Resuming with discussion questions, this week we're focusing on "Repairing Arguments". As we encounter arguments on a day-to-day basis, all of us eventually are exposed to arguments that are "in need of repair".
The Epstein book gives us two very easy to follow guides on the subject of repairing arguments. It's sometimes hard to distinguish whether or not an argument is defective, but understanding the Principal of Rational Discussion is key in singling out several reasons we might suspect an argument to be defective. If we feel, for example. that an argument needs to be more specific for the other person to understand a certain topic, the Principal of Rational Discussion cancels that out as we must assume that both individuals know the subject that's being argued. We also must assume that an individual is able/willing to reason rationally and is not lying.
The Concept of Repairing Arguments gives us three guidelines that must be satisfied if we evaluate an argument and find that it must be repaired. A premise or conclusion that is added to a defective argument must satisfy the following:
1) The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2) The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3) The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.
Here's an example of a defective argument:
"Jim is an straight-A student. So, Jim's GPA declined last semester."
This argument doesn't really follow anything as it tells us that Jim is an intelligent student, but doesn't tell us why Jim's GPA declined. We need to add a few premises to make it more specific.
"Jim is a straight-A student. Jim recently got a full-time job half a year ago. Because of this, Jim can't devote as much time to studying as before to mantain his 4.0. So, Jim's GPA declined last semester."
According to the Concept of Repairing Arguments, it satisfies the first test as it makes the argument stronger/valid. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion can't be false. The job and the lack of studying account for Jim's GPA decline (1). These premises are also plausible to another person (2) as they can relate to trying to juggle a job with schooling. It's very tough. In reference to #3, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. A full-time job is usually ~30 hours a week, meaning he has very little time outside of class and work to study. Because of this, he can't study as much as he needs to in order to mantain his 4.0 GPA.
Nice Post. I liked your example on how Jim's job lowered his impressive 4.0 grade point average. It was the premise that repaired the argument which made it more plausible and stronger. The first argument was not plausible or strong since it just stated that his grade declined last semester without any premises to support it. It is plausible that his grade point average lowered because of his job. It is tough to maintain that gpa if Jim is working thirty hours a week which does not give Jim enough time to study outside of class. Your introduction and examples made it easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteI like your post it was very descriptive and useful. Your example of a defective argument is very good because it clearly obvious that it need to add a premise to make it more specific. I also like the premise you added in the argument as well because it informative and more plausible than the conclusion. It made the argument much stronger than before. The added premise really help out the argument because without it, it would have been a bad argument. Without the added premise, it would not explain how Jim's GPA was drop. Overall this was a great post and helpful as well.
ReplyDelete