Chapter 1: Arguments and Non-Arguments

The Problem of Sophistry and Rhetoric

• Origin of Logical Tools:

  • Every valuable logical tool was invented or discovered in response to a problem.

  • The initial problem that gave rise to logic was the problem of sophistry.

• Historical Sophists:

  • Sophists were a group of men traveling around Ancient Greece from city to city.

  • They claimed to teach young men how to be successful, particularly in political life.

  • Prominent historical sophists included Gorgias, Prodicus, and Protagoras.

• The Character of Hannites:

  • Hannites (pronounced "hann-it-ees") serves as a fictional illustration of the sophist problem (any resemblance to an actual Fox News host is coincidental).

  • He was clever and crafty, knowing how to work any system.

  • Recognizing the vicissitudes of elected office, he chose to make a living "educating" citizens about contemporary issues and politicians.

  • Rather than forming virtuous citizens who effectively promote the state's well-being, Hannites acted in an anachronistically Machiavellian manner (overviews available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism).

  • He ingratiated himself with political candidates by manipulating public opinion while claiming merely to report and analyze the facts for citizens.

  • He was capable of arguing either side of an issue and emerging victorious in the eyes of his audience.

  • Opponents of sophists noted that they made the weaker argument seem the stronger.

• Plato's Critique and Analogy:

  • In Plato's (424-347 B.C.E.) dialogue Gorgias (pronounced gore-gee-us, with the second 'g' pronounced either hard or soft), he demonstrates how an orator is more persuasive than an expert when speaking to an ignorant audience.

  • The Orator vs. The Doctor Analogy:

  • Plato compares an orator to a pastry chef and an expert to a doctor, both competing for the favor of sick children.

  • The doctor prescribes foul-tasting medicine, simple foods, rest, and shots.

  • The pastry chef offers baked goods, treats, and delicacies.

  • The pastry chef wins the children's approval because the children are ignorant of illness, medicine, and health, and the chef appeals directly to their appetites.

  • Rhetorical Manipulation:

  • Orators must trick their audience to persuade them, which is easily accomplished with ignorant populations.

  • Speakers appeal to appetites and emotions instead of reason when an audience lacks adequate knowledge.

  • Experts become more persuasive when the audience possesses adequate knowledge.

• Fundamental Problems Raised by Rhetoric:

  • How to differentiate mere rhetoric from genuine teaching (noting that while all language use is rhetorical, not all is merely or empty rhetoric).

  • Why it is preferable to be persuaded by an expert (doctor) rather than an orator (pastry chef).

  • How to differentiate good persuasion from bad persuasion.

  • How to protect oneself from rhetoric's power to mislead.

  • Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle developed logical reasoning specifically to solve these issues.

Modes of Belief Formation: Rational, A-Rational, and Irrational

• Rationality:

  • Rationality is defined as forming beliefs on the basis of reasons or evidence.

  • It is defined by why a belief is held rather than what is believed.

  • Rationality does not strictly require good reasons.

  • Example: Denying human-caused global warming because climate fluctuations have occurred historically (e.g., past ice ages and natural instability) is a rational stance, as it forms a belief based on evidence and allows new evidence to potentially alter that belief.

  • A rational individual presented with reliable multi-millennial temperature data, anomalous trend indicators, and mechanisms of human impact must either update their view (or become agnostic) or forfeit their rational stance.

• Non-Rational Stance:

  • Denying human impact on climate due to personal discomfort, disbelief, or unwillingness to alter energy consumption habits (complacency) is non-rational because the stance is not held based on evidence.

• A-Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs:

  • Illustrated using the fictional character Palinedes (pronounced pale-in-a-dees; resemblance to a former governor of Alaska is coincidental).

  • A-Rational Beliefs:

  • Example: Believing the number of stars in the universe is even.

  • Definition: A belief formed apart from reasons, but not in spite of them, because no evidence exists either way.

  • Irrational Beliefs:

  • Example: Believing a person lived inside the belly of a great fish for three days while it swam across the sea.

  • Definition: A belief formed contrary to available evidence (e.g., established facts regarding oxygen, human respiration, and stomach environments; see also Hume's analysis of miracles at https://iep.utm.edu/miracles/#H4).

Logic and the Structure of Arguments

• Definition of an Argument:

  • In logic, an argument is not an emotional confrontation.

  • An argument is a series of statements where one statement is supposed to be accepted on the basis of the others.

• Core Components:

  • Conclusion: The statement that is intended to be accepted or proven.

  • Premises: The statements given as reasons or evidence supporting the conclusion.

• Indicator Words:

  • Premise Indicators: Words such as since, assuming, based on, given, considering, and because.

  • Conclusion Indicators: Words such as therefore, so, it follows that, in conclusion (Duh!), ergo, and hence.

  • Note: Indicators help identify parts of an argument alongside context and content, but they are not exhaustive nor do they guarantee an argument is present.

• Structural Variations and Placement of Conclusions:

  • Beginning Placement:

  • The conclusion appears first, often followed by sentences starting with "for", and may be restated at the end.

  • Example: "We must act now to end the terrorist threat against the United States. For, if we do not act, the terrorists will become better organized and bolder. Better organized and bolder terrorists may carry out a catastrophic attack on the U.S. And we can’t have that."

  • Middle Placement:

  • Premises are stated first, followed by the conclusion, and then followed by supplementary premises.

  • Example: "The Yankees have won 27 World Series Championships. They have missed the playoffs only 5 times since 1995. Their roster is always filled with savvy veterans and bright prospects. That is why the Yankees are the greatest franchise in sports. Furthermore, they realize that the fans want a winner, a champion. And that is what they invest in player development and free agents every year."

  • Caveat: Premises added after a middle conclusion may present an entirely separate line of reasoning, producing two distinct arguments rather than one.

Primary Source Examples of Complex Arguments

• Aquinas' First Argument for the Existence of God (Argument from Motion):

  • "The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

• Hume's Arguments Against Miracles:

  • Source reference: http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#10 (accessed Jan. 14, 2010).

  • "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior."

  • "The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."