All of us are familiar with reasoning; it is something in which we engage, for better or worse, throughout our lives. BlueStorm: The Logic Course is primarily concerned with reasoning, and in particular with distinguishing between good and bad reasoning. This is part and parcel of learning how to think critically. Here we shall introduce some of the basic concepts that will be used throughout the course.
Section 1: Recognizing and Identifying Arguments
In order to determine whether a passage contains an argument ask yourself whether it contains any claims that are, in the passage, being supported or defended. These are the conclusions. The claims that provide, or are put forward as providing, that support are the premises. We introduce some of the many functions of language other than argumentation. Two problems commonly arise with respect to distinguishing these functions. The first is difficulty in distinguishing arguments, descriptions and explanations. The second is distinguishing advice, commands, requests and exhortations. 'Indicators' often help us to determine the presence and structure of arguments. You should master the list of indicator words. But always remember that they are not infallible. That is, even though the typical function of a word like 'thus' is to indicate a conclusion, there are cases where it does not do so. Argumentative structures can be complex in a variety of ways. In some cases a passage may contain various distinct arguments for various distinct conclusions. When we encounter such a passage we simply identify the arguments separately. But in many cases the structure is more complex. We frequently do not spell out our arguments in full detail. Premises are left out, particularly if we feel they can be taken for granted. And, as we shall see, we sometimes leave conclusions unstated. |
Section 2: Classifying and Assessing Arguments
We call an argument a would-be deductive one if the premises are put forward as providing conclusive support for the conclusion. Determining whether an argument is a would-be deductive one is mostly a matter of common sense. Some critical concepts are introduced here, in particular those of validity and soundness. A would-be deductive argument is one in which the premises purport to provide conclusive support for the conclusion. But many arguments are not like this, but instead are ones in which the premises only to give some support to the conclusion. We call these non-deductive or inductive arguments. Here we do not ask whether or not the argument is valid. Instead we ask how strong or weak the argument is, that is we attempt to determine how much support the premises give to the conclusion. Fallacious arguments and fallacies will be discussed at various points in the text. For now recall that typically we identify an argument as fallacious when the premises provide either no support, or virtually no support, to the conclusion. Certain ways of arguing fallaciously are so common that they have been given labels. In this case we speak of the argument as committing a fallacy.
Argument forms are as well discussed at length at other points in the course.
We shall not consider them further here, although you may
|
Covering Section 1 |
Covering Section 2 |