiendum refers to among language speakers. For example, if you
are asked to define the word ‘University’ by Mentioning an Example, what you
simply need to do is to mention the name of a University e.g Obafemi Awolowo
University or University of Ibadan. Once you are able to mention an example
of the word then you have successfully defined the word. Try and define the
following by Mentioning an Example; former presidents of Nigeria, current
Governors in Nigeria etc

How Definitions Go Bad/ Bad ways of Defining a Word

There are things to be avoided when defining a word. When we are asked to define a
word, it is important to pay attention to some possible but avoidable errors in presenting
our definitions. Among things to be avoided are hereby mentioned below:

1. Circularity: A circular definition is a bad definition. A definition is circular when the

definiendum is still part of definiens. A circular definition erroneously explains the
meaning of a word by using the word to be defined in the explanation. Therefore, to avoid
a circular definition, the word being defined should not be part of the definiens. Consider

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 examples below: Someone is asked to define i. A Chairman, ii. A good man and iii. A
book binder. The person presents the following circular definitions:

• A Chairman – A Chairman is a man who chairmans a meeting (Bad definition)

• A good man- A good man is a man who is good to everyone (Bad definition)
• A book binder is someone who binds books/These are circular definitions because
the definiendum is still part of the definiens.

2. Too Narrow or Too Broad Definitions: A definition should not be too narrow or too
broad. A bad definition either excludes too much or includes too much. A definition that
either excludes too much or includes too much is bad. For example;

Wale: Segun is a talented student

Jide: What is talent?

Wale: Talent is the ability to compose a melodious song.

Wale’s definition of ‘talent’ is too narrow (it excludes too much) because there are so
many other abilities talented people possess. Again, consider the definition of the word
‘Chair’ as ‘a piece of Furniture’. The definition is bad because it includes too much. A
piece of furniture could refer to so many other items e.g. table, cabinet, cupboard. Again
consider the definition of the word ‘uniform’ as ‘a common attire worn by Policemen
and Policewomen’. Is this too broad or too narrow?

3. Metaphorical Definition: A definition should not be metaphorical. A metaphorical

definition is a bad definition because it does not state the essential information that really
defines the definiendum. Consider the following definitions:

Lion – The King of the Jungle

Rice – The beauty of the stomach
Camel – The Ship of the Desert

All these are bad definitions because they are metaphorical. For instance, the word ‘Lion’
is better defined as ‘an animal in the family of cat.’

4. A Good Definition should avoid Irrelevant Information: At times, definitions go

bad due the addition of irrelevant messages (unnecessary information) in the
definition. Consider the following examples:
A Human Being - A rational animal who weighs 30kg
A Bachelor- An unmarried male human being with a polished finger
These are bad definitions because they contain irrelevant information. It is sufficient to define
a human being as a rational animal. The inclusion of ‘who weighs 30kg’ is irrelevant. Again,
it is enough to define ‘a bachelor’ as an unmarried male human being. However the inclusion
of ‘with a polished finger’ is irrelevant.
The class on Definition ends at this point.
Exercises (To be submitted electronically on or before Friday, 30th July, 2021)

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

1. Which of the two theories of meaning is acceptable to you? State your answer in a sentence
and your reasons in support of your preference in two sentences.
2. Provide two examples of the following types of definition: Lexical, Technical and
Historical
3. Mention three words that are definable ostensively and five words that are not definable
ostensively
4. Mention five words that are not definable enumeratively.
I read all your comments on some of the issues mentioned in previous classes. I will respond
to all those comments presently. Keep on sending those comments and continue to enjoy your
flight into the world of Critical or Reflective Thinking.
Dr. N. Okorie is the next to teach. He will speak to the class about DISAGREEMENT.
I wish you ALL THE BEST

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
ARGUMENTS (I)
By
DR. O.O. BADEJO & DR. A.O. ALADE

WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?
■ When you hear the word ‘argument’ what comes to mind?
■ Probably a scene where two people or more raise their voices at each other in anger
trying to ‘outshout’ the other.
■ However, this is not what an argument entails.
■ In philosophy, an argument is a set of statements presented to persuade an audience to
accept a position.
■ One of the statements in a simple argument is the position that the arguer wants to
convince the audience of, while the other(s) is/are the reason(s) why the arguer wants
the audience to accept the conclusion. These reasons are called the grounds or the
premises of the argument.
■ The position the arguer wants to convince the audience of is known as the claim or
the conclusion, while the reason(s) why the arguer wants the audience to accept the
claim is the ground(s) or the premise(s).
■ Simply put, a simple argument consists of a claim or conclusion and one or more
ground(s) or premise(s).
■ The conclusion of an argument is the statement stating the position that an arguer is
trying to defend.
■ The premises are facts, data, information, concepts, or definitions which are knowable
to all the parties involved in assessing the argument. Where the premises are not
knowable to some party in the argument, we cannot have a successful argument.
■ Examples:
1. A woman carries her pregnancy alone, she bears all the pain and discomfort of
pregnancy. More so, a foetus is a parasite since it depends on its host for everything.
Hence, the decision on abortion should be left solely to the woman and not to any other
gender, religion or group.
2. All animals are mortals. All humans are animals. Therefore, all humans are mortals
3. Jingo had a pistol with him at the stadium during the games. Jingo fatally shot
Bongo during the games. Therefore, Jingo deserves to be punished.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 ■ In the first example, the position of the arguer is that women should have the sole
right to determine if they want an abortion or not. This position is the claim or
conclusion. The reasons why the claim should be accepted are (1) a woman carries
the pregnancy alone; (2) a woman bears the pains and discomfort of pregnancy alone
and three, a foetus is a parasite. These reasons are called the grounds/premises.
■ In the second example, the position (claim/conclusion) of the arguer is that “all
humans are mortal”. The reasons (grounds/premises) why the claim should be
accepted are (1) “All animals are mortals”, (2) “All humans are animals”.
■ In the third example, the position (claim/conclusion) of the arguer is that “Jingo
should be punished”. The reason (grounds/premises) why the claim should be
accepted are (1) “Jingo had a pistol with him at the stadium during the games”, (2)
“Jingo fatally shot Bongo during the games”.
■ How do you distinguish the claim or premises from an argument?
■ There are ground and claim locators.
■ Ground locators include: because, if, on the condition that, given that, more so
amongst others.
■ Claim locators include: therefore, so, then, thus, hence, in conclusion, it follows that,
it can be implied that amongst others.

ANATOMY OF AN ARGUMENT

- The two major parts of an argument are the premises/grounds and the claim/conclusion.
- However, in the process of argumentation, there is usually a need to defend, or challenge,
claims by providing certain backings or exceptions to the arguments.
Thus, the process of argumentation involves certain other elements which are sometimes not
obvious in the body of the arguments.
- These other elements in an argument serve other justificatory functions that helps an
argument to withstand criticisms.
- Stephen Toulmin suggested that a good argument should consist of six
components/elements.
These elements are claim, ground, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.
- As explained earlier, the claim is the assertion/position an arguer makes and wants to
defend.
- The ground is the reason, evidence, justification for why the claim ought to be accepted.
- Asides the claim and the ground there are four other elements.

WARRANT
- A warrant is a general statement that justifies an arguers movement from the
ground/premises to the claim/conclusion.
- In other words, a warrant connects the premises of the argument to the conclusion and
answers the question ‘why’ the conclusion ought to be accepted, given the premises.
- The warrants for arguments vary depending on the context of the argument, or the relevant
field of inquiry. The warrants may be legal, sociological, psychological, medical, ethical,
theological, scientific, logical, etc.
- For instance, the warrant for example (3) in the examples given can be “anyone who kills

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

another person is liable to be punished” The warrant in this example is a legal warrant.
- A warrant is general and universal in nature such that it can apply to other cases.
- Simply put, the warrant given in the example above can apply to other cases where someone
kills another person.

BACKING
- A backing is a widely held belief, law, custom or truth that justifies the warrant.
- A backing provides the justification for the warrant of an argument.
- A backing is usually a principle, statute, law, decree, etc., which is not obsolete,
controversial or obscure, and it must be relevant to the warrant.
- For instance, the backing for the argument in example (ii) above may be some stated law in
the relevant section of the nation’s criminal code.
- The criminal act code of Nigeria for example stipulates that murder should be punished
under the law.
- Hence, this is a backing, a justification for the warrant.

QUALIFIER
- A qualifier states the level of confidence the arguer has in the claim given the grounds.
- A qualifier states if the claim is absolute or not. Qualifiers indicate the degree of strength of
the argument.
- In other words, a qualifier indicates the degree of confidence that the arguer has towards the
conclusion given the premises of the argument.
- It is usually a word of phrase which expresses how strongly the arguer affirms the
conclusion of the argument.
- When the evidence is not sufficient to guarantee the conclusion, non-absolute qualifiers
such as the following may be adopted; ‘presumably’, ‘very likely’, ‘probably’, ‘tentatively’,
etc. However, when the evidence guarantees the conclusion, absolute qualifiers such as the
following may be adopted; ‘necessarily’, ‘certainly’, ‘logically’, ‘definitely’, etc.
- The non-absolute qualifiers are usually adopted in arguments within the context of history,
law, social sciences, sciences, management, etc. the absolute qualifiers are mostly applicable
in mathematics and logic.
- A qualifier for the example (3) can be ‘very likely’ for example.

REBUTTAL
- As stated earlier, the warrants of various arguments are general statements which provide
the link between the premises and conclusion of the argument.
- However, most of these warrants allow for reasonable exceptions when necessary. Such
exceptions are known as rebuttals.
- A rebuttal tries to show that the link between the premises and conclusion is weaker in the
relevant context.
- Rebuttals are expressed in words or phrases such as ‘provided that’, ‘unless’, etc.
For instance, the rebuttal for example (3) can be ‘unless it was in self defence’.
- The rebuttal anticipates a likely objection to the argument and states such objection.

EXAMPLE (1)
- Let us consider this example:
Dende should be sentenced to death.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

On Wednesday he robbed a store at gun point in Lagos, in the process he held three children
hostage to get away, shot the lady in charge of the safe and the security man on duty.
The poor security man later died in the hospital and the lady is now fighting for her life.
The above set of statements is an argument and using Toulmin’s model we can locate the
claim and grounds and then create the other elements of the argument.

Claim: Dende should be sentenced to death (This is what the arguer wants her audience to
accept.
Grounds: He robbed a store at gun point
He held three children hostage
He shot the security man and killed him
He shot the lady in charge of the safe and injured her. (These are the reasons why
the arguer wants her audience to accept the claim).

Warrant: Anyone that robs a store at gun point, hold children hostage, shoot people, kill and
injure in the process should be sentenced to death. (This is the general statement that provides
the justification for moving from the grounds to the claim. Hence, if anyone ask why the
audience should accept the claim given the grounds, the arguer can refer to the warrant).
Backing: The criminal act code of Nigeria. (This is a justification for the warrant. If the
arguer is asked why the warrant is true, the arguer refers to the backing).
Once the audience accepts the warrant and the backing, it is not likely the audience
will reject the claim.
Qualifier: Most likely (This is the level of confidence the arguer has in the claim given the
grounds).
Rebuttal: Except he is a minor or found to be insane. (This shows there is an exception to the
qualifier. As long as the qualifier is not certain, there must be a rebuttal. The rebuttal states
the conditions under which the claim might not follow from the grounds).

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
ARGUMENTS (II)
By
DR. O.O. BADEJO & DR. A.O. ALADE

CANONS OF REASONING
 In the previous class, you were introduced to arguments.
 An argument is simply a statement or a set of statements presented with the aim of
persuading an audience to accept a position.
 Reasoning is the building block of arguments.
 There are two canons (rules) of reasoning: Deductive Reasoning and Inductive
Reasoning. This means that there are, basically, two types of arguments.
 Deductive reasoning produces deductive arguments while Inductive reasoning
produces inductive arguments.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
 A deductive argument is an argument in which the conclusion seems to or appears to
follow necessarily from the premises. In other words, the premises appears to give
conclusive support to the claim.
 Examples: Jingo is either a teacher or a lawyer
Jingo is not a teacher
.: Jingo is a lawyer.
All cows are animals
some animals are mortal
.: some cows are mortal
 In the examples, the conclusion seems to follow necessarily from the premises.
 In other words, it seems that given that the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

 When the claim of a deductive argument actually follows from the premises, the
argument is a valid deductive argument.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

  In the case of a valid argument, if it is accepted that if the premises are true, we must
also accept that the conclusion is true.
 You will notice that in the definition for a deductive argument, there is emphasis on
seems to and appears.
 This is because there are instances where it seems or appears that the conclusion of a
deductive argument follows necessarily from the premises, but it does not.
 When this happens, it is an invalid deductive argument.
 That is, the premises of a deductive argument appears to give conclusive support to its
claim but does not.
 In this case, although it seems the claims follows conclusively from the premises it
does not.
 Hence, a deductive argument may be valid or invalid.
 An example of a valid deductive argument is:
All lions are cats
All cats are feline
.: All lions are feline
 In the example above, if I accept that “All lions are cats” and accept that “All cats are
feline”, I cannot deny that “All lions are felines”.
 In other words, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
 Thus, the deductive argument is valid.
 Consider this example of a deductive argument:
All doctors are dentists
All doctors are professional
.: All dentists are professional
 In the example above, if I accept that “All doctors are dentists” and accept that “All
doctors are professional”, I can deny the conclusion that “All dentists are
professional”.
 In other words, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
 Thus, the deductive argument is invalid.
 Hence, a valid deductive argument is an argument that its conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises.
 While an invalid deductive argument is an argument that its conclusion appears to
follow necessarily from the premises but does not.
 Both are deductive arguments, but one is valid while the other is invalid.
 Consider this example:
All nurses are women

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

All women are Africans
.: All nurses are Africans.
 In the example above, although all its statements are false, the claim still follows from
the premises.
 Thus, it is a valid deductive argument, albeit with false statements. This shows that a
deductive argument can be valid even of the statements that make up the argument are
false.
 Consider this example also:
All dentists are doctors
All dentists are professionals
.: All doctors are professionals
 In the example above, although all its statements are true, the claim does not follow
from the premises.
 Hence, it is an invalid deductive statement.
 Distinguishing between a valid and invalid deductive argument may be a bit tricky.
 This is because validity of a deductive argument does not lie in the truth of its content
but in its structure.
 There are methods through which the validity of arguments can be determined, but the
scope of this course will not cover it.

VALIDITY AND INVALIDITY

 For emphasis an argument is valid when its premises entail its conclusion.
 In other words, an argument is valid when its conclusion follows necessarily from its
premises.
 From this definition we can infer that the validity of an argument lies in the relation
between its premises and its conclusion.
 An argument is invalid when its premises does not entail its conclusion. That is, when
the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises, the argument is invalid.

SOUND AND UNSOUND ARGUMENTS

 A valid deductive argument (not an invalid one) is either sound or not sound.
 When a deductive argument is valid and all its statements are true it is a sound
deductive argument. In other words, a sound argument is a deductive argument that
is valid, and all the statements that make up the argument are true.
Put schematically, Soundness = validity + truth

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

  When a deductive argument is valid, but at least one of its statements is false, then it
is not a sound deductive argument.
 Hence, a valid deductive argument is either sound or not sound.
 For example: The president of Nigeria is either a man or a woman
The president of Nigeria is not a woman
.: The president of Nigeria is a man.
 This argument is both valid and sound.

 Consider this example also: All mothers are men

All men are engineers
.: All mothers are engineers.
 Although, this deductive argument is valid, at least one of its statements is false;
hence, it is not a sound deductive argument.
 A deductive argument is thus valid or invalid, and a valid deductive argument is either
sound or not sound.
 Note that the virtues of validity and soundness applies only to deductive arguments. In
other words, it is only about deductive arguments that we can ask whether they are
valid or sound. Such questions are not relevant in assessing inductive arguments
 Note also that for an argument to be sound, it must first be valid. An argument that
is not valid cannot be sound, even if all the statements that make up the
argument are true. For example, the following argument is invalid, so it is not
sound, even though all the statements that make up the argument are true.
All dentists are doctors
All dentists are professionals
.: All doctors are professionals

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts
Obafemi Awolowo University

PHL 104: Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence
ARGUMENTS (III)
By
DR. O.O. BADEJO & DR. A.O. ALADE

INDUCTIVE REASONING
➢ In the last class, we were introduced to the two canons of reasoning, deductive and
inductive reasoning, and deductive arguments was examined.
➢ Now we will examine the other canon of reasoning – inductive reasoning.
➢ Inductive reasoning births inductive arguments.
➢ An inductive argument is an argument that given the premises, it is probable that the
conclusion is true.
➢ For example: It rained in July 2014
It rained in July 2015
It rained in July 2016
It rained in July 2017,
.: It will rain in July 2018.

➢ The relationship between the premises and conclusion of an inductive argument is that
of probability.
➢ Thus, an inductive argument cannot be valid or invalid, neither can it be sound or not
sound.
 An inductive argument is either weak or strong.
 An inductive argument is strong when given the premises, the probability that the
conclusion will follow is high.
 For example:
I have had headache 50 times

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 I have used Panadol the 50 times and it cured my headache
.: Panadol will always cure my headache.
 In this case, although it is possible that Panadol might not work for the arguer again, it
is likely that it will work given the information in the premises.
 In other words, the probability that the claim is true given the premises is quite high.
 An inductive argument is weak when given the premises the probability that the
conclusion will follow is low.
 For example: I ate in that restaurant last week and the food was delicious
.: Their food is always delicious.
 Although, it is possible that the next time the arguer goes to that restaurant the food
will be delicious, but if it is not, it will not be much of a surprise given the
information in the premises.
 In other words, the probability that the claim is true given the premises is quite low.
 Hence, the stronger the premises of an inductive argument, the more likely the claim
will follow.
 The weaker the premises of an inductive argument, the more likely the claim will not
follow.

MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE

ARGUMENTS
 While the relationship between the premises and conclusion of a deductive argument
is that of certainty, the relationship between the premises and conclusion of an
inductive argument is that of probability.
 A deductive argument is either valid or invalid, while an inductive argument is either
weak or strong.
 A valid deductive argument is either sound or not sound, while an inductive argument
is either cogent or not cogent.

The Strength of an Inductive Argument

 The virtue of an inductive argument is its strength. In other words, whether an
inductive argument is good or bad depends on whether the argument is strong or
weak. It is important to note that a number of factors contribute to determining the
strength of an inductive argument. These factors include the following:
1. The stock of information contained in the premises: The depth of information
contained in the premises of an inductive argument has a significant effect on
determining whether the argument is strong or weak. Thus, the strength of the same
inductive argument may vary if the information available to the discussants change.
Let us consider the following example:

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 I have bought 3 cars from Jango motors in the past, and they have all performed well
Five of my friends have also bought cars that have performed well from Jango motors
I have just bought a new Honda car from Jango motors
Therefore, this car which I just bought from Jango motors will perform well
This is a strong argument because, given that the information in the premises are true, the
probability that the conclusion is true is high. (Let us modify the argument in the next slide)

The Strength of an Inductive Argument (2)

I have bought 3 cars from Jango motors in the past, and they have all performed well
Five of my friends have also bought cars that have performed well from Jango motors
I have just bought a new Honda car from Jango motors
Honda products have been observed to malfunction a number of times
Therefore, this car which I just bought from Jango motors will perform well
You will notice that a new premise has been added to the argument which provides a new
piece of information. Given the new premise, you will notice that the probability that the
conclusion will be true will reduce. Thus the depth of information contained in the premises
will determine the strength of the argument. This is why it is important to always get as much
information as possible about any subject matter if you will be engaging in an argument
about the subject matter. However, note that we can never have all the information when it
comes to inductive arguments. So, new pieces of information can always be discovered
which will affect the strength of the argument.

The Strength of an Inductive Argument (3)

2. The Strength of the conclusion of the argument: One other determinant of the strength
of an argument is the strength of the conclusion of the argument. Since the relationship
between the premises of an inductive argument and its conclusion is one of probability, the
available information in the premises don’t guarantee the conclusion. Thus, when the claim
of the argument is strong, it may weaken the argument. In other words, there is an inverse
relationship between the strength of an inductive argument and the strength of the
claim/conclusion of the argument. The stronger the conclusion of an argument, the weaker
the argument. This is because given that the premises are true, the probability that the
conclusion is true is higher if the conclusion is not a strong one. Let us consider the following
arguments:
1. A great deal of the security challenge facing this country is owed to the activities of
armed bandits parading as herdsmen
The Federal Government has decided to address the security challenge facing the
country
Therefore, the federal government will commence the arrest and prosecution of armed
herdsmen

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 2. A lot of the security challenge facing this country is owed to the activities of armed
bandits parading as herdsmen
The Federal Government has decided to address the security challenge facing the
country
Therefore, the federal government will examine the activities of herdsmen in the
country
The Strength of an Inductive Argument (4)
Notice that the two examples on the previous slide have the same set of premises. However,
(1) makes a conclusion that is stronger than (2). You will notice that, given the same set of
premises, there is higher probability that the conclusion in (2) will be true than the conclusion
in (1). Thus, it is advisable that where an arguer presents an inductive argument, if it is
possible, the conclusion should be as modest as possible. A more modest conclusion has a
higher probability of being true that a stronger conclusion, given the same premises.

The Cogency of an Inductive Argument

Notice that the strength of an inductive argument is a function of the relationship between the
information contained in the premises and the conclusion of the argument. Sometimes, some
of the information contained in the premises of an inductive argument may be true or false.
The truth or falsity of these pieces of information does not affect the strength of the
argument. Thus, one may have a strong argument with false premises, or a weak argument
with true premises. This suggests that, apart from its strength, there is also another virtue of
inductive arguments. This is called Cogency.
A cogent argument is one which is strong, and the premises are true. Thus, when we have an
inductive argument that is strong, but some of the premises are false, such an argument is not
cogent. For an argument to be described as cogent,
(i) the argument must be an inductive argument,
(ii) the argument must be strong, and
(iii) all the premises must be true.
Put schematically, Cogency = Strong + True

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Course: PHL 104- Introduction to Philosophy II; Critical Thinking, Argument and
Evidence.
Topic: Disagreements.
Department: Department of Philosophy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Prepared by: Dr. N. Okorie

In the actual human society, people do agree and disagree sometimes. The ability to agree and
disagree are necessary features for human beings to co-exist, interact and function well on daily
basis. There may not be a successful human intercourse without agreements and disagreements.
The next topic in this course is DISAGREEMENTS. There is a need for this topic because as
we interact on daily basis, we are bound to see issues and facts differently sometimes, hence
disagreeing with one another.
What are disagreements? When do we disagree? Why do we disagree? Is it in all cases that we
have genuine disagreement? How do disagreements arise? What are the conditions for the
occurrence of disagreements? What are the types/kinds of disagreements we have? How do we
resolve disagreements when they occur? These are important guiding questions in this topic.
At the end of the topic, each student should be able to answer the above questions competently.
The ability to agree and disagree with one another in human society is essential characteristics
human existence. The ability to agree with one another, when we do, is a demonstration of our
reasonableness. But we should note that it is not in all cases that we agree. We disagree
sometimes; this shows that as human beings, we are not completely or perfectly reasonable.
This implies that as human beings, we are neither completely reasonable nor completely
unreasonable. It follows from this that if we were completely reasonable we would probably
arrive at the same view about the truth of statements when presented with the same evidence.
When this happens, we say that there is agreement. But when we have different opposing views
with one another, we have a disagreement.
As human beings, by virtue of being reasonable, at least sometimes, instead of fighting, boxing,
threatening, forcing each other when we disagree we try to consider each other’s evidence or
reasons available and come to common conclusions or a joint view in order to agree. This
implies that we disagree to agree. It is when two or more people disagree about the truth of one
statement or the other that arguments ensue, as each party tries to convince the other of its own
correctness and the other’s incorrectness as to the truth of the matter in question.
Disagreements lead to arguments among reasonable people while arguments seek to terminate
disagreements. For a disagreement to occur, one person or party must be right and the second
person or party must be wrong. Another way whereby a disagreement occurs is for both persons
and parties to be wrong about the truth-value of some statements, although each of them
believes himself or herself to be right. When both of them are right, there is no disagreement
between them.
In summary, concerning any statement, we have three possible situations: (i) All parties rightly
or wrongly hold the same view. In this case, there is agreement, although they may be in mutual
error, hence no need for arguments; (ii) A situation whereby the parties hold opposing or
contradictory views where one party or person is right and the other wrong. In this case, there
is disagreement and only argument of sufficient strength will bring the wrong party to see the
truth, if he or she is not totally unreasonable; (iii) A situation whereby the parties disagree but

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

both or all of them are wrong to the truth of the matter in question. In this case, except a new
element enters into the arguments, the parties involved will never be able to settle their
disagreement rationally.
Types of Disagreements
The classification of disagreements depends on the locus and the way of resolving them. In this
regard, we have four types of disagreements, namely; Factual, Verbal, Evaluative and
Interpretative disagreements. The essence of this classification is for students to be able to
know each of them by their features or characteristics. Some of them are similar but they are
not the same. Also, one disagreement can appear in two forms that is, one disagreement can
fall into two different types but once you know the features of each you should be able to
identify them as such. We will start with Factual disagreements.
Factual Disagreements: This disagreement deals with conflicts over what is the case. In
factual disagreement, the parties have different opposing views or beliefs. There is
disagreement in belief caused by the different awareness, handling of information, data or facts
openly available to the parties. Two factors that lead to factual disagreements are (i) One of the
parties’ insufficient attention, incompetence or other deficiencies with respect to the relevant
evidence about the matter at stake; (ii) It could sometimes be as result of wrong inference from
the carefully and accurately assembled evidence.
When factual disagreements occur, the rational way to resolve them is to go back to the ‘facts’
and re-examine them. The facts to be re-examined could be in form of artifacts, documents,
objects, statistics, rules, principles, methods, etc. Factual disagreements are therefore resolved
by appeal to the facts, made up of objective, publicly verifiable available data. In law, factual
disagreements are resolvable by appeal to the evidence in form of exhibits or testimony of
witnesses as well as to statutes and precedents. In literature, factual disagreements are resolved
by appealing to relevant texts, messages, as well as indicated persons and places. In history,
factual disagreements can be resolved by referring to an appropriate documents, artifacts,
places, archival materials and relevant testimonies and opinions. Also, in the natural and social
sciences, factual disagreements can generally be resolved by suitable appeals to observation
and statistical data. The resolution of factual disagreement is made possible because it involves
the use of language to state the facts.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Course: PHL 104- Introduction to Philosophy II; Critical Thinking, Argument and
Evidence.
Topic: Types of Disagreements (Contd.)
Department: Department of Philosophy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Prepared by: Dr. N. Okorie

In the last lecture note, the topic of Disagreements was introduced. We were able to define
what disagreements are, the conditions for disagreements to take place, why people do
disagree, how disagreements do arise, and as well as how to resolve disagreements when they
occur. We also started the discussion on the types of disagreements. In this regard, we have
been able to discuss factual disagreement. We have discussed how factual disagreements arise,
the conditions for factual disagreements to occur as well as how they are to be resolved when
they occur. We discussed the possibility of factual disagreements in law, literature, history,
social sciences and the natural sciences.
We are continuing today, by first, looking into some examples of factual disagreement.
Some Examples of Factual Disagreement
Two individuals or discussants are involved in the following discussions or dialogue. It is
important to note that disagreements may involve more than two individuals in a discussion of
any matter or issue. Let us look at the following examples of factual disagreement.
(i) Segun: Chinua Achebe is the author of “Things Fall Apart”
Bimbo: Segun, you’re wrong, Wole Soyinka is the author of “Things Fall Apart”
This dialogue involves two individuals; Segun and Bimbo. The issue at stake is
about the author of the book “Things Fall Apart”. Segun says Chinua Achebe while
Bimbo says Wole Soyinka. In this case, there is a factual disagreement between
Segun and Bimbo on who is the author of Things Fall Apart.
It can be resolved by appealing to facts as recorded in appropriate documents and
places. This includes consulting libraries and bookshops to get the book and confirm
the author of the book. Segun is right while Bimbo is wrong. With this, the factual
disagreement will disappear.
(ii) Sola: Abeokuta is located in Ogun state, in fact, it is the state capital
Funmi: I agree that Abeokuta is in Ogun state but shagamu is the capital, not
Abeokuta. It is important to note that in this dialogue, Sola and Funmi agreed to
something but disagreed on another thing on which one of them is right and the
other wrong. They agreed that Abeokuta is in Ogun state but the point of their
disagreement is whether Abeokuta is the state capital or not. Sola is right while
Funmi is wrong. The disagreement can be resolved by appealing to documents,
asking other people, searching online for evidences or even traveling to Ogun state
to confirm.
(iii) Okafor: There is only one amphi theatre in all Nigeria universities and it is located
in OAU, Ile-Ife.
Okonkwo: No, you’re wrong, the only amphi theatre in Nigeria universities is
located in University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
There is a disagreement between Okafor and Okonkwo about the university where
the only amphitheatre in Nigeria universities is located. Okafor says OAU while
Okonkwo says UNN. It can be resolved by looking for evidences or traveling to the

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 two universities; OAU and UNN in order to settle the factual disagreement. In this
case, Okafor is right while Okonkwo is wrong.
(iv) Adamu: The first military coup in Nigeria took place in 1966
Ibrahim: No, you’re not conversant with history, the first military coup in Nigeria
took place in 1965. There is a disagreement here between Adamu and Ibrahim about
the year the first military coup in Nigeria took place. Adamu says 1966 and Ibrahim
says 1965. It can be resolves by consulting records like historical books. This will
make the disagreement to disappear. In this case, Adamu is right while Ibrahim is
wrong.
(v) Nuhu: There are six states in Southwest, Nigeria
Usman: You talk as if you’re not a Nigerian, we only have five states that make up
Southwest, Nigeria. There is a disagreement between Nuhu and Usman about how
many states that makes up Southwest, Nigeria. While Nuhu says six, Usman says
five. It can be resolves by looking for evidences in form of documents, searching
online, and consulting other materials. This will settle the disagreement. In this case
Nuhu is right while Usman is wrong.

Verbal Disagreements
The next in our discussion of the types of disagreement is verbal disagreement. What is a verbal
disagreement? Can verbal disagreement be really characterized as a type of disagreement? If
yes, why? If No, why not? A verbal disagreement occurs when, unknown to one of the two
parties engaged in a dialogue that the other person or party is using one or more words or terms
in a different sense. Each person believes that the other is wrong whereas the other is only using
the same word in a sense that is different from that of his opponent. The disagreement here is
not about the description of the world rather it concerns the use of words. In verbal
disagreement, there is no real disagreement. What appears to be a disagreement can be settled
by identifying the ambiguous word and try to have a uniform understanding by specifying the
sense or senses in which it is being used. When this is done, the two disputants could see that
the problem is just about the different senses in which they have used and understood a word
or term. In which case, both of them could be right. This is unlike what we have in real
disagreement whereby if one party is right, the other cannot be right, although both can be
wrong.
Examples of Verbal Disagreements
Speaker A: Bongo is too materialistic; he is always thinking and talking about how to acquire
property, latest dresses, fanciful cars and sophisticated electronic gadgets.
Speaker B: You’re wrong, how dare you describe Bongo, who believes in God, immortality
of the soul and life after death, as materialistic?
In this dialogue between Speakers A and B, the ambiguous word that is at stake and being
given different meanings is ‘materialistic’. Speaker A means by it ‘the love of material things’
while speaker B means by it ‘a philosophical position that holds that everything in the world is
ultimately material’. Each meaning is correct in its own merit but the only problem is that
Speakers A and B thought they meant the same thing by the word ‘materialistic’ whereas they
did not. As soon as they see that they are giving different meaning to the same word, the

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

apparent disagreement emanating from the use of ‘materialistic’ would disappear. By such
identification and recognition, the disagreement would vanish.
Speaker A: The present Governor of Lagos state won the last gubernatorial election in that
state.
Speaker B: What do you mean? You only need to win a governorship election to be a governor.
Governorship election and Gubernatorial election have the same meaning but the two speakers
thought they have different meanings, hence the apparent disagreement. Once they realized
that they are saying the same thing with the two words or concepts, the seeming disagreement
would disappear. And that will be the end of the disagreement.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Course: PHL 104- Introduction to Philosophy II; Critical Thinking, Argument and
Evidence
Topic: Types of Disagreements (Contd.)
Department: Department of Philosophy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Prepared by: Dr. N. Okorie

In the last lecture note, we continued with the discussion of the types of disagreements. Having
identified factual disagreement earlier, we were able to state some examples of factual
disagreements and how they could be resolved. We also identified verbal disagreement, and
how it is not a description about the world but about identifying the ambiguous word such that
when realized by the parties, the seeming or apparent disagreement disappears. This is why it
is said that verbal disagreement is not really a genuine disagreement.
In today’s class, we have to move to another type of disagreement. The next is Evaluative
Disagreement. What is evaluative disagreement? What the kinds of evaluative disagreement
we have? What does each of the kinds of evaluative disagreement say and how so we identify
them?
Evaluative Disagreement
As the name implies or suggests, this type of disagreement is a type of disagreement that deals
with the evaluation of something. Before this disagreement can occur, it must be the case that
disputants in a dialogue differ in the way (s) they are evaluating a particular phenomenon. In
general terms, evaluative disagreements occur as a result of how assessment of persons, group
of persons, institutions, events, countries, objects, claims, artistic works (such as novels,
poems, plays, fine art, dance, music, and so on) are carried out. As human beings, we place
different degrees of worth or values on objects of assessments in relation to different desires,
interests, standards, orientations, criteria and commitments. In evaluative disagreement, the
issue in contest is essentially axiological, that is, value-laden. In this regard, three kinds of
evaluative disagreement could be identified as: ethical, aesthetic and pragmatic disagreements.
Evaluative Ethical Disagreement
This disagreement is about ethics and ethics is concerned with the study and evaluation of
human conducts. It is about the evaluation of a moral conduct or standard of behavior. This
extends to social, political and institutional activities. This deals with ethical concepts or terms
which includes ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘ought’, ‘ought not’, ‘just’, ‘unjust’, ‘fair’,
‘unfair’, and so on. When any of such terms or concepts leads to a disagreement, we have an
evaluative ethical or moral disagreement. It is about the evaluation of a moral standard of
behavior or level of persons, groups or institutions.
Examples of Evaluative Ethical Disagreement
Speaker A: Bobby is a bad boy, he does not open up to others, and he is an introvert.
Speaker B: Bobby is a good boy; he is quiet and not obstructive.
In the above dialogue between speakers A and B, there is a disagreement. The disagreement is
evaluative ethical disagreement. This is because the two speakers are disagreeing about the
ethical evaluation of Bobby’s behavior. They employed the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Each

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

of them defines the concept ‘good’ in a different way. For them to resolve the disagreement,
both speakers will have to reconcile their differences over what it means for a person to be
good before they will be able to agree on the ethical evaluation of Bobby’s behavior.
Speaker A: The Nigeria Police is morally corrupt, they do not fight any crime; they only mount
road blocks to extort money from innocent citizens.
Speaker B: The Nigeria Police I know is not morally corrupt; they shot one criminal in my
presence some days ago. They risk their lives to protect our politicians.
There is a disagreement between speakers A and B. The disagreement is about the moral
standard behavior of Nigeria Police; whether or not they are corrupt. From speaker A’s
evaluation, Nigeria Police is morally corrupt because they mount road blocks and extort money
while from speaker B’s evaluation, Nigeria Police is not morally corrupt just because they shot
one criminal some days age and they also protect our politicians. Both speakers A and B can
resolve the disagreement by agreeing on what it means to be morally corrupt. This is an
evaluative ethical disagreement because what is involved is about the assessment of the moral
conduct of Nigeria Police.
Evaluative Aesthetic Disagreement
This kind of evaluative disagreement is about aesthetics. Aesthetics deals with the appreciation
of the beauty of an art. It is about the appraisal, appreciation and evaluation of the beauty of
the works of art. Evaluative aesthetic disagreement concerns or pertains to the evaluation or
appreciation of works of arts, designs and artifacts. It deals with terms or concepts such as
‘beautiful’, ‘lovely’, ‘ugly’, ‘fine’, ‘interesting’, ‘pleasant’, ‘melodious’, ‘bright’, ‘dull’,
‘tasty’, ‘sweet’ and so on.
Examples
Bongo: Michael Jackson’s music is fantastic and thought provoking.
Bamanga: I disagree with you; his music is awful; the tempo is just too fast for my liking.
In the above dialogue between Bongo and Bamanga, there is a disagreement between Bongo
and Bamanga. The disagreement is on the assessment and appreciation of Michael Jackson’s
music. Each of them has a different aesthetic taste. For them to resolve the disagreement, they
will have to resolve their aesthetic differences.
Bongo: Ada’s dress is beautiful; I wish to have such dress.
Bamanga: I don’t agree with you that Ada’s dress is beautiful. It has too many shining colors,
it is just too flamboyant.
This is another example of evaluative aesthetic disagreement. It is about the aesthetic
evaluation of Ada’s dress to be beautiful or not. The two arguers; Bongo and Bamanga have
two different aesthetic tastes, hence disagreeing on whether Ada’s dress is beautiful or
otherwise. When two or more disputants or arguers in a dialogue have different aesthetic tastes,
senses, or standards, they will likely have aesthetic evaluative disagreement.
Evaluative Pragmatic Disagreement
This is the last of the three kinds of evaluative disagreements. It is about pragmatism.
Pragmatism deals with how a theory or something works. It is about a way of thinking
concerned with what produces practical results. This is the kind of evaluative disagreement that
deals with evaluation of a thing, person, institution, etc. as serving a purpose well, or

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

performing a role well. It pertains to the degree or extent to which a person or thing does or
can do something or serve a purpose. In pragmatic evaluation, we employ terms or concepts as
satisfactory, qualified, significant, effective, acceptable, competent, important, etc.
Examples of Pragmatic Evaluative Disagreement
Bongo: President Buhari’s war against corruption is very important for the survival of Nigeria
as a nation. It will go a long way to expose looters of yesteryears.
Bamanga: President Buhari’s war against corruption is of no importance or relevance to the
survival of the nation; it is an unnecessary diversion, which will only serve as cover-up for
today’s looters in his administration.
In this dialogue, there is a disagreement between Bongo and Bamanga. The disagreement is
about the evaluation of the importance or not of President Buhari’s war against corruption.
Bongo sees it as important or effective while Bamanga sees it as unimportant or ineffective
hence the disagreement is evaluative pragmatic disagreement.
Tunde: Capital punishment is important and necessary considering the rate of kidnapping and
other criminal activities. It will definitely serve as a deterrent.
Bola: No, capital punishment is unimportant and unnecessary to curbing criminality. It will
lead to the killing of innocent citizens and it does not deter the criminals.
This is another example of evaluative pragmatic disagreement. Tunde and Bola are disagreeing
on the importance or usefulness of capital punishment to curbing criminality. It is a
disagreement that concerns the evaluation of the effectiveness of particular measure (capital
punishment) for addressing a social problem (criminality).
It is important to note that the resolution of evaluative disagreements comes from the
disputants’ mutual acceptance of the same point of view or standard of evaluation. But it is
sometimes the case that evaluative disagreement may not be settled by appeal to a standard of
evaluation but to facts. This point to the fact that in some arguments the disputants may agree
on the facts and yet disagree about the conclusion. This is one of the features of evaluative
disagreements, which is that in some arguments, the facts do not provide logical compulsion
for accepting the claim or the conclusion.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 Course: PHL 104- Introduction to Philosophy II; Critical Thinking, Argument and
Evidence
Topic: Types of Disagreements (Contd.)
Department: Department of Philosophy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Prepared by: Dr. N. Okorie

In the last lecture note, we discussed evaluative type of disagreement. We were able to discuss
what evaluative disagreements are and how to identify them. The three kinds of evaluative
disagreement: ethical; aesthetic and pragmatic evaluative disagreements and the examples were
discussed as well as how to identify them. We will be taking the last type of disagreement today
which is Interpretative Disagreement. With this, the topic will be concluded.
Interpretative Disagreement
This type of disagreement is over the meaning, significance, purpose, theme, focus, or message
of an event, a person’s conduct, a programme or a project, a literary or art work, a statue, law
or policy, etc. It is a disagreement about how any of such things is to be understood, or the
interpretation, or interpretation to give to them.
Examples
Speaker A: In 1999 presidential election, Nigerians voted in large numbers. It was evidence
that they really want democracy.
Speaker B: It is not so. You misunderstood the issue. The large turnout only means that most
Nigerians never had the opportunity to vote. Hence, they were eager to vote for the fun of doing
so.
There is a disagreement here and it is about how to understand the large turnout of voters in
1999 presidential election. That is, what is the real significance, importance, purpose or
meaning of that particular phenomenon?
Shola: It is interesting to find some respectful young people in this city. Two days ago, I saw
a young boy politely relinquished his seat in a commuter bus to an old woman.
Ashafa: No, you missed the point of his action. It was not respect but prudence. The young
boy gave up his seat in the hope that the old woman would pay his fare, or at least pray for him.
In this disagreement, the two speakers are disagreeing over the intention, or motive of the
young boy in doing what he did. It has to do with the interpretation of human behavior.
Interpretative disagreements frequently occur in most academic disciplines and professions.
For example in history, there may be a disagreement over the significance of an event such as
the battle of the waterloo, the first military coup in Nigeria. In Religious studies, there may be
a disagreement over doctrinal meaning or theological message of a passage, event or action in
the scriptures of a particular religion. In literature, there may be a disagreement over the
interpretation or meaning of a passage in a text, or verse in a poem, or the theme of a novel or
play. In the social sciences, we also have disagreements on how to interpret or give meanings
to human behavior. Similarly, we have disagreements in the natural sciences over the
interpretation of certain occurrences in our in our physical environment. Interpretative
disagreement has a wide scope.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 FALLACIES
A Class Note on Informal Fallacies

A fallacy is a misleading defect in an argument. A fallacy can arise from the ignorance of the
arguer and in some cases it could be deliberately committed. There are two broad categories of
fallacies. The first is formal fallacies which occurs in deductive arguments and can be detected
in the structure of an argument. The second category is informal fallacies which occurs in the
inductive arguments and has to do with the content of the arguments. In this class, we shall
study the informal fallacies.

The informal fallacies are grouped into three. These are fallacies of irrelevant grounds, fallacies
of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity. Below are illustrations of some of the informal
fallacies.

FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANT GROUNDS

The first category of informal fallacies to be considered here are fallacies of irrelevant
grounds. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds is a family name for a type of fallacies that occur in an
argument in which the grounds provided to justify the claim are not relevant to the claim. The
grounds may appear to be relevant, but on a closer look, it will be discovered that the evidence
in the ground is not relevant to the claim. In other words, fallacies of irrelevant grounds occur
when there is disconnect between the grounds and the claim of an argument.

There are different types of fallacies of irrelevant grounds. Some are:

a. Argument against the Person, also known as Argumentum ad Hominem. There are
three types of Argumentum ad Hominem. These are abusive ad hominem,
circumstantial ad hominem and tu quoque.
b. Appeal to Force also known as Argumentum ad Baculum
c. Appeal to Pity also known as Argumentum ad Misericordiam
d. Appeal to the People also known as Argumentum ad Populum. There two types of this
fallacy. They are bandwagon and appeal to popular
e. Missing the Point also known as Ignorantio Elenchi
f. Red Herring

Explanations

A. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Argumentum Ad Hominem

1. Argumentum ad hominem, Abusive ad hominem occurs when, rather than address the
argument of an arguer directly, a person attempts to reject the argument by abusing the
arguer. This fallacy can be in a blunt or subtle form.
Example: PMB argues that it is difficult to make conclusions about the killings in Benue
because the issues and persons involved are difficult to comprehend. In response to this, his

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

opponent argues by saying: “It is a pity! The President is either stupid or is a psychiatric
patient”.

A fallacy of this nature is identified as follow: Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Argument

against the Person (argumentum ad hominem), Abusive ad Hominem.

2. Argumentum ad Hominem, Circumstantial ad Hominem occurs when rather than

address an argument, a respondent refers to certain circumstance of the arguer as a basis
for rejecting his argument.
Example: PMB argues that it is difficult to make conclusions about the killings in Benue
because the issues and persons involved are difficult to comprehend. In response to this, his
opponent argues by saying: “PMB”s argument should be rejected. He is a Fulani man and the
killers are Fulani”

A fallacy of this nature is identified as Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Argument against the
Person (argumentum ad hominem), Circumstantial ad Hominem.

3. Argumentum ad Hominem, Tu Quo Que: “What about you?” occurs when rather than
respond to an argument, a respondent simply rejects the argument because the person
who presented the argument is supposedly guilty of the same issue addressed in the
argument.

Example: Suppose I am a chain smoker and a friend who used to smoke cigarettes tells me to
stop smoking because smokers are susceptible to lung cancer, and in response, I argue thus;
“so I should stop smoking, when you were a chain smoker before, who even knows if you are
still smoking.

This fallacy is identified as Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Argument against the Person
(argumentum ad hominem), what of you? (Tu Quo Que).

B. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)

This fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to make another party accept his or her
claim or argument by using threat, either directly or subtly.
Example: Suppose a Director in an office argues that, “It is not necessary that you come to the
office on Saturday, but remember that evaluation for promotion is around the corner and I am
in charge of your evaluation.” The arguer is using subtle force to convince the listener to come
to the office on a weekend. This is not a good argument since force is not an acceptable ground.

C. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 This fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to make an audience accept his or her
argument by evoking pity from the audience.
Example: Suppose a student approaches his teacher and argues in this manner; “If I fail this
course again, I will have to drop out of school and this will kill my already hypertensive mother.
Furthermore, I am the first born of my parents and my siblings are looking up to me.” The
arguer is attempting to evoke sympathy from the listener in order to pass a course and pity is
not an acceptable ground in argument.

D. Fallacy of irrelevant grounds, appeal to the people (argumentum ad populum)

This occurs when an arguer appeals to popular prejudice in order to convince the
audience to accept his or her argument. Argumentum ad populum usually arises from a
deliberate or ignorant belief that what most people subscribe to or agree with is right. However,
an argument is not accepted because many people assent to it. There are variants of this fallacy,
they are bandwagon and appeal to popular belief

1. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, argumentum ad populum; bandwagon

This occurs when an arguer justifies a claim on the basis that several people do
something.
Example: Suppose a mother refused to buy jeans for her daughter who is a student in a tertiary
institution and the student argues, “Mummy if you come to our school you will see that almost
all the girls wear jeans, so there is nothing wrong with wearing jeans.”

2. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, argumentum ad populum, appeal to popular belief

This fallacy occurs when an arguer justifies a claim because it is a popular belief.
Example: Suppose a preacher trying to justify the claim that Jesus exists argue, “Every
Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God, so Jesus is definitely the son of God.”

E. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Ignorantio Elenchi

This is also known as missing the point. The fallacy occurs when an arguer provides
grounds that are relevant to a particular claim, but provides another claim directly or
indirectly related to that claim as the conclusion to an argument.
Example: “Corruption in the petroleum sector is at its peak, the only alternative is to remove
fuel subsidy completely.” In this example, though the claim is vaguely related to the ground,
the claim to that ground should be related to the corruption mentioned in the ground and not
another issue; fuel subsidy.

F. Fallacy of Irrelevant Grounds, Red Herring

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 This fallacy occurs when an arguer, in order to win an argument, diverts the attention
of the listener from the original argument to a variant of the original argument.
For example, consider this conversation between Mr A and Mr B:
Mr A: Abortion ought to be legalised
Mr B: I disagree with you, abortion is murder and should not be legalised
Mr A: What if the foetus is a threat to the life of a mother of four. Is it not better to legalise
abortion to accommodate these possibilities?
Mr B: But you agree that murder should not be encouraged
Mr A: Of course I do
Mr B: Murder should carry death sentence
Mr A: I definitely agree with you
In this example, Mr B subtly diverted the attention of Mr A from the original argument.

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
The second category of informal fallacies to be examined is Fallacies of Presumption. Fallacies
of presumption occur when an arguer deliberately or in error presumes that the ground provided
in support of a claim gives adequate support to the claim, when, in actual fact, it does not.
Fallacies of presumption include following subtypes:
a. accidents,
b. hasty generalisation,
c. false cause,
d. appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam),
e. appeal to inexpert authority (argumentum ad verecundiam),
f. straw man, begging the question (petition principii),
g. loaded question,
h. slippery slope
i. gamblers fallacy (Monte Carlo).

Explanation
A. Fallacy of presumption, Accident
This fallacy occurs when an arguer deliberately or ignorantly ignores an exception to a
general rule while stating an argument and concludes based on it.
Example: “Every organisation has a right to protest; Boko Haram is an organisation
protesting, so the government should let them be”. The arguer deliberately or ignorantly
ignores the fact that in this case the rule of the right to protest does not apply.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 B. Fallacy of presumption, Hasty Generalisation
This fallacy occurs when the grounds provided to support the claim contain inadequate
evidence.
Example: “I interviewed ten women in Yenogoa and they all said they support the
administration of Timpriye Sylva, it is obvious that all the women in Yenogoa support his
administration.” In the example, the arguer based his or her claim on the convictions of just
ten women out of millions.

C. Fallacy of presumption, False Cause

The fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes there is a causal relation between the grounds
and the claim when there is actually no evidence for that causal relation. It happens when
someone claims that something that follows something else or occurs with it must be caused
by it. Sometimes the two are related only coincidentally, or are both caused by something not
yet identified. Superstitions, selective perceptions, and selective memory lead to many
examples of the False Cause fallacy.
Example: “The witch cried yesterday and the child died today, who does not know that it
was the cry of the witch that led to the death of the child.” This fallacy assumes that because
A happened before B then A must be responsible for B, this is why it is also known as post hoc
ergo propter hoc (“after this, hence because of this”). False cause fallacy underlies several
superstitious beliefs.

D. Fallacy of Presumption, Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This occurs when an arguer wants a claim to be accepted or rejected because it has not
been proven to be or not to be the case.

The fallacy is of two variants:

1. One is because there is no evidence that something is not the case, then it is the
case.
Example of the first variant: Suppose a person argues that “Rev. Musa is definitely
guilty of collecting that bribe, after all no one has been able to present any evidence
that he did not.”
2. The other variant occurs when an arguer wants a claim to be rejected because it has
not been proven true.
Example of the second variant: “I am yet to see anyone that has proven the second
coming of Christ; yet many of you believe it, can you not see that it is false?”

E. Fallacy of Presumption, Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 This fallacy occurs when an arguer expects a claim to be accepted because a popular
figure assents to it. The popular figure is usually not an expert or authority in the field
he or she assents to. This fallacy is common in adverts and propagandas. Suppose is the
fallacy of saying that simply because an authority supports something, it must be true—
or if an authority attacks something, it must be untrue.

Example: Professor Wole Soyinka says that the Nigerian economy is still in recession.
[Professor Soyinka is professor of Literature.]

F. Fallacy of Presumption, Strawman

The fallacy occurs when rather than address the issue on ground, the arguer presents a
caricature of the argument, criticises it and assumes that a rejection of that caricature
amounts to a rejection of the real argument. The fallacies occur when a person attacks
an exaggerated, distorted, or false version of an opponent's argument because it is
easier than dealing with the real points that the opponent makes. It would be a lot
easier to defeat a person made of straw in a fight then a real person—especially a
strong one.

Example: My opponent agrees with a federal vaccine advisory panel’s

recommendation that all girls and women between the ages of eleven and twenty-six
should receive a new vaccine that prevents most cases of cervical cancer. This
cancer is related to sexual activity. Encouraging girls as young as eleven to engage
in sex is incredibly irresponsible; my opponent is clearly not fit for office.

G. Fallacy of Presumption, Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

This fallacy occurs when an arguer uses a ground that obviously needs to be justified
as a justification for a claim or conclusion.

Example: Suppose a person argues that God definitely exists because the Bible says so.
The claim in this argument begs the question; “How do we justify the assertions made
in the Bible?”

A variant of the fallacy is called Fallacy of Presumption, Begging the Question,

Circular Reasoning. It is a fallacy that occurs when an arguer uses the ground to justify
the claim and the claim to justify the ground.
Example: “Politicians are the highest paid government workers in Nigeria, you will
easily know this when you see the exotic cars they ride in, they definitely can afford
these cars because they are the highest paid government workers in Nigeria.” In this

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 example, the justification for the claim that politicians are the highest paid workers, in
the example, is that they can afford exotic cars and the justification for their ability to
afford these cars is that they are the highest paid workers. This reasoning is circular in
nature.

H. Fallacy of Presumption, Loaded Question

It is a fallacy that occurs when an arguer asks more than one question in guise of just
one question. This is a fallacy that is very common in a courtroom; it is used to trick a
respondent into admitting that he or she is guilty of a crime earlier denied.

Example: Suppose a lawyer asks an accused person, “After beating your wife the third
time, did you take her to the hospital?” There are at least three questions hidden in that
one question: “Do you beat your wife?” “If yes, how many times have you beaten her?”
“Did you take her to the hospital on the third occasion?” If the accused should reply
that he took his wife to the hospital, he has admitted that he beats her and he has done
so at least thrice.

I. Fallacy of presumption, slippery slope

The fallacy occurs when an arguer presents a claim based on an assumed chain reaction.

Example: “If we do not remove the subsidy on petroleum products, Nigeria will keep
borrowing at an alarming rate. If Nigeria keeps borrowing at that rate, she will keep
paying to service debts, the money currently being spent on education, health,
infrastructures and welfare will soon go into debt servicing. When this happen schools
will close down one after the other, hospitals will be forced to fold up, people will start
dying at an alarming rate and gradually Nigeria will cease to exist, so I insist that the
subsidy on petroleum products should be removed immediately.” The argument
attempts to persuade people, using a chain of exaggerated reactions, to support the
claim that subsidy on petroleum products should be removed.

J. Fallacy of Presumption, Gamblers Fallacy (Monte Carlo)

The fallacy occurs when an arguer assumes that because something has happened
frequently in the past it will happen again or because something has not happened in a
long time it will not happen.

Examples: “I cannot have lung cancer, I have been smoking since 1976 and I have not
been hospitalised even once on account of my smoking.” or “We have experienced
flooding in this area for ten years consecutively, no matter what we do now there will
still be flooding in this area this year.”

K. Fallacy of False Dilemma

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

 The fallacy is produced when an arguer insists that there are only two possible options
available, when there may be three or even more—or when the two choices are not
mutually exclusive. It is also called False Dichotomy, the Black and White fallacy,
and the Either-Or fallacy.

Example: Either we win the war in Vietnam, or all of Asia will fall to communism.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
The third variety of informal fallacies to be examined is fallacies of ambiguity. Fallacies
of ambiguity occur when a claim is susceptible to another interpretation given the grounds.
Fallacies of ambiguity include; equivocation, amphiboly, composition and division.

Fallacies of Ambiguity, Equivocation

The fallacy occurs when an arguer uses a word that can be interpreted in different ways to mean
exactly the same thing.

Example: If it is argued that, “Every law must have a law giver; natural laws are laws, so
natural laws must have a law giver.” In the example, ‘laws’ in the legislated sense and natural
sense have different meanings, but the arguer used the two senses to mean the same thing. This
is an equivocation on the word “law”.

Fallacies of Ambiguity, Amphiboly

The fallacy arises from a wrong arrangement of words, failure to use punctuation marks or
wrong use of punctuations. This will lead to an argument to be understood in more than one
sense and each sense will be clearly distinguishable.

Example “You can serve the water when completely filled up.” In this example, we are not sure
if it is the person to serve the water that should be completely filled before serving the water
or it is a jug or glass of water that should be completely filled before serving.” or “Serve the
cake when done.” Is it the person to serve that should finish other chores before serving the
cake or it is the cake that should be served immediately the cake is ready?”

Fallacies of Ambiguity, Composition

It is one that occur when it is argued that because the part of something has a characteristic, the
whole of that thing must have it too.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT

Example “The houses in that estate is fenced, so that estate must be fenced.” or “The kids in
that compound are so interesting; that compound must be interesting.” Another example is
“Every spoon of syrup in that bottle contains 1% of glucose, so the bottle of syrup contains 1%
of glucose.” In the examples, the transfer of the attribute of the parts to the whole is not
legitimate; hence it is a fallacy to argue based on that transfer.

Fallacy of Ambiguity, Division

It is like the opposite of fallacy of composition. Fallacy of division occurs when it is argued
that because a whole has a certain characteristic its parts too must have the characteristic.

Example: “The bottle of syrup contains 10% of vitamin C, each dose of the syrup contains 10%
of vitamin C.” or “That team is strong, so every member of the team must be strong.” Just as
it is with the fallacy of composition, the transfer of the attribute of the whole to the parts is
unjustifiable and not legitimate.

Compiled by HON. EXPONENT