Argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
This article is about the subject as it is studied in logic and philosophy. For other uses,
see Argument (disambiguation).
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called
the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of
truth of another statement, the conclusion.[1][2][3][4][5] The logical form of an argument in a natural
language can be represented in a symbolic formal language, and independently of natural
language formally defined "arguments" can be made in math and computer science.
Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards
and criteria to evaluate arguments.[6] Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid
argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false
and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true
conclusion. Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength:
the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is
true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.[7] The standards for evaluating non-
deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the
persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[8] the quality
of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and
acting.[9]

Contents

 1Etymology
 2Formal and informal
 3Standard types
o 3.1Deductive arguments
o 3.2Inductive arguments
 4Deductive
o 4.1Validity
o 4.2Soundness
 5Inductive
 6Defeasible arguments and argumentation schemes
 7By analogy
 8Other kinds
o 8.1In informal logic
 8.1.1Logical status
o 8.2World-disclosing
 9Explanations
 10Fallacies and non-arguments
 11See also
 12Notes
 13References
 14Further reading
 15External links
Etymology[edit]
The Latin root arguere (to make bright, enlighten, make known, prove, etc.) is from Proto-Indo-
European argu-yo-, suffixed form of arg- (to shine; white).[10]

Formal and informal[edit]

Further information: Informal logic and Formal logic
Informal arguments as studied in informal logic, are presented in ordinary language and are
intended for everyday discourse. Conversely, formal arguments are studied in formal
logic (historically called symbolic logic, more commonly referred to as mathematical
logic today) and are expressed in a formal language. Informal logic may be said to emphasize
the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes implication and inference.
Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the rational structure – the relationship of
claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion – is not always spelled out
and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis.

Standard types[edit]

Argument terminology

There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best-known of which are "deductive" and
"inductive." An argument has one or more premises but only one conclusion. Each premise
and the conclusion are truth bearers or "truth-candidates", each capable of being either true or
false (but not both). These truth values bear on the terminology used with arguments.
Deductive arguments[edit]

 A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of
the premises. Based on the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily (with certainty).
For example, given premises that A=B and B=C, then the conclusion follows necessarily
that A=C. Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments.
 A deductive argument is said to be valid or invalid. If one assumes the premises to be true
(ignoring their actual truth values), would the conclusion follow with certainty? If yes, the
argument is valid. Otherwise, it is invalid. In determining validity, the structure of the
argument is essential to the determination, not the actual truth values. For example,
consider the argument that because bats can fly (premise=true), and all flying creatures
are birds (premise=false), therefore bats are birds (conclusion=false). If we assume the
premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily, and thus it is a valid argument.
 If a deductive argument is valid and its premises are all true, then it is also referred to as
sound. Otherwise, it is unsound, as in the "bats are birds"
 If all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. Therefore, it is impossible for
the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true
Inductive arguments[edit]

 An inductive argument, on the other hand, asserts that the truth of the conclusion is
supported to some degree of probability by the premises. For example, given that the U.S.
military budget is the largest in the world (premise=true), then it is probable that it will
remain so for the next 10 years (conclusion=true). Arguments that involve predictions are
inductive, as the future is uncertain.
 An inductive argument is said to be strong or weak. If the premises of an inductive
argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true? If so, the argument
is strong. Otherwise, it is weak.
 A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument
is uncogent. The military budget argument example above is a strong, cogent argument.

Deductive[edit]
Main article: Deductive argument
A deductive argument is one that, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises. In
other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises—if the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the
premises and deny the conclusion, because the negation of the conclusion is contradictory to
the truth of the premises.
Validity[edit]
Main article: Validity (logic)
Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If an argument is valid, it is a valid
deduction, and if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true: a valid argument cannot
have true premises and a false conclusion.
An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with
accepting all the premises.
The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises
and conclusion, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form. The validity
of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. Under a given interpretation, a
valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive: the conclusion of a valid
argument with one or more false premises may be either true or false.
Logic seeks to discover the valid forms, the forms that make arguments valid. A form of
argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument
in which the premises are true. Since the validity of an argument depends solely on its form, an
argument can be shown to be invalid by showing that its form is invalid. This can be done by
giving a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under a
given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation. In informal logic this
is called a counter argument.
The form of argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a
corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional, and an argument form is
valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is a logical truth. A statement form which is
logically true is also said to be a valid statement form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is
true under all interpretations. A statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a)
showing that it is a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure.
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible
worlds) and so the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical
necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether
the premises are true. If the conclusion, itself, just so happens to be a necessary truth, it is so
without regard to the premises.
Some examples:

 All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are mortal. : Valid
argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.
 Some Greeks are logicians and some logicians are tiresome; therefore, some Greeks are
tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be Romans (for example).
 Either we are all doomed or we are all saved; we are not all saved; therefore, we are all
doomed. Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion. (This does not mean the
conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!)
 Some men are hawkers. Some hawkers are rich. Therefore, some men are rich. Invalid
argument. This can be easier seen by giving a counter-example with the same argument
form:
o Some people are herbivores. Some herbivores are zebras. Therefore, some people
are zebras. Invalid argument, as it is possible that the premises be true and the
conclusion false.
In the above second to last case (Some men are hawkers...), the counter-example follows the
same logical form as the previous argument, (Premise 1: "Some X are Y." Premise 2:
"Some Y are Z." Conclusion: "Some X are Z.") in order to demonstrate that whatever hawkers
may be, they may or may not be rich, in consideration of the premises as such. (See
also, existential import).
The forms of argument that render deductions valid are well-established, however some invalid
arguments can also be persuasive depending on their construction (inductive arguments, for
example). (See also, formal fallacy and informal fallacy).
Soundness[edit]
Main article: Soundness
A sound argument is a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the
premise(s) of which is/are true.

Inductive[edit]
Main article: Inductive argument
Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the
conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-deductive logic include the statistical syllogism,
which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction, a form of reasoning
that makes generalizations based on individual instances. An inductive argument is said to
be cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the truth of the
conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact,
true. Cogency can be considered inductive logic's analogue to deductive logic's "soundness."
Despite its name, mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. The lack of
deductive validity is known as the problem of induction.

Defeasible arguments and argumentation schemes[edit]

In modern argumentation theories, arguments are regarded as defeasible passages from
premises to a conclusion. Defeasibility means that when additional information (new evidence
or contrary arguments) is provided, the premises may be no longer lead to the conclusion (non-
monotonic reasoning). This type of reasoning is referred to as defeasible reasoning. For
instance we consider the famous Tweedy example:
Tweedy is a bird.
Birds generally fly.
Therefore, Tweedy (probably) flies.
This argument is reasonable and the premises support the conclusion unless additional
information indicating that the case is an exception comes in. If Tweedy is a penguin, the
inference is no longer justified by the premise. Defeasible arguments are based on
generalizations that hold only in the majority of cases, but are subject to exceptions and
defaults. In order to represent and assess defeasible reasoning, it is necessary to combine
the logical rules (governing the acceptance of a conclusion based on the acceptance of its
premises) with rules of material inference, governing how a premise can support a given
conclusion (whether it is reasonable or not to draw a specific conclusion from a specific
description of a state of affairs). Argumentation schemes have been developed to describe
and assess the acceptability or the fallaciousness of defeasible arguments. Argumentation
schemes are stereotypical patterns of inference, combining semantic-ontological relations
with types of reasoning and logical axioms and representing the abstract structure of the
most common types of natural arguments.[11] The argumentation schemes provided in
(Walton, Reed & Macagno, 2008) describe tentatively the patterns of the most typical
arguments. However, the two levels of abstraction are not distinguished. For this reason,
under the label of “argumentation schemes” fall indistinctly patterns of reasoning such as
the abductive, analogical, or inductive ones, and types of argument such as the ones from
classification or cause to effect. A typical example is the argument from expert opinion,
which has two premises and a conclusion.[12]

Major Premise: Source E is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A.

Minor Premise: E asserts that proposition A is true (false).

Conclusion: A is true (false).

Each scheme is associated to a set of critical questions, namely criteria for assessing
dialectically the reasonableness and acceptability of an argument. The matching critical
questions are the standard ways of casting the argument into doubt.

CQ1: Expertise Question. How credible is E as an expert source?

CQ2: Field Question. Is E an expert in the field that A is in?

CQ3: Opinion Question. What did E assert that implies A?

 CQ4: Trustworthiness Question. Is E personally reliable as a source?

CQ5: Consistency Question. Is A consistent with what other experts assert?

CQ6: Backup Evidence Question. Is E's assertion based on evidence?

If an expert says that a proposition is true, this provides a reason for tentatively accepting
it, in the absence of stronger reasons to doubt it. But suppose that evidence of financial
gain suggests that the expert is biased, for example by evidence showing that he will gain
financially from his claim.

By analogy[edit]
Argument by analogy may be thought of as argument from the particular to particular. An
argument by analogy may use a particular truth in a premise to argue towards a similar
particular truth in the conclusion. For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was
like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of
argument by analogy because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular
truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely
that Socrates was mortal.[13]

Other kinds[edit]
Other kinds of arguments may have different or additional standards of validity or
justification. For example, Charles Taylor writes that so-called transcendental
arguments are made up of a "chain of indispensability claims" that attempt to show why
something is necessarily true based on its connection to our experience,[14] while Nikolas
Kompridis has suggested that there are two types of "fallible" arguments: one based on
truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure of possibility
(see world disclosure).[15] The late French philosopher Michel Foucault is said to have been
a prominent advocate of this latter form of philosophical argument.[16]
In informal logic[edit]
Argument is an informal calculus, relating an effort to be performed or sum to be spent, to
possible future gain, either economic or moral. In informal logic, an argument is a
connection between

a. an individual action
b. through which a generally accepted good is obtained.
Ex :

1.
a. You should marry Jane (individual action, individual decision)
b. because she has the same temper as you. (generally accepted wisdom
that marriage is good in itself, and it is generally accepted that people with
the same character get along well).
2.
 a. You should not smoke (individual action, individual decision)
b. because smoking is harmful (generally accepted wisdom that health is
good).
The argument is neither a) advice nor b) moral or economical judgement, but the
connection between the two. An argument always uses the connective because. An
argument is not an explanation. It does not connect two events, cause and effect, which
already took place, but a possible individual action and its beneficial outcome. An
argument is not a proof. A proof is a logical and cognitive concept; an argument is
a praxeologic concept. A proof changes our knowledge; an argument compels us to
act.[citation needed]
Logical status[edit]
Argument does not belong to logic, because it is connected to a real person, a real event,
and a real effort to be made.

1. If you, John, will buy this stock, it will become twice as valuable in a year.
2. If you, Mary, study dance, you will become a famous ballet dancer.
The value of the argument is connected to the immediate circumstances of the person
spoken to. If, in the first case,(1) John has no money, or knows he has only one year to
live, he will not be interested in buying the stock. If, in the second case (2) she is too
heavy, or too old, she will not be interested in studying and becoming a dancer. The
argument is not logical, but profitable.
World-disclosing[edit]
Main article: World disclosure
World-disclosing arguments are a group of philosophical arguments that are said to
employ a disclosive approach, to reveal features of a wider ontological or cultural-linguistic
understanding – a "world," in a specifically ontological sense – in order to clarify or
transform the background of meaning and "logical space" on which an argument implicitly
depends.[17]

Explanations[edit]
Main article: Explanation
While arguments attempt to show that something was, is, will be, or should be the case,
explanations try to show why or how something is or will be. If Fred and Joe address the
issue of whether or not Fred's cat has fleas, Joe may state: "Fred, your cat has fleas.
Observe, the cat is scratching right now." Joe has made an argument that the cat has
fleas. However, if Joe asks Fred, "Why is your cat scratching itself?" the explanation,
"...because it has fleas." provides understanding.
Both the above argument and explanation require knowing the generalities that a) fleas
often cause itching, and b) that one often scratches to relieve itching. The difference is in
the intent: an argument attempts to settle whether or not some claim is true, and an
explanation attempts to provide understanding of the event. Note, that by subsuming the
specific event (of Fred's cat scratching) as an instance of the general rule that "animals
scratch themselves when they have fleas", Joe will no longer wonder why Fred's cat is
scratching itself. Arguments address problems of belief, explanations address problems of
understanding. Also note that in the argument above, the statement, "Fred's cat has fleas"
is up for debate (i.e. is a claim), but in the explanation, the statement, "Fred's cat has fleas"
is assumed to be true (unquestioned at this time) and just needs explaining.[18]
Arguments and explanations largely resemble each other in rhetorical use. This is the
cause of much difficulty in thinking critically about claims. There are several reasons for
this difficulty.

 People often are not themselves clear on whether they are arguing for or explaining
something.
 The same types of words and phrases are used in presenting explanations and
arguments.
 The terms 'explain' or 'explanation,' et cetera are frequently used in arguments.
 Explanations are often used within arguments and presented so as to serve as
arguments.[19]
 Likewise, "...arguments are essential to the process of justifying the validity of any
explanation as there are often multiple explanations for any given phenomenon."[18]
Explanations and arguments are often studied in the field of Information Systems to help
explain user acceptance of knowledge-based systems. Certain argument types may fit
better with personality traits to enhance acceptance by individuals.[20]

Fallacies and non-arguments[edit]

Main article: Formal fallacy
Fallacies are types of argument or expressions which are held to be of an invalid form or
contain errors in reasoning. There is not as yet any general theory of fallacy or strong
agreement among researchers of their definition or potential for application but the term is
broadly applicable as a label to certain examples of error, and also variously applied to
ambiguous candidates.[21]
In Logic types of fallacy are firmly described thus: First the premises and the conclusion
must be statements, capable of being true or false. Secondly it must be asserted that the
conclusion follows from the premises. In English the
words therefore, so, because and hence typically separate the premises from the
conclusion of an argument, but this is not necessarily so. Thus: Socrates is a man, all men
are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal is clearly an argument (a valid one at that),
because it is clear it is asserted that Socrates is mortal follows from the preceding
statements. However I was thirsty and therefore I drank is NOT an argument, despite its
appearance. It is not being claimed that I drank is logically entailed by I was thirsty.
The therefore in this sentence indicates for that reason not it follows that.
Elliptical arguments
Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise—the supply of which
would render it valid. Speakers and writers will often leave out a strictly necessary premise
in their reasonings if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the
blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand
when heated.(Missing premise: iron is a metal). On the other hand, a seemingly valid
argument may be found to lack a premise – a 'hidden assumption' – which if highlighted
can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out the front
door except the milkman; therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. (Hidden
assumptions- the milkman was not the murderer, and the murderer has left by the front or
back door).

See also[edit]
 Logic portal

 Thinking portal

 Abductive reasoning
 Argument map
 Argumentation theory
 Argumentative dialogue
 Belief bias
 Boolean logic
 Deductive reasoning
 Defeasible reasoning
 Evidence
 Evidence-based policy
 Fallacy
 Dialectic
 Formal fallacy
 Inductive reasoning
 Informal fallacy
 Inquiry
 Practical arguments
 Soundness theorem
 Soundness
 Syllogism
 Truth
 Validity